DCT
1:10-cv-00168
Smart Vent Inc v. USA Floodair Vents Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Smart Vent Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: USA Floodair Vents, Ltd. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: A.J. DiMarino, P.C.
- Case Identification: [Smart Vent Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/smart-vent-inc) v. [USA Floodair Vents, Ltd.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/usa-floodair-vents-ltd), 1:10-cv-00168, D.N.J., 01/12/2010
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s foundation flood vents infringe a patent related to an integrated device for providing both flood pressure relief and temperature-controlled air ventilation for enclosed spaces like foundation crawl spaces.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses a need in the construction industry for foundation vents in flood-prone areas that can automatically equalize hydrostatic pressure during a flood while also providing routine air ventilation and pest control under normal conditions, a market influenced by federal regulations (FEMA, NFIP).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation. However, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent underwent an ex parte re-examination requested in 2011. The resulting 2014 re-examination certificate cancelled two claims and amended several others, including the key independent claims, by adding new limitations. This post-filing event significantly narrows the scope of the patent claims that must be proven to be infringed for the remainder of the case.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-07-10 | '445 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application) |
| 1999-08-31 | '445 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-09-01 | Defendant allegedly advertises accused products at trade show |
| 2010-01-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2011-09-26 | Ex Parte Re-examination of '445 Patent Requested |
| 2014-02-12 | Ex Parte Re-examination Certificate for '445 Patent Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,944,445 - "Device and Method for Relieving Flooding from Enclosed Space"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,944,445, "Device and Method for Relieving Flooding from Enclosed Space," issued August 31, 1999. (Note: The analysis below considers the claims as amended by the Ex Parte Re-examination Certificate US 5,944,445 C1, issued February 12, 2014).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the dual needs of structures in coastal flood areas. These buildings require vents to allow tidal floodwaters to enter and exit enclosed foundations, equalizing pressure and preventing structural damage. Simultaneously, these vents must provide for normal air ventilation (e.g., open in warm weather, closed in cold weather) while preventing pests from entering. (’445 Patent, col. 1:21-44). The prior art allegedly lacked an integrated device that could automatically perform all of these functions. (’445 Patent, col. 2:41-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, integrated flood vent unit. It features a main door mounted in a frame that is designed to pivot open bidirectionally under the force of floodwater. Critically, this door contains its own "automatic louver assembly" that independently opens or closes based on ambient air temperature to regulate routine ventilation. (’445 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-25). A screen covers the ventilation opening to block insects and animals. (’445 Patent, col. 3:1-4).
- Technical Importance: This design offers a "maintenance free" solution that combines the emergency function of a pressure-relief flood gate with the routine, seasonal function of a temperature-responsive air vent. (’445 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶19, 23). The key independent apparatus claim, as amended by re-examination, is Claim 1.
- Amended Independent Claim 1:
- A flood gate for use in an enclosed space, comprising:
- a frame having side walls defining a fluid passageway therethrough;
- a door pivotally mounted in said frame for bidirectional rotation between two open positions and a closed position therebetween to permit tidal water flow therethrough;
- said door having a ventilation opening;
- an automatic louver assembly for controlling air flow through said opening; and,
- at least one catching assembly for holding the door in said closed position against a minimum level of pressure of said tidal water flow.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "flood vents" manufactured, sold, and offered for sale by Defendant USA Floodair Vents, Ltd. (Compl. ¶7, 13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the purpose of the accused vents is "to allow the flood waters to flow freely into and out of the lower level of structures" to prevent foundation walls from being compromised by water pressure (Compl. ¶6). Exhibit A is a photograph of Defendant’s trade show booth banner, which advertises "USA FLOOD AIR VENTS" as being "FEMA, ICC and NFIP State Engineered Certified Compliant Vents" (Compl., Ex. A, p. 8).
- The complaint alleges that Defendant directly competes with Plaintiff for consumers of flood vent products and that its advertising statements are material to purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶8, 31). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation or specific components of the accused vents.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed mapping of accused product features to claim elements. The following chart is constructed based on the amended patent claims and the functional descriptions provided in the complaint.
'445 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Amended Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame having side walls defining a fluid passageway therethrough | The accused products are "flood vents" intended to be installed in foundation walls to create a passageway. | ¶7 | col. 6:53-55 |
| a door pivotally mounted in said frame for bidirectional rotation... to permit tidal water flow therethrough | The accused vents are alleged to "allow the flood waters to flow freely into and out of the lower level of structures." | ¶6 | col. 6:56-60 |
| said door having a ventilation opening | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 6:7-8 (from original claim 2, incorporated into amended claim 1) |
| an automatic louver assembly for controlling air flow through said opening | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 6:9-11 (from original claim 2, incorporated into amended claim 1) |
| at least one catching assembly for holding the door in said closed position against a minimum level of pressure | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, but this function is inherent to a flood vent designed to resist pressure up to a certain threshold. | N/A | col. 6:61-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will be whether the accused USA Flood vents contain an "automatic louver assembly" that is responsive to ambient temperature, as required by amended claim 1. The complaint provides no allegations or evidence on this specific technical feature.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the scope of the claims as narrowed during re-examination. The lawsuit was filed based on the original, broader claims. Its continued viability raises the question of whether Plaintiff can prove infringement of the limitations added during re-examination, which were not part of the patent when the suit was initiated.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "automatic louver assembly"
- Context and Importance: This term was added to independent claim 1 during re-examination and is now central to its scope. The patent’s novelty appears to lie in combining a flood gate with an automatic ventilation system. Therefore, whether the accused product has a structure that meets the definition of an "automatic louver assembly" will likely be determinative of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from simple, non-ventilating flood gates.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any mechanism within the door that automatically controls air flow qualifies. The claim language itself is functional, requiring an assembly "for controlling air flow through said opening" that "opens and closes responsive to ambient temperature." (’445 Patent, C1 Certificate, col. 2:35-36; col. 2:45-47).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment comprising "finned, polypropylene louvers" connected by a rod to a "temperature sensitive actuating device" which, in turn, is adjusted to "fully close the louvers when the temperature falls below forty degrees Fahrenheit." (’445 Patent, col. 4:38-51). A party could argue the term should be construed as limited to such a mechanically-linked, thermally-actuated system.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant infringed "willfully and deliberately" and "with knowledge of the '445 Patent." (Compl. ¶23). It does not plead any specific facts regarding when or how Defendant became aware of the patent, such as through a notice letter or prior dealings.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A primary issue is the effect of the post-filing re-examination: The lawsuit was filed on the patent's original, broader claims but must now be litigated on the narrower, amended claims. The central question is whether the plaintiff's infringement theory, conceived before the re-examination, can survive the addition of new claim limitations, specifically the requirement for an "automatic louver assembly."
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical composition: Does the accused USA Flood vent actually contain the specific technical features required by the amended patent claims, most notably a temperature-sensitive, automatic ventilation system? The complaint is silent on the technical makeup of the accused product, creating a significant factual hurdle that will depend entirely on evidence produced during discovery.