2:19-cv-08230
Aqua Lighting TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v Hayward INDUSTRIES, Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aqua Lighting Technologies, LLC (Virginia)
- Defendant: Hayward Industries, Inc. and Hayward Pool Products, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robinson + Cole LLP; Sheridan Ross P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-08230, D.N.J., 03/08/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Hayward has its corporate headquarters and nerve center in the state and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ColorLogic line of underwater LED pool and spa lights infringes a patent related to using a standard on/off power switch to control multi-color light shows.
- Technical Context: The technology enables advanced, multi-color LED lighting units to serve as drop-in replacements for older, single-color incandescent lights by using existing, simple two-wire electrical infrastructure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit. This knowledge is alleged to stem from the patent being cited as a reference during the prosecution of Defendant’s own patents and an examiner's rejection of claims in another of Defendant's patent applications based on the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges providing notice via a letter regarding a separate lawsuit against a retailer of Defendant's products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-23 | ’291 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-12-20 | ’291 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2003-09-09 | ’291 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-03-07 | Plaintiff's counsel sent notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-03-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,616,291 - "Underwater Lighting Assembly" (Issued Sep. 9, 2003)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional underwater incandescent lighting for pools and spas as being unreliable and difficult to service. Furthermore, achieving different colors required cumbersome snap-on lenses, and more advanced control would require complex and costly new wiring. (’291 Patent, col. 1:20-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained underwater lighting unit using more durable LEDs. A key aspect is an on-board programmable controller that interprets interruptions in the standard 12-volt power supply—caused by a user simply flipping a standard light switch off and on—to cycle through different colors or pre-programmed "light shows" involving fading and sequencing effects. (’291 Patent, col. 5:26-40). This allows for sophisticated lighting control using simple, pre-existing two-wire power systems, eliminating the need for rewiring. (’291 Patent, col. 5:30-34).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a way to upgrade existing pool and spa lighting with modern, multi-color LED capabilities without the significant expense and labor of installing new multi-conductor control wiring. (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7, along with several dependent claims (Compl. ¶46).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the core elements of the physical assembly:
- A waterproof housing for underwater submersion
- A round front access LED board within the housing
- A plurality of LEDs and a programmable controller mounted on the board, with the LEDs arranged in banks
- A power supply, where the controller is configured to control the LEDs in response to the switching of that power supply between on and off states
- Independent Claim 7 recites the elements of the control system:
- A power supply
- A "non-board" programmable controller that generates operating signals in response to power switching
- Switching transistors between the controller and the LEDs
- The controller being operative to fade between different colors
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including Claims 2-4 and 9-13. (Compl. ¶46).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are various models within Defendant’s "ColorLogic" line of underwater pool and spa LED lighting fixtures, including the Universal ColorLogic, ColorLogic 320 & 160, ColorLogic 80 & 40, and ColorLogic 4.0 lines (collectively, the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are described as underwater LED lighting fixtures for pools and spas. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges their key functionality is being "operated through power-cycling," a method where turning the power switch off and then back on within 10 seconds advances the light to the next programmed color or show. (Compl. ¶23). This method is alleged to require "no special controller or interface" beyond the standard power switch. (Compl. ¶23). The complaint presents a photograph of the internal circuit board of a ColorLogic product, showing an array of LEDs arranged around the center of the board. (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges Defendant is a "leading global manufacturer" of pool and spa equipment. (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’291 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An underwater lighting assembly comprising: a waterproof housing for underwater submersion; | The Accused Products allegedly "consist of a waterproof housing for underwater submersion." | ¶22 | col. 6:35-36 |
| a round front access LED board disposed within a water proof chamber of the housing; | The Accused Products are alleged to "include a round front access, LED board." | ¶22 | col. 6:37-38 |
| a plurality of LEDs and a programmable controller mounted on said board within the housing, the LEDs arranged in a plurality of banks; | The Accused Products allegedly have "a plurality of LEDs grouped into banks" and "a controller located on the board." The complaint includes a photo showing an array of LEDs on a circuit board. | ¶¶22-23; p. 8 | col. 6:39-41 |
| and a power supply that powers the controller and the LEDs, the controller configured to control the LEDs in response to switching of the power supply between on and off states. | The Accused Products are allegedly "operated through power-cycling" where a user turns a switch off and on to change modes, which the complaint alleges meets this limitation. | ¶23 | col. 6:42-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the "power-cycling" feature of the Accused Products, as described in their own user manual, directly corresponds to the claimed function of a controller that responds to "switching of the power supply between on and off states." A potential area of dispute may be whether the specific electronic implementation in the Accused Products is coextensive with the scope of the term "programmable controller" as defined by the patent.
- Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be whether the controller in the Accused Products is factually "configured to control the LEDs in response to switching of the power supply" in the manner claimed. The complaint’s primary evidence for this is the product's user manual, which describes turning the light off and on to change programs. (Compl. ¶23).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "programmable controller" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term defines the "brains" of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the circuitry inside the Accused Products meets the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether this term implies a specific level of functionality or can be read more broadly to cover any circuit that responds to power cycles.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the use of an "on-board programmable processor" and pre-programmed algorithms to achieve control, suggesting the term could encompass standard microcontrollers or similar processing units. (’291 Patent, col. 4:43-45).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be limited by the embodiments described, such as a controller specifically capable of performing simultaneous "fade up" and "fade down" operations to maintain constant light intensity, a feature highlighted in the specification. (’291 Patent, col. 4:56-65).
The Term: "non-board programmable controller" (Claim 7)
Context and Importance
This term is central because the Plaintiff alleges it is a typographical error and should read "an on-board programmable controller." (Compl. ¶17, fn. 1). The Accused Products are alleged to have an on-board controller. (Compl. ¶22). If the term is construed as written, it may present a significant barrier to a finding of literal infringement for this claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., correcting the typo): Plaintiff will likely argue that the entire context of the patent points to an integrated, on-board controller. The abstract refers to a "non-board programmable process or," which appears to be a typo for "processor." (’291 Patent, Abstract). The specification repeatedly describes the controller as part of the board assembly. (’291 Patent, col. 4:43-45; Fig. 11).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., reading as written): A party could argue that claim language must be interpreted as written and that the term "non-board" has a plain meaning. They might argue that the court should not engage in "redrafting" the claim, regardless of a potential error, and that the term distinguishes the claim from other inventions or embodiments where the controller is on the board.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s Installation and Operation Manuals instruct customers on how to install and operate the Accused Products in an infringing manner, specifically by using the "power-cycling" feature. (Compl. ¶¶23, 46).
Willful Infringement
The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It alleges that Defendant knew of the ’291 Patent because it was cited as prior art during the prosecution of Defendant’s own patents. (Compl. ¶¶30, 36). Crucially, the complaint alleges that during the prosecution of a separate Hayward patent application ('884), the patent examiner rejected claims over the ’291 Patent, forcing the applicants to amend their claims to specify an "external" controller to overcome the rejection, allegedly demonstrating knowledge of the ’291 Patent's scope. (Compl. ¶41). The complaint also cites a pre-suit notice letter as evidence of knowledge. (Compl. ¶43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and correction: will the court agree to correct what Plaintiff describes as an "obvious typographical error" in Claim 7, changing "non-board" to "on-board"? The resolution of this question could be dispositive for a significant portion of the infringement case.
- Another key question will be evidentiary and factual: based on the detailed allegations of Defendant’s encounters with the ’291 Patent during its own patent prosecution efforts, did Defendant’s alleged infringement rise to the level of "egregious" conduct required for a finding of willfulness and the potential award of enhanced damages?
- Finally, the case will involve a core infringement analysis: does the "power-cycling" functionality of the Accused Products, as controlled by its internal circuitry, perform in a way that is technically and legally equivalent to the claimed "programmable controller...configured to control the LEDs in response to switching of the power supply," or is there a functional or structural distinction that avoids infringement?