DCT

1:10-cv-01020

General Protecht Group Inc v. Leviton Mfg Co Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-01020, D.N.M., 10/28/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper in the District of New Mexico based on an exclusive forum selection clause contained in a prior settlement agreement between the parties.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) products do not infringe Defendant’s patents, arguing the patents are invalid, unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and that any infringement claims are barred by license and estoppel arising from a prior settlement agreement.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) devices, which are common electrical safety outlets designed to prevent electrocution by interrupting a circuit when a ground fault is detected.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history between the parties, beginning with prior patent litigation in the same court on related patents ('558 and '766). That litigation resulted in a comprehensive settlement agreement in October 2007, which allegedly granted Plaintiffs a license to the patents-in-suit's parent patents for the accused products. The current dispute arises from Defendant Leviton subsequently obtaining the patents-in-suit (’124 and ’151) as continuations of the previously licensed patent family and asserting them against the same products in new actions before the ITC and in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs allege this new litigation violates the settlement agreement and that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the parent patent application.

I.A. Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-08-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’124 and ’151 Patents (App. 09/138,955)
2003-02-03 Filing of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/444,469
2003-10-22 Filing of "Germain application" (U.S. App. No. 10/690,776)
2004-04-19 Filing of Application for '766 Patent (U.S. App. No. 10/827,093)
2004-10-28 Filing Date of Application for ’124 Patent (U.S. App. No. 10/977,929)
2004-2005 Leviton files "Prior Actions" against Plaintiffs
2007-10-24 Parties execute Settlement Agreement
2008-07-21 Filing Date of Application for ’151 Patent (U.S. App. No. 12/176,735)
2008-12-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,463,124 Issues
2010-07-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,764,151 Issues
2010-09-03 Leviton files new actions in N.D. Cal. and the ITC
2010-10-28 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

II.A. U.S. Patent No. 7,463,124 - “Circuit Interrupting Device With Reverse Wiring Protection”

II.A.1. The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in existing GFCI devices, including the potential for a user to reset a device even if its protective trip mechanism is non-functional. A primary problem addressed is "reverse wiring," where line-side and load-side electrical connections are accidentally swapped during installation, which can disable the device's fault protection for its user-accessible outlets. (’124 Patent, col. 2:5-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a resettable GFCI device with safety features that prevent it from being reset if the internal circuit interrupting portion is non-operational or if an "open neutral" condition exists. A key feature is a "reset lockout" mechanism that ensures the device remains in a safe, non-powered state under these conditions. The design also provides "reverse wiring protection" to maintain fault protection even when the device is miswired. (’124 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-49; col. 3:30-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve the safety and reliability of GFCIs by addressing known failure modes and common installation errors, thereby providing more robust protection for end-users. (’124 Patent, col. 2:37-40).

II.A.2. Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of "any claim" of the '124 patent (Compl. ¶53). The complaint does not specify which claims Leviton asserted in the related ITC and California actions. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's broad scope.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A circuit interrupting device comprising:
    • a first electrical conductor;
    • a second electrical conductor;
    • a third electrical conductor where the first, second and third electrical conductors are electrically isolated from each other and at least one of said conductors is capable of electrically connecting with the other two conductors such that the first, second and third electrical conductors are electrically connected to each other; and
    • a circuit interrupting portion positioned to electrically disconnect the first, second and third electrical conductors from each other upon the occurrence of a predetermined condition.
  • The complaint implicitly reserves the right to contest any dependent claims.

II.B. U.S. Patent No. 7,764,151 - “Circuit Interrupting Device With Reverse Wiring Protection”

II.B.1. The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the ’124 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problems: the risk of resetting a non-functional GFCI, the danger of an "open neutral" condition, and the loss of protection from reverse wiring. (’151 Patent, col. 2:1-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a GFCI device incorporating a reset lockout and reverse wiring protection. The patent describes an electro-mechanical system with a coil assembly and plunger that physically breaks the electrical connection upon detecting a fault, and a reset mechanism that is locked out from re-establishing the connection if the protective circuitry is inoperable. (’151 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-40).
  • Technical Importance: The solution provides an enhanced level of safety for a ubiquitous electrical device by building in protections against latent failures and incorrect installation. (’151 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

II.B.2. Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of "any claim" of the '151 patent (Compl. ¶57). It specifically recites independent claim 8 as part of its inequitable conduct allegations (Compl. ¶98).
  • Independent Claim 8:
    • A circuit interrupting device comprising:
    • a first electrical conductor capable of being electrically connected to a source of electricity;
    • a second electrical conductor capable of conducting electrical current to a load when electrically connected to said first electrical conductor;
    • a third electrical conductor capable of being electrically connected to user accessible plugs and/or receptacles where the first, second and third electrical conductors are electrically isolated from each other;
    • at least one movable bridge electrically connected to the first electrical conductor, said at least one movable bridge capable of electrically connecting the first, second and third electrical conductors to each other;
    • a circuit interrupter configured to cause electrical discontinuity between said first, second and third electrical conductors upon the occurrence of a predetermined condition; and
    • a reset portion, including a reset button, a spring which biases the button outwardly, and a plurality of contacts, configured to reestablish electrical continuity between the first, second and third electrical conductors after said predetermined condition occurs.
  • The complaint implicitly reserves the right to contest any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

III.A. Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Plaintiff General Protecht Group’s ('GPG’s') GFCI products" (Compl. ¶1). The complaint specifies these are the same products that were identified as "Licensed Products" under the 2007 Settlement Agreement (Compl. ¶36).

III.B. Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as GFCI electrical outlets which are "safety devices intended to reduce risk of electrocution" (Compl. ¶16). They are manufactured by GPG in China and sold through various U.S. distributors who are also plaintiffs in this action (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). The complaint does not provide technical specifics on the internal operation of the accused GFCI products, as its focus is on the legal and contractual history between the parties rather than a technical feature-by-feature comparison.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain specific allegations of infringement or supporting claim charts. Instead, it asserts broad non-infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 57) and bases its primary arguments on legal defenses of license and estoppel. The complaint summarizes Defendant Leviton's position from parallel ITC and district court actions as alleging that GPG's GFCI products infringe the ’124 and ’151 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37). Without the specific infringement contentions from those parallel actions, a detailed technical analysis of infringement is not possible from the provided document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV.A. Identified Points of Contention

  • Contractual Scope: A central legal question is whether the 2007 Settlement Agreement, which granted a license to parent patents ('558 and '766), also provides an express or implied license to the asserted continuation patents (’124 and ’151) for the same accused products. The complaint frames this as a core controversy (Compl. ¶48).
  • Legal Estoppel: The complaint raises the question of whether Leviton is equitably estopped from asserting the ’124 and ’151 patents against products that were the subject of a prior settlement agreement resolving infringement disputes over the parent patents (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 49).
  • Unenforceability: The complaint puts the enforceability of the entire patent family at issue, alleging that inequitable conduct committed during the prosecution of the parent '766 patent taints and renders the asserted '124 and '151 patents unenforceable (Compl. ¶¶ 95, 108). This question centers on the alleged failure to disclose a material, co-pending patent application to the PTO.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint's focus is not on claim construction, the inequitable conduct allegations create a potential dispute over the meaning and scope of certain claim terms, particularly as they differ between patent applications.

  • The Term: "a reset portion, including a reset button, a spring which biases the button outwardly, and a plurality of contacts" (’151 Patent, Claim 8).
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges that the corresponding claim in the undisclosed "Germain application" recited only a generic "reset portion" (Compl. ¶99). The added specificity in Claim 8 of the ’151 Patent could become a key battleground. Leviton may argue that this detailed limitation distinguishes the invention from prior art and the licensed subject matter. GPG, in turn, may argue that the added detail is an obvious variant and that its introduction into the patent family is tainted by the alleged inequitable conduct. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the asserted claim covers a distinct invention or is substantively the same as what was allegedly concealed from the PTO.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a functional interpretation, pointing to specification language that describes the reset portion's purpose more broadly as being "configured to reestablish electrical continuity in the open conductive paths" without being limited to the exact structure recited in the claim. (’151 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit recitation of structural sub-components ("reset button," "spring," "plurality of contacts") in the claim itself provides strong evidence for a narrower, more limited construction. This is further supported by specific embodiments in the detailed description and figures, such as Figure 2, which depicts the reset button (30), spring (120), and associated contacts (104, 106). (’151 Patent, col. 6:11-20; Fig. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • License and Estoppel: Plaintiffs allege that the 2007 Settlement Agreement, which resolved prior litigation on the parent patents, grants them an express or implied license to the asserted ’124 and ’151 patents for the "Licensed Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 48). Consequently, they argue that Leviton is legally and equitably estopped from asserting these continuation patents against them (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 49).
  • Invalidity: The complaint includes counts for a declaratory judgment that the ’124 and ’151 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and under the doctrine of prosecution laches (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 65, 69).
  • Unenforceability Due to Inequitable Conduct: The complaint makes detailed allegations of inequitable conduct. It claims that during prosecution of the parent '766 patent, Leviton's attorneys copied claim language from a co-pending application (the "Germain application") which had different inventors, and intentionally withheld the existence of the Germain application from the PTO (Compl. ¶¶ 80-82, 89, 93). This undisclosed application is alleged to have been highly material as a basis for a double patenting rejection (Compl. ¶92). The complaint alleges this conduct, undertaken with intent to deceive the PTO, infects the entire patent family, rendering the asserted ’124 and ’151 patents unenforceable (Compl. ¶¶ 95, 108). Further allegations are made regarding misrepresentations to the PTO during prosecution of the ’151 patent itself (Compl. ¶¶ 104-107).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This declaratory judgment action appears to be driven less by technical disputes over infringement and more by the complex legal and contractual history between the parties. The resolution of the case will likely depend on the court's answers to the following key questions:

  • A core issue will be one of contractual interpretation and estoppel: Does the 2007 Settlement Agreement, which granted licenses to parent patents for specific products, create an express or implied license that extends to these subsequently-issued continuation patents, thereby barring Leviton from bringing new infringement actions on the same products?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of unenforceability: Did Leviton’s alleged failure to disclose the "Germain application" to the PTO during prosecution of the parent patent family constitute inequitable conduct, and if so, is that conduct sufficiently material and deceptive to render the asserted '124 and '151 patents unenforceable?
  • A threshold question will be procedural: Does the exclusive forum selection clause in the 2007 Settlement Agreement apply to disputes over these continuation patents, requiring the consolidation of all litigation in the District of New Mexico and the dismissal of Leviton's actions in other forums?