DCT
2:12-cv-00053
Aevoe Corp v. Ae Tech Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aevoe Corp. (California)
- Defendant: Ae Tech Co., Ltd. (Taiwan); S & F Corporation dba SF PLANET COMPANY and SF Planet Corp (Minnesota); and GreatShield Inc. (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDonald Carano Wilson LLP; Winston & Strawn LLP
- Case Identification: 2:12-cv-00053, D. Nev., 03/14/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants conducting substantial business in the District of Nevada, including the marketing and advertising of infringing products at the 2012 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. Venue is also asserted against Defendant AE Tech Co. as an alien corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ touch screen protector products infringe a patent related to a design that creates an air gap between the protector and the device screen.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns protective films for electronic devices, a large accessory market driven by the proliferation of smartphones and tablets with delicate touch screens.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit against Defendant AE Tech in the Northern District of California, which was dismissed in favor of the present action in Nevada. The complaint notes that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff sent notice letters to all Defendants alleging infringement. The complaint also details that the court granted a Temporary Restraining Order, a Seizure Order, and a Preliminary Injunction against AE Tech following its exhibition at the 2012 CES.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-01-18 | ’942 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-10-25 | ’942 Patent Issue Date |
| 2011-11-07 | Plaintiff sends notice letters to AE Tech and S & F Defendants |
| 2011-12-07 | Plaintiff files initial lawsuit against AE Tech in N.D. Cal. |
| 2012-01-10 | 2012 CES tradeshow opens in Las Vegas |
| 2012-01-11 | Plaintiff learns AE Tech is exhibiting at CES |
| 2012-01-12 | Plaintiff serves AE Tech with complaint and obtains TRO |
| 2012-01-30 | AE Tech counsel confirms receipt of preliminary injunction |
| 2012-02-03 | Plaintiff notifies S & F Defendants of preliminary injunction |
| 2012-02-27 | Plaintiff purchases accused product from S & F Defendants |
| 2012-03-14 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,044,942 - “Touch Screen Protector”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of applying conventional screen protectors without trapping dust and air bubbles, which damages the appearance and display quality of devices. It also notes that removing protectors that use adhesives across the entire screen can leave residue. (’942 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a touch screen protector featuring a semi-rigid plastic film held slightly above the device’s screen by a spacer. This spacer has adhesive only on its surface and is designed to adhere to the non-functional border, or bezel, of the electronic device. This structure creates an "enclosed air space" between the protector and the screen, which is intended to allow for easy, bubble-free application and removal. (’942 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9).
- Technical Importance: The design addressed a persistent consumer frustration with screen protector application by creating a method intended to be "100% bubble free." (’942 Patent, col. 3:36-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’942 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶36). The broadest independent claim is Claim 1.
- The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A plastic film with an outer perimeter corresponding to the device and a transparent window corresponding to the touch screen portion.
- A spacer along the film’s outer perimeter that continuously surrounds the transparent window.
- The spacer has a thickness sufficient to keep the film "near but not in contact with the touch screen portion."
- The spacer has an "exposed adhesive for removably mounting the protector" to the device’s front face, forming an "enclosed air space."
- The transparent window can be pressed to operate the device "without producing visible interference patterns."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the broad allegation of infringing "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "APlus Shield Anti-Glare" manufactured and sold by Defendant AE Tech, and the "GreatShield EZseal" sold by Defendants S & F Corporation and GreatShield Inc. (Compl. ¶¶16, 17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are touch-screen protector products sold to consumers through channels including the Amazon.com storefront and promoted at major industry events like CES (Compl. ¶¶24, 30). The complaint describes the accused products as having a structure that includes a plastic film with a transparent window, a spacer along the perimeter that creates a space between the film and the device screen, and an exposed adhesive on the spacer for mounting (Compl. ¶37). The complaint provides a screenshot of an Amazon.com product listing for the accused "GreatShield EZseal" product (Compl. ¶30, Ex. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement theory is detailed in paragraph 37, which alleges that the APlus Shield Anti-Glare and GreatShield EZseal products embody the elements of the patented invention.
’942 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plastic film having front and back sides, an outer perimeter that corresponds to that of the device, and a transparent window that corresponds in size to the touch screen portion | The accused products have a front face that includes a touch screen portion and an outer perimeter; a plastic film having a transparent window. | ¶37 | col. 8:31-35 |
| a spacer provided along the outer perimeter of the plastic film continuously surrounding the transparent window, having a thickness sufficient to space the plastic film near but not in contact with the touch screen portion | The accused products have... a spacer along the outer perimeter that spaces the plastic film near but not in contact with the touch screen. | ¶37 | col. 8:36-40 |
| an exposed adhesive for removably mounting the protector upon the outer perimeter of the front face to form an enclosed air space between the transparent window of the plastic film, the spacer and the touch screen portion of the device | The accused products have... an exposed adhesive for removably mounting the protector to form an enclosed air space between the transparent window of the plastic film, the spacer, and the device's touch screen. | ¶37 | col. 8:40-48 |
| wherein the window can be pressed against the touch screen portion for operation of the electronic device... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 8:48-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of the phrase "near but not in contact". The infringement analysis will require factual evidence demonstrating that the accused products are constructed to maintain a specific air gap as described, rather than making contact with the screen during a resting state.
- Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to show that the accused products’ spacers "continuously surround" the window to form an "enclosed air space" as required by the claim? The functionality of the accused products' adhesive and its "removability" without leaving residue, as claimed, may also be a point of factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "near but not in contact"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is at the heart of the invention’s asserted novelty—the air gap. The infringement question will depend heavily on whether the accused products meet this structural limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition dictates whether a product with any incidental contact, or a gap of a certain size, falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning, suggesting any configuration that is not in full, direct contact would suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit definition: ""near" as used herein means close in distance but not in physical contact, preferably about or less than 1 mm apart." (’942 Patent, col. 3:9-12). This language strongly supports a more constrained definition.
The Term: "continuously surrounding"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the integrity of the spacer and is a prerequisite for forming the claimed "enclosed air space." Whether the accused products have a truly continuous spacer or one with breaks (e.g., for sensors or speakers) will be critical to infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "continuously" allows for minor, functional interruptions as long as the primary function of spacing and enclosing is maintained.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "continuously surrounding" and the description of an "enclosed air space" suggest an unbroken perimeter is required. Figure 2 depicts the protector with a solid, uninterrupted opaque band (15) around its perimeter, which could be argued to illustrate the "continuous" nature of the spacer. (’942 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 8:37-38).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing others to infringe, or contributing to the infringement" (’Compl., p. 8, ¶B). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus primarily on direct infringement through Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶36).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement against all Defendants based on pre-suit knowledge via notice letters dated November 7, 2011 (Compl. ¶¶38, 39). The allegations against the S & F Defendants are further supported by claims that they continued to sell infringing products after receiving notice on February 3, 2012, that their supplier, AE Tech, was subject to a preliminary injunction in the case (Compl. ¶¶32, 34, 40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the physical construction of the accused "APlus Shield" and "GreatShield EZseal" products meet the specific limitations of the asserted claims? This will likely require a detailed factual analysis of whether their spacers create a "continuously surrounding", "enclosed air space" that holds the protector "near but not in contact" with the screen.
- A second central question will be that of willfulness and intent, particularly regarding the S & F Defendants. The case will examine whether their alleged continuation of sales after receiving notice of both the lawsuit and a preliminary injunction against their supplier rises to the level of egregious conduct that could justify enhanced damages.