DCT
2:22-cv-00618
FOHSE Inc v. Esttech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FOHSE Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Esttech Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Weide & Miller, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00618, D. Nev., 04/13/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff FOHSE alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant ESTtech is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its horticultural LED grow light products do not infringe Defendant’s patent, that the patent is invalid, and that Defendant lacks standing to assert it.
- Technical Context: The technology involves full-spectrum Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps designed to promote plant growth by increasing the penetrability of light to all layers of the plant.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint raises a significant question of standing, alleging that the patent-in-suit is owned by a Chinese entity, Yuyao Tanghong International Trade Co., Ltd., and not by Defendant ESTtech. The complaint also references a declaration from the patent’s inventor stating that Yuyao Tanghong is currently suing a third party for infringement of the same patent, which forms part of the basis for Plaintiff’s apprehension of an impending lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-08-31 | Alleged latest date for FOHSE product launch (predating patent priority) |
| 2018-05-29 | ’670 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-12-03 | ’670 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-12-27 | Date of Inventor Baijun Wu's Declaration regarding third-party litigation |
| 2022-04-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,638,670, "Full Spectrum LED Plant Illumination Lamp with a Lens Structure," issued May 5, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in the prior art where horticultural lights have "poor penetrability," leading to "uneven growth of plants" because the middle and lower layers of a plant do not receive adequate light compared to the upper layer (ʼ670 Patent, col. 2:51-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this with a lamp that combines full-spectrum LED cells with lenses to increase the "penetrability of light" ('670 Patent, Abstract). Structurally, it describes a lamp with a radiator on its back that includes "vertically configured heat-dissipation plates" and a "concave cavity" in the middle of those plates, with the plates near the cavity being taller than those further away to improve heat dissipation ('670 Patent, col. 3:12-28).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to better simulate natural light, ensuring the entire plant receives sufficient illumination, which in turn "greatly improv[es] the production capacity" ('670 Patent, col. 2:40-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies Claim 1 as the sole independent claim (Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A full spectrum LED plant illumination lamp with a lens structure, comprising: a shell connected to an electric wire and provided with a full spectrum LED unit;
- The full spectrum LED unit comprises LED cells and lenses covering the LED cells;
- A back of the shell is provided with a radiator;
- The radiator comprises vertically configured heat-dissipation plates arranged at intervals and a concave cavity located in a middle of the heat-dissipation plates;
- A height of the heat-dissipation plates near the concave cavity is taller than the heat-dissipation plates away from the concave cavity.
- The complaint also challenges dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 38-43).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products generally as FOHSE’s "industrial horticultural LED grow light products" (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint provides little detail on the functionality of FOHSE's products, focusing instead on what they allegedly lack. It asserts that the FOHSE products have been on the market "since no later than August 2017" (Compl. ¶39). The core of FOHSE’s non-infringement position is that its products "do not embody all claim limitations of any claim of the '670 Patent" (Compl. ¶32). Specifically, FOHSE contends its products do not incorporate a "concave cavity located in a middle of the heat-dissipation plates" as required by the patent claims (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a declaratory judgment action, the following chart summarizes the Plaintiff's allegations of non-infringement.
’670 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a concave cavity located in a middle of the heat-dissipation plates | The FOHSE products do not incorporate a "concave cavity" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint further alleges the term is indefinite because the patent's figures depict a rectangular chamber, not a curved, "concave" structure (Compl. ¶42). | ¶32, ¶42 | col. 4:26-27 |
| a height of the heat-dissipation plates near the concave cavity is taller than the heat-dissipation plates away from the concave cavity | The complaint alleges this limitation is not met and is contradicted by the patent's own figures, which allegedly show that the plates "at and within the 'concave cavity' are actually not taller than the heat-dissipation plates away from the concave cavity" (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 4:28-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint raises the question of whether the term "concave cavity," which implies a curved structure, can be construed to read on the "rectangular chamber" depicted in the patent's own figures (Compl. ¶42). It also questions the meaning of "near the concave cavity" in light of the apparent contradiction between the claim language and the patent's figures regarding plate height (Compl. ¶43).
- Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the structure of FOHSE's grow lights includes any feature that could be characterized as a "concave cavity" or has heat dissipation plates that are "taller" near a central recess, as required by Claim 1. The complaint references Figure 4 of the '670 Patent, an enlarged, exploded view of the lamp's components, to argue that the patent's own disclosure shows heat-dissipation plates within the central cavity that are shorter than those outside of it (Compl. ¶43).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "concave cavity"
- Context and Importance: The existence of this feature is a primary point of dispute for both non-infringement and invalidity. FOHSE alleges its products lack this feature and argues the term is fatally indefinite because the patent specification allegedly provides conflicting information (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 42). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could be dispositive of the case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that with the "vertically configured heat-dissipation plates... a concave cavity is formed at the middle" ('670 Patent, col. 3:20-21). This language, considered in isolation, could suggest any recess or depression in the middle qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues that the common definition of "concave" requires a curved surface, yet Figures 3 and 4 of the patent depict a "rectangular chamber with substantively straight, planar sides and right angles" (Compl. ¶42). This apparent contradiction between the term's plain meaning and the visual disclosure may support a narrower construction or an indefiniteness finding.
The Term: "a height of the heat-dissipation plates near the concave cavity is taller than the heat-dissipation plates away from the concave cavity"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is critical because FOHSE alleges it is directly contradicted by the patent's own drawings, forming a basis for its § 112 invalidity argument (Compl. ¶43). The resolution of this contradiction is essential for determining the claim's scope and validity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's written description explicitly recites this limitation: "The height of heat-dissipation plates 61 near the concave cavity is higher than that of heat-dissipation plates 61 away from the concave cavity" ('670 Patent, col. 3:21-24). A party might argue this textual description should control.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint alleges that a "review of the '670 Patent support for the claim, at FIG. 3 and FIG. 4... reveals that the heat-dissipation plates at and within the 'concave cavity' are actually not taller" (Compl. ¶43). If the court agrees with this reading of the figures, it could find the claim invalid for lacking written description or being indefinite.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of all types, including inducement and contributory infringement, but does not detail any specific allegations by ESTtech that it is responding to (Compl. ¶31; Prayer for Relief ¶A).
- Willful Infringement: This is not alleged, as the complaint is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer.
- Invalidity: The complaint includes a detailed count for a declaratory judgment of invalidity.
- Anticipation (§ 102): FOHSE alleges the '670 Patent is anticipated by its own products, which were allegedly on sale since "no later than August 2017," predating the patent's May 2018 priority date (Compl. ¶39). Several prior art patents and publications are also listed as allegedly anticipating the claims (Compl. ¶39).
- Obviousness (§ 103): The complaint alleges the claims would have been obvious over combinations of the identified prior art (Compl. ¶40).
- Ineligible Subject Matter (§ 101): FOHSE argues the claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of applying "full-spectrum (sun) light to promote the growth of plants" (Compl. ¶41).
- Indefiniteness/Lack of Written Description (§ 112): The complaint asserts that contradictions between the claim language (e.g., "concave cavity," "taller" plates) and the figures render the claims fatally indefinite and unsupported by the specification (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 43).
- Lack of Standing: In a separate count, FOHSE alleges that ESTtech lacks standing to bring infringement claims because the USPTO assignment records list "Yuyao Tanghong International Trade Co., Ltd." as the owner and assignee, and no subsequent assignments to ESTtech are on record (Compl. ¶¶ 50-53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary threshold question will be one of standing: does Defendant ESTtech possess the legal right to enforce the ’670 Patent, or does ownership remain with the assignee of record, Yuyao Tanghong International Trade Co., Ltd., potentially requiring dismissal of any infringement counterclaims?
- A central issue will be one of claim validity under § 112: can the claim term "concave cavity" be reconciled with the patent’s figures depicting a rectangular structure, and can the limitation requiring heat-dissipation plates to be "taller" near the cavity be supported when the specification’s figures appear to show the opposite?
- Should the patent survive the validity and standing challenges, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical fact: do FOHSE's products, which were allegedly sold prior to the patent's priority date, incorporate the specific structural features recited in Claim 1, such as the "concave cavity" and differentiated plate heights?