DCT
2:24-cv-00861
Titan Intl Tech Ltd v. Cobra Firing Systems LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Titan International Technologies Ltd. (Hong Kong)
- Defendant: Cobra Firing Systems, LLC (Nevada); Phantom Fireworks Showrooms, LLC (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MCMENEMY | HOLMES PLLC; Wagner, Anderson & Bright LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00861, D. Nev., 10/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Cobra Firing Systems, LLC being incorporated in Nevada and Defendant Phantom Fireworks Showrooms, LLC having a place of business in Pahrump, Nevada.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Ignite i18 and Ignite i36 firework detonation systems infringe patents related to systems and methods for the automated and remote control of pyrotechnic displays.
- Technical Context: The technology enables users to design and execute choreographed fireworks shows from a mobile device, aiming to enhance safety and bring sophisticated control, once reserved for professionals, to the consumer market.
- Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit are subject to terminal disclaimers, which may link their enforceability. The patents share a common line of priority dating back to 2016. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has sold products marked with the patent numbers since July 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-09-02 | Earliest Priority Date for ’009 and ’037 Patents |
| 2023-07-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,709,037 Issues |
| 2023-07-27 | Plaintiff alleges it began selling marked products |
| 2023-07-27 | Date from which Defendants' alleged infringement began |
| 2023-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,733,009 Issues |
| 2024-10-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,733,009 - "Automated Detonation of Fireworks", Issued August 22, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the danger of manually igniting fireworks, which can lead to serious injuries such as severe burns ('009 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user operates an application on a mobile device to control a remote firing module connected to fireworks. This allows a user to design a custom show, potentially synchronized to audio, and then execute it from a safe distance ('009 Patent, Abstract). The system can also verify the user's location is within a safe zone before detonation, as illustrated in the process flowchart of Figure 6 ('009 Patent, col. 12:26-44; FIG. 6).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to make complex, choreographed pyrotechnic displays safer and more accessible to private individuals and consumers ('009 Patent, col. 1:45-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A mobile control system for automated detonation of fireworks comprising a plurality of detonator wires, a receiver, and a controller.
- The controller activates detonators in response to signals from a mobile device.
- An application running on the mobile device that is capable of:
- accessing, via a website, a custom display fireworks show comprising the plurality of control signals; and
- transmitting the control signals to cause ignition of the fireworks according to a predefined sequence or pattern.
U.S. Patent No. 11,709,037 - "Automated Detonation of Fireworks", Issued July 25, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with its related patent, the '037 Patent addresses the dangers associated with the manual ignition of fireworks by private individuals ('037 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
- The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on the physical interface for connecting fireworks to the electronic controller. It discloses a "firework connection assembly" with a versatile connector housing designed to reliably secure and activate different types of ignition elements, such as both traditional safety fuses and modern electrical matches ('037 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:41-56). The design uses engagement portions to press the ignition element of a firework into contact with the appropriate igniter inside the housing, as shown in Figures 8A and 8B ('037 Patent, col. 21:5-22:11).
- Technical Importance: The described connection assembly provides a standardized, robust, and reusable hardware interface for a wide variety of consumer-grade fireworks, which often lack uniform ignition mechanisms ('037 Patent, col. 7:31-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶18).
- Essential elements of Claim 11 include:
- A detonation wire assembly with a firing module connector at one end and a firework connection assembly at the other.
- The firework connection assembly comprises a connector housing defining an ignition chamber.
- A plurality of firework igniters are positioned within the ignition chamber.
- One or more engagement portions are arranged to substantially maintain engagement between the firework's ignition element and the firework igniters.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Ignite i18 and Ignite i36 systems (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these are products for the automated detonation of fireworks that are sold and offered for sale by the Defendants (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide detailed technical descriptions of the accused products' operation or specific features. Instead, it makes conclusory allegations of infringement and refers to a supporting Exhibit C, which was not included with the provided complaint document (Compl. ¶8, ¶13, ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products meet every element of the asserted claims but provides no specific factual support for this allegation beyond reference to the un-provided Exhibit C (Compl. ¶8, ¶13, ¶18).
11,733,009 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile control system for automated detonation of fireworks... comprising: a plurality of detonator wires... a receiver... and a controller... | The complaint alleges the Ignite i18 and i36 systems are mobile control systems for automated firework detonation. | ¶8, ¶13 | col. 4:45-54 |
| an application running on the mobile device... | The accused systems are allegedly controlled by a software application running on a user's mobile device. | ¶8, ¶13 | col. 2:13-21 |
| the application... accessing, via a website, a custom display fireworks show... | The application for the accused systems allegedly accesses a custom fireworks show via a website. | ¶8, ¶13 | col. 14:21-31 |
| and transmitting the plurality of control signals to cause ignition of the plurality of fireworks according to a predefined sequence or pattern. | The application allegedly transmits signals to the accused systems to ignite fireworks according to a predefined show. | ¶8, ¶13 | col. 6:11-24 |
11,709,037 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A detonation wire assembly, comprising: a detonation wire with a firing module connector at one end thereof and a firework connection assembly at an opposing end... | The accused systems allegedly include detonation wire assemblies with connectors at each end. | ¶8, ¶18 | col. 7:35-44 |
| a connector housing having a plurality of sections at least partially surrounding and defining an ignition chamber; | The accused systems allegedly possess a connector housing that defines an ignition chamber. | ¶8, ¶18 | col. 20:20-24 |
| a plurality of firework igniters positioned at least partially within the ignition chamber... operable to activate an ignition element of a respective firework... | The connector housing of the accused systems allegedly contains multiple firework igniters. | ¶8, ¶18 | col. 20:25-30 |
| one or more engagement portions... configured to substantially maintain engagement between each firework igniter... and the ignition element... | The accused systems' connector allegedly includes engagement portions to hold an ignition element against the igniters. | ¶8, ¶18 | col. 20:31-36 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A principal question for the ’009 Patent is whether the accused system's application literally meets the "accessing, via a website, a custom display fireworks show" limitation. The dispute may center on whether an in-app download from a server constitutes accessing "via a website."
- Technical Questions: For the ’037 Patent, the analysis will depend on a physical inspection of the accused products. A key question will be whether the accused connector contains a "plurality of firework igniters" that can accommodate different ignition types (e.g., electrical and fuse-based) as described in the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1 (’009 Patent): "accessing, via a website, a custom display fireworks show"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to be the most specific and potentially vulnerable limitation in the asserted claim of the ’009 Patent. The definition of "via a website" will be critical, as a narrow construction could place the accused system's functionality outside the claim scope if it uses a non-website-based method (e.g., direct API calls) for retrieving show data.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the mobile device communicating with a server through a network to access information, without exclusively limiting this to a traditional website ('009 Patent, col. 2:7-12). A party might argue "website" should be construed broadly to mean any network-accessible data source.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific term "website." A party could argue that in common technical parlance, this implies an interactive set of pages (e.g., HTML) and does not read on other forms of network data retrieval, such as a mobile application communicating with a back-end API.
Term 2 (’037 Patent): "plurality of firework igniters"
- Context and Importance: The '037 patent heavily emphasizes its "hybrid" nature, capable of igniting different types of fireworks. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused product must contain multiple different types of igniters (e.g., one for electrical contacts, one for thermal fuses) or merely more than one igniter of the same type.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: On its face, "plurality" simply means "more than one." A party could argue that a device with multiple ports for the same type of electrical igniter meets this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 12 specifies that the plurality includes both "electrical contacts" and a "resistive heating element." The detailed description consistently describes a "hybrid connection assembly" designed to accommodate both electrical ignition elements and traditional fuses ('037 Patent, col. 17:41-56, col. 19:40-48). A party may argue this context requires the term in independent claim 11 to be interpreted as requiring at least two different types of igniters.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks damages under 35 U.S.C. §284, the statute authorizing enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl., p. 4, Prayer for Relief ¶2). However, the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts that would typically support a finding of willfulness, such as any pre-suit knowledge by Defendants of the patents-in-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present distinct software and hardware infringement questions, both of which are currently unsubstantiated by specific factual allegations in the complaint. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue of claim interpretation for the ’009 patent: can the phrase "accessing, via a website," be construed to cover the method of data retrieval used by the accused mobile application, or is it strictly limited to interaction with a traditional website?
- A central question of structural infringement for the ’037 patent: does the physical construction of the accused "Ignite" connectors incorporate the specific "plurality of firework igniters" and "engagement portions" as detailed in the patent, particularly in light of the specification's focus on a hybrid electrical-and-fuse system?
- An overarching evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff: can the Plaintiff produce sufficient technical evidence through discovery to support its currently conclusory infringement theories, which rely entirely on an un-provided exhibit?