DCT
1:23-cv-06185
FloodBreak LLC v. T Moriarty & Son Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FloodBreak, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: T. Moriarty & Son, Inc. (New York) and James P. Moriarty Jr. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-06185, E.D.N.Y., 11/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants conduct business and committed alleged acts of infringement within the Eastern District of New York.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' installation and sale of Mechanical Closure Devices (MCDs) in the New York City subway system infringes a patent related to passively-activated flood barriers for underground air vents.
- Technical Context: The technology provides a mechanical solution for sealing subterranean ventilation grates against flooding, a critical issue for protecting urban transit infrastructure from storm surges and heavy rainfall.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint heavily references prior litigation against Art Metal Industries, Inc. (AMI), the manufacturer of the MCDs at issue, in FloodBreak v. AMI (D. Conn.). In that case, the court reportedly found probable cause of infringement, and AMI later stipulated to the patent's validity and enforceability, and to its own willful infringement, resulting in a judgment of over $17 million.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-10-06 | ’342 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-04-07 | ’342 Patent Application Published |
| 2017-09-05 | ’342 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-03-26 | Prior litigation filed (FloodBreak v. AMI) |
| 2018-05-18 | First alleged installation of accused MCDs |
| 2022-07-21 | Stipulation of infringement and validity in FloodBreak v. AMI |
| 2025-11-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,752,342, "Flood Protection for Underground Air Vents," issued September 5, 2017 (’342 Patent).
The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the significant challenge of preventing surface storm water from flooding underground structures, such as subway systems, through ventilation grates. It notes that conventional ad-hoc methods like using sandbags or fastening plywood covers are labor-intensive, often ineffective, and can be implemented "too little too late" in the face of a sudden storm (’342 Patent, col. 2:6-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained apparatus designed to be installed within a ventilation shaft. It features one or more panels held by a releasable holder in an "upright home position," which allows for normal air circulation (’342 Patent, col. 4:42-50; Fig. 7). Upon threat of flooding, the holder can be released, causing the panels to swing downward "solely by gravitational impetus" to a sealed position at the bottom of the assembly, thereby blocking the passage and preventing water ingress (’342 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:47-50; Fig. 12).
- Technical Importance: The patented design provides a rapid, reliable, and pre-installed solution for sealing ventilation shafts, aiming to be more effective and require less last-minute labor than traditional flood mitigation techniques (’342 Patent, col. 2:14-18).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10, 14, and 20-24 (Compl. ¶44). The lead independent claim is Claim 1, which requires:
- A support for arrangement in a ventilation shaft, defining a passage.
- One or more stops proximate the bottom of the passage.
- One or more panels mounted for rotation from an upright "home position" (where they do not obstruct the passage) downward to a "passage closing position" (where rotation is prevented by the stops).
- The downward rotation occurs "solely by gravitational impetus on its own weight."
- A panel holder with moveable members that hold the panels in the upright position.
- A handle operable to move the members and release the panels.
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10, 14, and 20-24 (Compl. ¶44). The lead independent claim is Claim 1, which requires:
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Mechanical Closure Devices (“MCDs”) fabricated by a third party, Art Metal Industries, Inc. (“AMI”), and sold and installed by Defendant T. Moriarty & Son, Inc. into the New York City subway system (Compl. ¶¶3, 12, 15).
Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the MCDs were installed to provide flood protection for underground air vents as part of a contract with the NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) valued at over $17 million (Compl. ¶¶1, 16). The complaint alleges that AMI copied FloodBreak’s design to create the MCDs supplied to Moriarty (Compl. ¶¶14-15). While the complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of the MCDs' operation, it alleges they "practice the invention of the '342 patent" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint includes a detailed table listing dates between May 2018 and November 2019 when Moriarty’s subcontractor allegedly installed hundreds of the accused MCDs in various MTA "Fan Plants" (Compl. pp. 11-13). This table of installations provides specific data on the scale and timeline of the accused activities (Compl. ¶30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for the lead independent claim based on the complaint's narrative allegations.
- U.S. Patent No. 9,752,342 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a support for arrangement in said shaft defining a passage between top and bottom openings | Defendants installed MCDs within ventilation ducts in the New York City subway system as part of Contract E-31689. | ¶¶3, 16 | col. 5:50-57 |
| one or more panels mounted in said support for rotation upwardly to an upright home position not obstructing said passage... | The complaint alleges that the MCDs sold and installed by Defendants practice the invention of the ’342 Patent and were copied from Plaintiff's design, which includes panels in an upright home position. | ¶¶3, 15, 44 | col. 6:61-64 |
| ...and rotation downwardly from said upright home position solely by gravitational impetus on its own weight to a lower passage closing position | The complaint alleges the accused MCDs infringe Claim 1, which requires this specific gravity-based closing mechanism. | ¶¶44, 45 | col. 13:17-21 |
| a panel holder having one or more moveable members holding the one or more panels in said upright home position... and having a handle operable to... release the hold... | The complaint's allegation that the MCDs practice the invention necessarily implies the presence of a holder and release mechanism as claimed. | ¶¶3, 44 | col. 13:34-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies heavily on allegations that the accused MCDs were copied from Plaintiff’s design and on the outcome of prior litigation against the manufacturer (Compl. ¶¶15, 39-41). A central question will be what direct technical evidence Plaintiff provides to demonstrate that the MCDs sold and installed by Moriarty meet every element of the asserted claims, particularly the functional limitation requiring panel closure "solely by gravitational impetus on its own weight."
- Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to support its infringement contentions beyond conclusory allegations. Defendants may contend that the complaint fails to plausibly map specific features of the accused MCDs to the patent's claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "upright home position not obstructing said passage" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the apparatus's default, non-activated state. The definition is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art and for determining infringement, as the accused devices must be capable of assuming this specific position. Practitioners may focus on this term because the precise degree of "upright" orientation and what level of physical presence constitutes "not obstructing" the ventilation passage could be points of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this position as one that allows "ventilation as usual," which could support a construction where any panel orientation that does not materially impede airflow meets the limitation (’342 Patent, col. 4:11-13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 7 and 15 depict the panels in a specific, nearly vertical orientation, tucked tightly against a central support structure (’342 Patent, Figs. 7, 15). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, highly compact, and vertical resting state.
The Term: "solely by gravitational impetus on its own weight" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core actuation mechanism of the invention and is central to the infringement analysis. It distinguishes the invention from systems that might be actively powered (e.g., by motors or hydraulics) or assisted by other forces (e.g., springs or water pressure).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "solely" is met as long as gravity is the exclusive motive force, even if other components like dampers or guides are present to control the descent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated emphasis on gravity as the force causing the panels to "fall" and "swing downward" could support a strict interpretation where no other forces may contribute to the closing motion (’342 Patent, col. 4:48-49).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that James P. Moriarty Jr., as President of Moriarty Inc., actively induced the company's infringement by personally overseeing, directing, supervising, and approving the infringing activities related to the MTA contract (Compl. ¶48).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges a detailed factual basis for willfulness. It asserts that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent application and later the issued patent through multiple direct communications, including a June 2016 pricing proposal that included a "PATENTED" legend and a December 2016 meeting with Plaintiff's founder (Compl. ¶¶18, 22). The complaint further alleges that Defendants were notified in October 2017 that FloodBreak was suing the MCD manufacturer, AMI, for infringement of the ’342 Patent, but proceeded with installing the accused products (Compl. ¶33). The complaint quotes Mr. Moriarty as allegedly stating, "Well, you're just going to have to sue me" (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central legal issue will be one of preclusion and proof: to what extent can the findings and stipulations from the prior litigation against the manufacturer (AMI)—establishing that the supplied MCDs infringe the ’342 Patent—be used to establish infringement liability against Moriarty, the downstream installer and seller of those same devices? The case may test the boundaries of how prior judgments against a supplier impact subsequent litigation against its customers.
- A key factual question will be one of willfulness and intent: The complaint alleges a lengthy and detailed history of warnings and knowledge. A core issue for the fact-finder will be to assess Moriarty's state of mind and determine whether its decision to proceed with the accused MCDs, despite explicit notice of the patent and the ongoing litigation against its supplier, rose to the level of willful infringement that would justify enhanced damages.