DCT
2:23-cv-05842
Adama Studios LLC v. Tang
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Adama Studios LLC (Delaware) and Terra Studio Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: Shunchao Tang a/k/a Vertplanter.com (China/Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Koffsky Schwalb LLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-05842, E.D.N.Y., 08/01/2023
- Venue Allegations: Defendant is alleged to have offered for sale, sold, and shipped the accused product into New York through his own website and Amazon.com.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "VertPlanter" product infringes a patent related to a porous, hydroponic ceramic planter designed for growing plants on its exterior surface.
- Technical Context: The technology involves soil-free planters that use a porous ceramic material to wick water from an internal reservoir to a textured exterior surface, enabling seeds to germinate and plants to grow directly on the outside of the vessel.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendant prior to filing suit. It also states that a petition was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to correct a clerical error in the assignee name listed on the face of the patent-in-suit; a certificate of correction was subsequently issued.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 (approx.) | Invention conceived |
| 2019-05-14 | Earliest Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-02-23 | ’315 Patent Application Filed |
| 2023-02-14 | ’315 Patent Issued |
| 2023-03-21 | Plaintiffs send cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2023-08-01 | Complaint Filed |
| 2024-01-30 | Certificate of Correction for ’315 Patent issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,576,315, “Tessellated Ceramic Apparatus for Plant Growth,” issued February 14, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art planters, such as those for chia seeds, as requiring a gel-paste for germination and being unsuited for a wide variety of plants, while also lacking an effective structure for root anchoring ('315 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a porous ceramic apparatus that contains an internal water reservoir. Water moves through the ceramic via osmotic pressure to the exterior surface, which features a plurality of "tessellated indentations." These indentations are designed to hold seeds and provide a textured surface for roots to anchor onto, allowing for soil-free, hydroponic plant growth on the outside of the container ('315 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-25).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a self-watering system that supports a "living design" by controlling water flow to the exterior surface and facilitating root anchoring without soil ('315 Patent, col. 1:59-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶38).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A ceramic apparatus for plant growth.
- An exterior surface with a plurality of indentations, where an indentation comprises a "dent between first and second ribs."
- A thickness of the exterior surface that "gradually changes from a low thickness at the dent to a higher thickness at the first and second ribs."
- An interior volume in "osmotic communication" with the exterior surface that sources water "hydrokinetically" through the porous ceramic.
- A speed of water diffusion that "depends on the thickness of the exterior surface," causing water to diffuse faster through the thinner dent than the thicker ribs.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "VertPlanter Product," sold by Defendant through the website vertplanter.com and on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶12, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the VertPlanter is a "blatant copy" of Plaintiffs' tevaplanter® product (Compl. ¶3). Based on allegations, the accused product is a ceramic planter that facilitates plant growth on its exterior. An image from Defendant's website, included in the complaint, claims the product uses a "Porous Ceramic Material" with "just the right amount of porosity and hygroscopic tendencies to allow water to diffuse through the material and allow the plant to grow on the surface of the material" (Compl. ¶29). Another visual from Defendant's social media shows seeds germinating on the textured exterior of the product, suggesting it functions as a hydroponic, external-growth planter (Compl. p. 6). This image shows seeds germinating on the textured surface of a planter (Compl. p. 6). The complaint also includes a side-by-side comparison of an electron microscope image from Plaintiff's site and an identical image used in Defendant's product insert, which may be used to suggest the material properties are the same (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint incorporates by reference an external claim chart (Exhibit D) which was not attached to the publicly filed document. The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations based on the complaint's narrative and included exhibits.
’315 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an exterior surface having a plurality of indentations disposed thereupon, wherein an indentation of the plurality of indentations comprises a dent between first and second ribs... | The accused VertPlanter product has a textured exterior surface with indentations that hold seeds for germination. | ¶29; p. 6 | col. 2:14-18 |
| ...wherein a thickness of the exterior surface gradually changes from a low thickness at the dent to a higher thickness at the first and second ribs; | The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1, which includes this limitation, but provides no specific factual detail regarding the wall thickness of the accused product. | ¶38 | col. 8:1-3 |
| an interior volume disposed in osmotic communication with the exterior surface, wherein the interior volume sources available water hydrokinetically through a porosity of the ceramic apparatus... | Defendant's website claims its product is made of a "Porous Ceramic Material" that allows "water to diffuse through the material and allow the plant to grow on the surface." | ¶29 | col. 2:30-35 |
| ...wherein a speed of a water diffusion through the plurality of indentations depends on the thickness of the exterior surface, whereby water diffuses faster through the dent than through the first and second ribs. | The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1, which includes this functional limitation, but does not provide specific evidence that the accused product is engineered to control water diffusion rates based on wall thickness. | ¶38 | col. 8:9-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1, but its supporting evidence primarily focuses on the product’s general function (porous ceramic, exterior growth). A key question will be whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that the accused VertPlanter possesses the highly specific structural and functional limitations of claim 1, such as the wall thickness that "gradually changes" and the corresponding regulation of water diffusion speed.
- Scope Question: A dispute may arise over whether the texture on the accused product constitutes an "indentation... compris[ing] a dent between first and second ribs" as defined by the patent, or if it is a more generic pattern that falls outside the literal scope of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a thickness of the exterior surface gradually changes"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's purported technical advantage of regulating water flow. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product has this engineered, functional gradient or merely a uniform wall thickness with incidental variations. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty over simpler porous planters.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific numerical value or range for "gradually," which may support an argument that any non-abrupt change in thickness meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the "graduated cross-section" to the function of balancing the "hydrostatic pressure gradient of the water head" to ensure "consistent[]" water availability across the entire exterior surface ('315 Patent, col. 7:11-37). This suggests "gradually changes" requires a specific, continuous, and functionally significant gradient designed for this purpose.
The Term: "dent between first and second ribs"
Context and Importance: This structural limitation defines the specific geometry of the indentations. The case may turn on whether the accused product's surface pattern can be fairly characterized by this language.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly defines "tessellated" to include "regular or irregular pattern[s] of geometric indentations" ('315 Patent, col. 2:18-19), which could be argued to support a more flexible reading of the surface geometry.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites the specific "dent" and "ribs" structure. The embodiment shown in Figure 1A is described as "lozenge-shaped" ('315 Patent, col. 4:51-52), and the patent's functional explanation of water diffusing faster through the "dent" than the "ribs" points to a specific, defined structure rather than a generic texture ('315 Patent, col. 8:9-15).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant caused others, including Amazon.com and end-users, to sell, distribute, and use the infringing product (Compl. ¶39).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant's infringement continued after receiving a cease-and-desist letter on March 21, 2023, constituting post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶33). The complaint also characterizes the Defendant's actions as "blatant piracy," which may suggest an allegation of pre-suit willfulness through deliberate copying (Compl. ¶1, 23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of "technical proof:" Can Plaintiffs produce evidence demonstrating that the accused VertPlanter product meets the specific, detailed structural and functional limitations of claim 1? The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product features the claimed "gradually chang[ing]" wall thickness and whether its water diffusion rate is consequently regulated in the manner required by the patent.
- A second key question will be one of "claim scope:" Can the phrase "dent between first and second ribs" be construed to read on the accused product’s surface texture? The resolution of this issue will determine whether the accused product, even if a "copy" in a general sense, infringes the specific technical boundaries established by the patent's claim language.