DCT
2:23-cv-06430
Dali Wireless Inc v. Leviton Mfg Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dali Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Leviton Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-06430, E.D.N.Y., 08/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant maintains a principal place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fiber optic splice modules infringe a patent related to a "splice chip" device for holding and organizing fiber optic splice elements.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns components used in fiber optic cable management systems, which are critical for organizing high-density connections in data centers, telecommunications networks, and other high-count fiber applications.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Dali Wireless, Inc. identifies itself as the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint notes that neither the licensee (Dali) nor the patent owner (CommScope Technologies, LLC) has sold products in the United States that practice the patent, a fact asserted in the context of compliance with marking requirements.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-08-25 | ’291 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2007-09-18 | ’291 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,272,291 - “Splice Chip Device”
- Issued: September 18, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need to improve conventional fiber optic splice trays to "increase the density of splice elements that can be stored and managed" within the limited space of a splice tray arrangement (’291 Patent, col. 1:20-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "splice chip" designed to hold fiber optic splice elements. Its key feature is a series of channels, formed by projecting arms, that are specifically sized to hold multiple splice elements in a "stacked relationship" within a single channel (’291 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-46). This vertical or tiered arrangement allows more splices to be secured in the same footprint, thereby increasing storage density.
- Technical Importance: By enabling the stacking of splice elements, the invention provides a method to increase the connection density within a standard splice tray, a key consideration in the design of modern, space-constrained telecommunications and data center infrastructure (’291 Patent, col. 1:20-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a splice chip comprising three main elements:
- A base.
- A plurality of arms projecting from the base that define channels, where the channels are high enough to receive "multiple splice elements in a stacked relationship."
- A "retaining structure" arranged to hold a splice element within the channel regions.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Splice Module Products" are Leviton’s Opt-X™ SDX Fiber Splice Modules, including model numbers SPLCS-12A, SPLCS-124, and others (Compl. ¶2, ¶18). The complaint designates model SPLCS-124 as representative of the accused product line (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as modular units that "protect and organize heat-shrink fusion spliced fibers" inside a fiber enclosure (Compl. ¶21, FIG. 1). According to Leviton’s marketing materials cited in the complaint, these modules "integrate fiber adapter bulkhead ... and splice holders, eliminating the need of splice trays," and contain components referred to as "splice chips" (Compl. ¶21). A diagram from Leviton's technical documents shows the "splice chips" as the location where "fusion splicing and cable routing is accomplished" (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’291 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] a base | The splice chips in the accused products are alleged to include a "flat portion—a base—from which vertical members extend." | ¶23 | col. 3:25-26 |
| [b] a plurality of arms projecting outward from the base, the plurality of arms including a plurality of longer arms and a plurality of shorter arms, the arms defining channels having a height sized to receive multiple splice elements in a stacked relationship... | The complaint alleges the accused splice chips incorporate a plurality of longer and shorter arms that define channels. An image from a Leviton YouTube video is presented as evidence that these channels receive "multiple splice elements in a stacked relationship" (Compl. FIG. 6). | ¶24-¶26 | col. 4:35-46 |
| [c] retaining structure arranged to retain a splice element in both of either one of the first channel region and the second channel region | Projections extending from the arms of the accused splice chip are alleged to function as the "retaining structure." A Leviton diagram showing the correct insertion of a splice element's strengthening rod is used to illustrate these retaining structures (Compl. FIG. 8). | ¶28-¶29 | col. 4:5-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of the term "stacked relationship." The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused modules, which hold splice elements in what appear to be upper and lower tiers, meet the specific structural and functional requirements of this limitation as defined by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint identifies "projections from the arms" as the claimed "retaining structure" (Compl. ¶28). A technical question for the court will be whether these projections function in the manner described by the patent, which discloses a snap-fit mechanism to secure the splice elements (’291 Patent, col. 5:1-16). The evidence presented will need to show a functional correspondence between the accused projections and the claimed retaining feature.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "retaining structure"
- Context and Importance: This term is functional and its construction is critical to infringement. The complaint alleges that "projections from the arms" meet this limitation (Compl. ¶28). Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the specific snap-fit embodiments disclosed in the patent, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude the accused structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the term by its function: "arranged to retain a splice element" (’291 Patent, col. 8:31-34). This functional language may support a construction that is not limited to a specific structure, so long as the function is performed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the retaining structure as "tabs or heads 80" on shorter arms and "tabs or heads 82" on longer arms that "snap-fit the splice elements 14 securely" (’291 Patent, col. 4:11-23). A defendant could argue this consistent description of a snap-fit mechanism limits the term to that specific embodiment.
Term: "stacked relationship"
- Context and Importance: This term captures the core novelty of increasing storage density. The complaint relies on visual evidence, such as Figure 6, to show the accused products achieve this relationship (Compl. p. 9). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the physical arrangement of splice elements in the accused device falls within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the relationship as elements being "located adjacent to one another, for example, in an upper/lower arrangement" (’291 Patent, col. 4:42-44), suggesting some flexibility beyond direct vertical alignment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of channels having a specific "height H" sufficient to "accommodate receipt of two splice elements" suggests a specific, dimensionally-constrained vertical or tiered arrangement, which could support a more limited definition (’291 Patent, col. 4:58-63).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Leviton knowingly and intentionally encourages infringement (Compl. ¶31-¶32). The alleged basis for inducement includes Leviton providing instructional materials, such as technical documentation, application notes, and YouTube video guides, that instruct users on how to install and operate the Accused Splice Module Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶32).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for "willful infringement." However, it alleges that Leviton had knowledge of the ’291 Patent and its infringement "at least as of the date of the filing of the instant suit" (Compl. ¶31). In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests a judgment that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285," which could form the basis for seeking enhanced damages or attorney's fees based on post-filing conduct (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case appears to hinge on two primary questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the functional term "retaining structure," which the patent describes as a snap-fit mechanism, be construed to cover the "projections" found on the arms of the accused Leviton splice chips?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: does the arrangement of splice elements in the accused modules constitute a "stacked relationship" as that term is defined and envisioned by the patent? The visual evidence from Defendant's own product literature will be central to this factual determination.