DCT
1:19-cv-08552
Ottah v. Verizon Services Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Chikezie Ottah (pro se)
- Defendant: Verizon Inc.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-08552, S.D.N.Y., 09/13/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is predicated on Defendant's corporate presence and principal place of business in New York, and on the allegation that the infringing activity was observed within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that mounting systems for electronic devices used within Defendant’s service vehicles infringe a patent related to a removable and adjustable book holder for mobile environments.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mechanical holders designed to secure items like books or electronic devices and position them for a user, specifically within mobile settings such as vehicles, strollers, or wheelchairs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the plaintiff has informed the defendant of the alleged infringement since 2011 and sent a reminder letter in February 2018. It also references a prior Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting previous litigation history that may be relevant to the patent's scope or validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-04-24 | ’840 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-12-26 | ’840 Patent Issue Date |
| 2011-09-27 | Alleged Date of First Infringement Observation |
| 2018-02-26 | Date of Reminder Letter Allegedly Sent to Defendant |
| 2019-09-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 - "Book Holder"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 ("Book Holder"), issued December 26, 2006 (the "’840 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a lack of adequate book holders for individuals in mobile environments, such as children in strollers or adults with limited mobility using wheelchairs (’840 Patent, col. 1:41-44). Existing holders were described as being designed primarily for indoor, stationary use and not easily adaptable to mobile structures (’840 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "removable book holder assembly" designed to be "quickly and easily clipped to a mobile vehicle" like a stroller or wheelchair (’840 Patent, col. 1:56-61). The solution comprises an adjustable clasp for attaching to a vehicle frame, a telescoping and pivoting arm to position a platform, and spring-biased clamps on the platform to secure a book or other item, as illustrated in Figure 1 (’840 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide users in mobile settings with a stable and adjustable surface for reading or other activities, thereby increasing accessibility and convenience (’840 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the sole claim of the patent, independent Claim 1 (Compl. p. 19).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A book support platform with a front surface, a rear surface, and a plurality of clamps for retaining a book.
- A clasp comprising a clip head, a clip body, and a pair of resilient clip arms adjustably mounted on the clip head.
- An arm with a first end, a second end, and a telescoping arrangement, where the clasp is on the first end and the second end is pivotally attached to the book support platform.
- The holder is configured to be removably attached and adjusted via the telescoping arrangement (for axial adjustment) and the pivotal connection (for angular adjustment).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is identified as a "book or technology holder" for a "lap top computer" mounted inside Defendant’s commercial vehicles (Compl. p. 18, 24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the plaintiff observed the accused device mounted inside a Verizon vehicle (Compl. p. 18). The device is described as being mounted "hard onto the floor of the mobile vehicle" via a "thread drill" to hold a laptop for use by vehicle occupants (Compl. p. 26). The complaint includes a photograph of a Verizon van, which serves to identify the type of vehicle where the alleged infringement occurred (Compl. p. 9). The complaint does not provide further details on the product's market context, but it is implicitly presented as a tool used by Defendant's field technicians.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’840 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a book support platform... comprising a front surface, a rear surface and a plurality of clamps... | A platform configured to mount a laptop computer. The complaint refers to this as a "Computer modified platform." | ¶p. 22, 24 | col. 2:60-64 |
| a clasp comprising a clip head, a clip body and a pair of resilient clip arms... | A base that is "modified from the clip body" and is mounted to the vehicle floor using a "screw thread drill." | ¶p. 25-26 | col. 3:24-38 |
| an arm comprising a first end and a second end and a telescoping arrangement... | The product allegedly has an "upper end arm" and a "lower end arm" connected in a manner that "allows telescopic arrangements." | ¶p. 25 | col. 3:12-23 |
| ...the clasp spaced from the book support platform wherein the book holder is removably attached and adjusted to a reading position by the telescoping arrangement axially adjusting the spaced relation... and the pivotal connection... pivotally adjusting the front surface... | The connector between the arm segments allegedly allows "pivotal positioning of the platform computer to the user." | ¶p. 25 | col. 5:29-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused device's base, allegedly screwed to the vehicle floor, can be considered a "clasp comprising... a pair of resilient clip arms" as required by the claim (Compl. p. 25-26). The claim language suggests a releasable, clamping structure, which raises the question of whether a screwed-in mounting bracket meets this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused device has a "telescopic arrangement" but provides no specific evidence, such as photographs or technical diagrams of the accused product itself (Compl. p. 25). The analysis will depend on whether discovery reveals a mechanism that performs the specific function of axial adjustment as described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "clasp"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the dispute. The complaint alleges infringement by a base that is "mounted... using the screw thread drill" (Compl. p. 25-26), whereas the patent claim requires a "clasp" with specific features like "resilient clip arms." Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation appears to substitute a permanent or semi-permanent mount for the claimed releasable clasp.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s stated object is to provide a holder that can be "easily and quickly attached to and removed from" a mobile vehicle, suggesting the term’s function is paramount (’840 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself requires "a pair of resilient clip arms." The specification further describes these arms as "C-shaped" and able to "snap resiliently together" to hold the device (’840 Patent, col. 3:30-38). Figures 4 and 5 depict a clear clamp-like mechanism, not a screwed-in base, supporting a narrower construction limited to such structures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The allegations focus on Defendant's direct use of the accused product.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and infringement. It states that "defendant have been informed of this infringement since 2011" and that a "latest remind sent to the defendant was 02/26/2018" (Compl. p. 18). These allegations, if proven, could support a claim for willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "clasp comprising a clip head, a clip body and a pair of resilient clip arms," which is described in the patent as a removable clipping mechanism, be construed to cover the accused device’s base, which is allegedly screwed directly to a vehicle floor?
- A key evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that the accused in-vehicle mounts actually incorporate each element of the asserted claim, particularly the "telescoping arrangement," beyond the narrative allegations presented in the complaint.