DCT
1:22-cv-02935
Ottah v. National Grid
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Chikezie Ottah (New York)
- Defendant: National Grid (United Kingdom, with principal place of business in New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-02935, S.D.N.Y., 04/08/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is premised on the defendant having its principal place of business in New York.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the in-vehicle computer mounting systems used in Defendant's service vehicles infringe a patent related to an adjustable and removable book holder.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adjustable mechanical supports for holding items like books or electronic devices in a stable, viewable position within mobile environments such as vehicles or strollers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint extensively references prior litigation involving the same patent, including cases against other defendants (e.g., Ottah v. Flat Chrysler, Ottah v. Verizon) and earlier cases against National Grid. Plaintiff alleges that prior court rulings, including claim construction decisions by the district court and the Federal Circuit, were based on a misunderstanding of the patent's scope and technology, which this new action seeks to correct.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-04-24 | U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2006-12-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 Issue Date |
| 2018 | Alleged Date of First Occurrence of Infringement |
| 2022-04-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 - "Book Holder" (Issued Dec. 26, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a lack of adequate book holders for use by individuals in mobile structures like car seats, wheelchairs, or strollers. It notes that conventional book holders are primarily for indoor, stationary use and are not easily and quickly attachable to such mobile structures (Compl. ¶¶6-7; ’840 Patent, col. 1:43-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a removable book holder assembly designed for mobile applications. It features an adjustable clasp for attaching to a bar or frame, an arm that can be adjusted axially (telescoping), rotationally, and pivotally, and a platform for holding a book. This combination allows a user to easily attach, detach, and position a book or other device for viewing while in a mobile setting (’840 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-34).
- Technical Importance: The described solution sought to provide young children or mobility-limited individuals with a stable and versatile way to read or use devices while in transit, a context for which prior art was allegedly ill-suited (’840 Patent, col. 1:43-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint primarily asserts the elements of what appears to be Independent Claim 1, though it adds elements not recited in the claim itself (Compl. pp. 36-37).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A book support platform with a front surface, a rear surface, and clamps to retain a book.
- A clasp with a clip head, a clip body, and a pair of resilient, adjustably mounted clip arms.
- An arm with a first and 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 adjusting the front surface angle).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are in-vehicle mounting systems for computers or laptops used in Defendant National Grid’s service vehicles (Compl. pp. 13, 16-17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s vehicles are equipped with adjustable mounts that hold a computer or laptop. These mounts are comprised of components including brackets, a platform, and one or more arms that attach to the vehicle's dashboard or floor (Compl. pp. 13, 43). A photograph included in the complaint shows a laptop computer on an articulated mounting arm inside a vehicle cabin (Compl. p. 17, "page 8"). The complaint asserts these mounts provide the same functionality as the patented invention, allowing an item to be held in a readable position for a vehicle occupant (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The following table is constructed by mapping the narrative allegations onto the elements of Claim 1 of the ’840 Patent.
’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... adapted for supporting a book | The accused product is a computer or book holder with "A platform" for a computer to "slide into." | ¶¶43, 45-46 | col. 6:12-19 |
| a clasp comprising a clip head, a clip body and a pair of resilient clip arms | The system includes "A brackets" and a "resilient clip" comprised of tools like screws, bolts, and a base. A photograph depicts a complex mechanical assembly labeled as the "resilient clip/tools." | ¶¶9, 13-14 | col. 6:20-23 |
| an arm comprising a first end and a second end and a telescoping arrangement | The accused product has a "resilient arm," "upper arm," "middle arm," and "lower arm." The complaint alleges "front surface telescopic arrangements." A photograph depicts an articulated arm holding a laptop. | ¶¶13, 17, 43 | col. 6:24-30 |
| 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 with respect to the arm | The complaint alleges the book holder is "removably attached and adjusted to a reading position by telescopic arrangements" and that "pivotal adjustments" exist between the arm and support. | ¶12 | col. 6:30-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central dispute may involve the scope of the claim terms. For example, does a ruggedized, semi-permanently installed laptop mount in a commercial truck fall within the scope of a "book holder for removable attachment" as described in the patent, whose specification emphasizes applications like strollers and wheelchairs? Further, does the term "clasp" read on the bolted bracket assembly alleged to be used in the accused systems?
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused mounting system includes a "telescoping arrangement" for axial adjustment, as explicitly required by the claim? The photograph on page 17 of the complaint shows an articulated arm, but it is not clear if it has a telescoping function. The complaint also alleges the "resilient clip" is a combination of many tools, including screws and conductors, which raises the question of whether this complex assembly performs the function of the claimed "pair of resilient clip arms" ('840 Patent, col. 6:21-22).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "book support platform"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining if the patent covers holders for electronic devices like laptops. The Plaintiff's case depends on this term being construed broadly enough to read on the laptop trays in Defendant's vehicles.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the platform may be used to support "audio/video equipment, PDAs, or mobile phones, cameras, computers, musical instruments, toys, puzzles and games" (’840 Patent, col. 5:35-38). It also describes the front surface as suitable for use as an "electronic board" (’840 Patent, col. 2:62-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Book Holder," and its primary embodiment and claims are directed to holding a "book." The abstract and summary focus on this purpose. A party might argue that the term should be limited by the primary context of the invention.
The Term: "clasp"
Context and Importance: The claim requires a "clasp" for "removable attachment." The infringement allegation will turn on whether the accused product's mounting hardware, which may be bolted to the vehicle, meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the method of attachment is a key feature of the claimed invention.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent is not highly specific in defining "clasp." The plaintiff argues for a very broad definition that includes a collection of hardware like screws, nuts, and brackets (Compl. p. 14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the clasp (15) as having "resilient C-shaped clip arms" (42) for snapping onto a frame, suggesting a tool-less, quick-release mechanism (’840 Patent, col. 3:28-34). This embodiment may support a narrower construction than what is alleged in the complaint.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement, as the allegations are directed at Defendant's own use of the accused systems.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent and infringement based on extensive prior litigation history involving the patent-in-suit (Compl. pp. 11, 27-29, 39-40). These allegations of pre-suit knowledge may be used to support a claim for enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "book holder," with its constituent elements like a "clasp" for "removable attachment," be construed to cover a semi-permanent, ruggedized laptop mounting system installed in a commercial service vehicle?
- A second key question will relate to impermissible importation: the Plaintiff's arguments appear to attempt to import limitations from the specification (e.g., "audio equipment," "connector" as electronic hardware) that are not present in the asserted claim. The case may turn on whether the court confines the analysis to the explicit language of Claim 1 or accepts a broader interpretation based on specification disclosures.
- Finally, an essential evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional correspondence: does the accused National Grid vehicle mount actually possess the specific structures recited in Claim 1, such as a "telescoping arrangement" and a "pivotal connection," and do they function in the manner required by the claim language?