Lead Creation Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lead Creation Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MAH Advising LLC
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-10377, S.D.N.Y., 12/19/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ adjustable-focus LED flashlights infringe a patent related to a mechanism for changing a light beam’s angle and brightness.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns portable lighting, specifically the design of LED flashlights that allow a user to adjust the beam from a wide floodlight to a narrow, intense spotlight.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a Verified First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that the Defendants are foreign entities operating under various aliases on e-commerce platforms, making identification and service difficult.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-08-25	’706 Patent Priority Date
2009-05-12	’706 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-19	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,530,706, "LED LIGHTING APPARATUS WITH FAST CHANGING FOCUS", issued May 12, 2009 (’706 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art adjustable flashlights as having limitations. Specifically, designs using reflective cones could produce uneven beams with "dark in the outer area," and adjusting the focus was often complex or limited in range (’706 Patent, col. 1:16-26, 1:56-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a lighting apparatus, such as a flashlight, that adjusts its focus without a reflective cone. This is achieved by moving a convex lens relative to a stationary light-emitting diode (LED). This movement changes the distance between the lens and the LED, which in turn alters the beam angle, allowing the user to shift between a wide "illumination scope for short distance" and increased "brightness for long distance" (’706 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-40). The mechanism is designed to be compact and provide a fast, convenient way to change focus (’706 Patent, col. 2:38-40).
• Technical Importance: This approach claims to produce "optimal beams—no dark holes, rings, hot spots, or shadows," improving upon the quality of adjustable beams from earlier designs (’706 Patent, col. 5:3-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20, 22, 24, 26).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the core elements of the apparatus:
  • A main body with a power source.
  • An LED at the front end of the main body.
  • A "collar" coaxially coupled to the main body.
  • A convex lens coupled to the collar, which is displaceable relative to the LED between a first and second range.
  • "A pair of annular engagement portions" on the main body and/or collar for "releasably locking" the collar in the first and second ranges.
  • A "whereby" clause stating that the brightness is optimally maintained for a greater range of illumination in the second range compared to the first.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims but focuses its allegations on the listed claims (Compl. ¶¶ 18-27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "lighting apparatus namely flashlights" sold by Defendants through e-commerce storefronts, such as the "SKNSL Infringing Product" identified from an Amazon marketplace page (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 28).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused flashlights are alleged to feature a "zoom" function that allows a user to adjust the focus of the light beam (Compl. ¶ 25). The complaint alleges this is achieved "by pushing and pulling the head of the flashlight," which changes the light from a wide "floodlight" to a focused "spotlight" (Compl. p. 11). An exploded-view diagram from a product listing shows the components of an accused flashlight, including a "Transmission Lens" (convex lens) and "XHP70.2 Lamp Beads" (LED) (Compl. p. 9). The complaint provides images demonstrating the accused product's "Zoom Out" and "Zoom In" features, which allegedly correspond to the claimed first and second ranges of operation (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’706 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a main body having a power source	The accused flashlight has an "Anodized Aluminum Body" that encloses a battery section for power.	¶19; p. 10	col. 3:7-10
a light-emitting diode electrically connected with the power source and positioned at a front end of the main body...	The "XHP70.2 Lamp Beads" are alleged to be an LED positioned at the front of the flashlight, electrically coupled to the power source.	¶19; p. 10	col. 3:15-19
a collar coaxially coupled to the main body	The "Attacking Head" of the flashlight, which holds the lens, is alleged to be a collar coaxially coupled to the main body.	¶19; p. 11	col. 3:43-44
a convex lens coupled to the collar and optically coupled to the light-emitting diode in coaxially displaceable manner relative thereto...	The "Transmission Lens" is alleged to be a convex lens that is moved relative to the LED when the user pushes or pulls the flashlight head to zoom.	¶19; p. 11	col. 3:29-31
said convex lens being selectively displaced between a first range and a second range...	The "zoom-out and zoom-in features" are alleged to physically displace the convex lens to different positions, corresponding to the claimed ranges.	¶19; p. 12	col. 4:48-52
at least one of said main body and collar having a pair of annular engagement portions axially offset from the other for releasably locking said collar to the main body...	The complaint identifies two portions of the main body (highlighted in green and yellow boxes in a provided image) that allegedly function as annular engagement portions to lock the collar.	¶19; p. 12	col. 3:10-13
whereby a brightness of the light is optimally maintained for a greater range of illumination when the convex lens in said second range than in said first range.	The "zoom in" position (alleged second range) is described as producing a brighter light with a greater range of illumination than the "zoom out" position (alleged first range).	¶19; p. 13	col. 4:50-53

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's "Attacking Head" can be construed as the claimed "collar." The patent specification uses the term "housing" to describe this component, and the scope of "collar" will likely be disputed (’706 Patent, col. 3:28).
• Technical Questions: The complaint identifies two regions on the accused flashlight's body as the "annular engagement portions" but does not detail the mechanism by which they "releasably lock" the collar (Compl. p. 12). A key factual question will be whether the accused product contains a structure that functions equivalently to the "receiving groove" and "switch button" system described as one embodiment in the patent (’706 Patent, col. 3:38-42).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "collar"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement depends on mapping the accused flashlight's movable "head" onto this claim element. The defense may argue that the accused product's structure does not meet the definition of a "collar" as understood in the context of the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "collar" without further structural definition, which a plaintiff might argue encompasses any ring-like structure coupled to the main body for the purpose of holding and moving the lens (Compl. ¶18(d)).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to the corresponding part as a "housing 3" and depicts it as a specific cylindrical component (’706 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:28). A defendant may argue that "collar" should be limited to the structure disclosed in the specification's embodiments.

The Term: "releasably locking"

• Context and Importance: This functional language is tied to the "pair of annular engagement portions" and is key to the claimed mechanism for setting the focus. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product's push/pull zoom mechanism "locks" into distinct positions or is merely held by friction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that any mechanism that holds the collar in place for stable operation, including a high-friction fit, satisfies the "locking" requirement. The term itself is not narrowly defined.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment with a "switch button 32" that is "held by the first receiving groove 11 or the second receiving groove 12," suggesting a positive, discrete locking mechanism rather than a purely frictional one (’706 Patent, col. 3:40-42). The use of "releasably" implies a specific action is needed to move from a locked state.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. p. 14, ¶B.ii). However, the complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement or allege specific facts to support the elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as knowledge and intent.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests that damages be trebled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, a remedy available for willful infringement (Compl. p. 15, ¶E). The body of the complaint, however, does not contain an explicit allegation of willfulness or provide facts suggesting Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’706 Patent.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "collar," as used in Claim 1, be construed to read on the accused flashlight’s "Attacking Head," and does the undefined structure of the accused product's body contain a "pair of annular engagement portions" that "releasably lock" the head as required by the claim? The outcome of the case may depend heavily on the scope afforded to these terms.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused flashlight's push-pull zoom mechanism operates in the specific manner claimed? This includes proving not only that the lens moves between two ranges, but that the structure includes "engagement portions" that perform the function of "releasably locking" the lens assembly at distinct operational positions, as opposed to relying on simple friction.