Smart Scale Ruler Inc v. Hozo Design Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Smart Scale Ruler Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Hozo Design Co., Ltd (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hodgson Russ LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00292, W.D.N.Y., 03/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, maintains a mailing address in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "NeoRuler" electronic measurement device infringes a patent related to an electronic, customizable architect's scale ruler.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic drafting and measurement tools that replace traditional, fixed-scale rulers with dynamic digital displays capable of generating custom scales.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit based on "admonitions regarding infringement" from the Plaintiff, a fact which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,955,232 - "Smart Scale Ruler"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,955,232, "Smart Scale Ruler," issued March 23, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of conventional architect's scales, which feature a fixed and limited number of measurement scales (e.g., six metric and twelve imperial). This makes them unable to measure drawings that have been printed or drafted to a non-standard, custom scale (’232 Patent, col. 1:45-51, 1:62-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an electronic ruler, typically with a triangular body, that solves this problem by incorporating a digital display along its length. The device allows a user to measure a reference length on any drawing, manually input the dimension that length represents, and have the ruler's processor generate a new, custom digital scale along the display. This custom scale can then be used to measure all other elements on the drawing accurately (’232 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-62). Figure 5 illustrates a cross-section showing the triangular body (formed by panels 3, 9, 12) containing the internal electronic components (28, 29).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides architects, engineers, and designers with the flexibility to create accurate takeoffs from any set of plans, regardless of whether they conform to a standard drafting scale (’232 Patent, col. 3:3-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1, an independent claim (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • An elongated main body comprising a front, back, and base panel that together form a "triangular volume" with a hollow interior.
  • An "elongated slider groove" on the front panel containing a "plurality of electronic contacts".
  • A "slider member" with its own electronic contacts, adapted to slide within the groove to allow its position to be determined electronically.
  • An "electronic visual display" attached to the front panel.
  • At least one "electronic processing component" located inside the hollow body, which is adapted to calculate values based on the slider's position and, critically, is "adapted to generate custom scales" for display.
  • A power source connected to the electronics.
• The prayer for relief reserves the right to assert "one or more claims of the ’232 Patent" (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the "NeoRuler" electronic smart ruler (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the NeoRuler is an "electronic smart ruler" offered for sale on platforms such as Kickstarter.com (Compl. ¶13). The complaint's description of the accused product's functionality is general, stating that it "calculates numeric values based on the position of the slider member" and "calculates custom scales and displays them along the length of the electronic visual display" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide specific details on the physical construction or precise operational method of the NeoRuler beyond these high-level functional descriptions.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

• The complaint does not include a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on a recitation of Claim 1 and a general allegation that the NeoRuler product meets its limitations (Compl. ¶¶10-11, 14).

’232 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Structural Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations without providing evidence on the NeoRuler's physical construction. This raises the question of whether the accused product's body forms a "triangular volume" as required by the claim, and whether its position-sensing mechanism uses a "slider groove" with a "plurality of electronic contacts", or an alternative technology such as an optical encoder.
• Functional Questions: A central issue will be substantiating how the NeoRuler is "adapted to generate custom scales." The complaint does not allege facts showing that the accused product performs this function in the specific manner described in the patent (i.e., by using a slider to measure a reference distance and then accepting user input to define that distance's value).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "triangular volume"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental shape of the ruler's body. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the NeoRuler's physical form factor falls within the scope of this limitation, which is a prominent feature of the patented invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the plain meaning of "triangular" does not require a perfect equilateral or isosceles triangle, but merely a three-sided cross-section, which may cover a wider range of ergonomic designs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that the term should be limited to the traditional form of a three-lobed architect's scale. The specification repeatedly refers to the invention as an "electronic architect's scale having a triangular shaped ruler body" and a "triangular scale," suggesting the term is tied to emulating that specific, known tool ('232 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-16).

The Term: "generate custom scales"

• Context and Importance: This functional language is the core of the invention's purported novelty. The outcome of the case will likely depend heavily on whether the NeoRuler's method for creating non-standard scales is covered by this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification details a specific user workflow to achieve this function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the term should cover any electronic process that results in a non-standard scale being displayed on the ruler, regardless of the specific steps involved.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific "method of use" for this function: "using the screen to read a reference dimension (with the help of the mechanical slider to line up with the paper), which you would then input the numerical value of with the button pad...to generate a new custom scale" ('232 Patent, col. 2:55-62). A party could argue this detailed description limits the claim's scope to this particular implementation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement (e.g., by citing user manuals or advertisements that instruct users on an infringing use). The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin indirect infringement but the body of the complaint focuses on direct infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶2).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that "Smart Scale Ruler informed Hozo that Hozo's product NeoRuler infringes the '232 Patent," and that Hozo continued its alleged infringement after receiving these "admonitions" (Compl. ¶15-16).

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

• A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused NeoRuler possess the specific physical structure recited in Claim 1, particularly the "triangular volume" formed by distinct panels and the "elongated slider groove" with "electronic contacts," or does it achieve position-sensing and measurement with a materially different design?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the NeoRuler's software is "adapted to generate custom scales" using a method that aligns with the patent's teachings, or will discovery reveal a fundamentally different algorithm or user process that falls outside the claim scope?
• Finally, the case may raise a question of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's general allegations, a key procedural question is whether the Plaintiff has provided sufficient factual detail mapping the accused product to the claim elements to survive a motion to dismiss under the Iqbal/Twombly standard.