DCT

1:24-cv-00912

Russel Williams Home Services LLC v. Minleon Intl USA Ltd LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00912, M.D. Pa., 06/03/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted against Minleon USA based on its residence, sales, acts of infringement, and regular and established place of business within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Venue is asserted against Minleon Group Ltd. based on its status as a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ gutter clips infringe one design patent and four utility patents related to clips for mounting decorative lights on structures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns one-piece, resilient mechanical clips designed for the rapid and secure attachment of decorative light strings to architectural features like gutters, eaves, and shingles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendants multiple notice letters identifying specific patents and the accused products prior to filing suit, beginning in December 2020. This history is presented to support the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-03-11 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2019-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,281,084 Issued
2020-02-11 U.S. Patent No. D874,914 Issued
2020-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,711,985 Issued
2020-12-29 Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding '914 and '985 patents
2022-06-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,353,199 Issued
2022-08-31 Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding '914, '985, and '199 patents
2024-02-27 U.S. Patent No. 11,913,626 Issued
2024-03-05 Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding '914, '985, '199, and '626 patents
2024-06-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D874,914 - "Enclosed Gutter Clip"

  • The Invention Explained: As a design patent, the invention is the ornamental appearance of the gutter clip itself (D’914 Patent, Claim). The design features a generally U-shaped body for gripping a structure, connected to a circular bulb-holding portion at the top. The visual characteristics include the specific contours of the gripping arms, the shape of the transition between the body and the bulb holder, and the overall proportions of the clip as depicted in the patent’s figures (D’914 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
  • Key Claims at a Glance: The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for an enclosed gutter clip, as shown and described" (D’914 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Patent No. 10,281,084 - "Enclosed Gutter Clip"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the process of attaching decorative lights to structures like gutters as time-consuming and notes that existing methods can result in damage or broken clips (’084 Patent, col. 1:11-23, col. 1:47-52).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a one-piece clip made from a resilient material that can be quickly installed and removed without tools (’084 Patent, Abstract). The clip comprises an "elongated body" and a "cantilever" arm that work together like a clamp to grip a structure. A "bulb holder" is rigidly connected to this gripping mechanism, and the entire clip is designed to flex to accommodate structures of varying thicknesses while maintaining pressure to hold it in place (’084 Patent, col. 2:11-26, col. 3:50-61).
    • Technical Importance: This design aims to provide a durable, reusable, and efficient method for installing decorative lights, particularly by creating a secure grip on a variety of surfaces through the clip’s material resilience and geometry (’084 Patent, Abstract).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
    • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
      • An elongated body with at least one protrusion.
      • A strut rigidly connected to the elongated body.
      • A cantilever rigidly connected to the strut.
      • A substantially circular bulb holder connected to the cantilever.
      • A neck connecting the cantilever and bulb holder.
      • The clip is made of a "substantially resilient material having a memory" that causes the cantilever to return to a relaxed position, thereby exerting pressure on a structure placed between the cantilever and the elongated body.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 10,711,985 - "Enclosed Gutter Clip"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’084 patent, describes a very similar one-piece resilient clip for mounting lights. The asserted independent claim 1 is nearly identical to claim 1 of the ’084 patent but notably omits the requirement of "at least one protrusion" on the elongated body, suggesting a potentially broader scope for that specific element (’985 Patent, col. 6:15-49).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain the claimed clip structure, including the elongated body, strut, cantilever, and bulb holder, which function to exert pressure on a structure (’985 Patent, col. 6:15-49; Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 11,353,199 - "Enclosed Gutter Clip"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent further refines the gutter clip invention. Asserted independent claim 25 broadens the potential structure by claiming a bulb holder that is "rigidly connected to the cantilever or the strut," providing an alternative connection point. The claim also requires the bulb holder to "fully enclose a hole configured to receive at least a portion of a bulb" (’199 Patent, col. 6:25-45).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 25 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products’ bulb holder is rigidly connected to the cantilever or strut and fully encloses the hole for the bulb, and that the clip is made of a resilient material with memory (Compl. ¶55).

U.S. Patent No. 11,913,626 - "Enclosed Gutter Clip and Expandable Bulb-Holding Clip"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on specific improvements to the bulb holder. Asserted claim 14 requires the bulb holder to comprise an "annular outer flange" and a "socket guide." These features are described as working together to secure and align a threaded bulb and its socket when screwed together (’626 Patent, col. 14:1-14).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 14 (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products’ bulb holder has the claimed annular flange and socket guide, and that these features abut the bulb and socket as required by the claim (Compl. ¶64).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "certain gutter clips" as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶15). Images provided in the complaint depict a one-piece, translucent plastic clip (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are alleged to be clips for attaching decorative lights to structures (Compl. ¶1). An annotated photograph included in the complaint shows the Accused Product clipped onto the edge of a shingled roof, holding a light bulb in place (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 4). The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, sell, and import these clips in the United States (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and the Accused Product (Compl. ¶26, pp. 7-9). This comparison juxtaposes figures from the D’914 patent with photographs of the Accused Product from multiple angles, forming the basis for the allegation that the designs are "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶27).

’084 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an elongated body having a first end, a second end, and at least one protrusion extending from a surface of the elongated body; The Accused Product has an elongated body with a protrusion extending from its surface. An annotated photo labels these features as "Elongated Body 2" and "Protrusion 4" (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 1). ¶37 col. 2:12-19
a strut having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the strut is rigidly connected to the second end of the elongated body, and wherein the first end of the strut and the second end of the strut collectively define a strut axis; The Accused Product has a strut rigidly connected to the elongated body. An annotated photo labels the "Strut 7" and its connection point to the "Elongated Body 2" (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 2). ¶37 col. 2:19-23
a cantilever having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the cantilever is rigidly connected to the second end of the strut; The Accused Product has a cantilever rigidly connected to the strut. An annotated photo labels the "Cantilever 8" and its connection point to the "Second End of Strut 7" (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 2). ¶37 col. 2:20-22
a substantially circular bulb holder rigidly connected to and extending from the first end of the cantilever...wherein the bulb holder includes a hole configured to receive at least a portion of a bulb, wherein the hole has central axis...substantially parallel to the strut axis; and The Accused Product has a substantially circular bulb holder connected to the cantilever, with a hole for a bulb whose axis is parallel to the strut axis. An annotated photo labels "Bulb Holder 10" and its features (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 3). ¶37 col. 3:40-47
wherein the second end of the cantilever is resiliently capable of being pulled away from the elongated body...and the clip is made from a substantially resilient material having a memory that causes the second end of the cantilever to return toward a relaxed position...; and The Accused Product's cantilever is resilient and the clip is made of a resilient material with memory that causes the cantilever to return to a relaxed position. An annotated photo labels this property on the clip (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 3). ¶37 col. 3:50-58
wherein, when the structure is situated between the...elongated body and the cantilever, the memory causes the second end of the cantilever to return toward the relaxed position, such that the cantilever and the...protrusion...exert pressure on the structure... When installed, the memory of the Accused Product's material causes the cantilever and protrusion to exert pressure on the structure to hold the clip in place. An annotated image depicts the clip installed on a roof structure (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 4). ¶37 col. 3:58-61

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of four related utility patents by a single product. A central dispute may arise over how the subtle differences in claim language across these patents (e.g., the presence or absence of a "protrusion," the connection point of the bulb holder) apply to the single design of the Accused Product. This raises the question of whether the accused design can simultaneously meet the distinct limitations of each patent’s asserted claims.
  • Technical Questions: The claims rely on the functional language "substantially resilient material having a memory that causes" a specific outcome (exerting pressure). The complaint supports this with a photo of the clip in use, but a key question for the court will be what level of technical evidence is needed to prove that the accused material possesses this "memory" and that this property, rather than simple friction, is the "cause" of the clamping force as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "substantially resilient material having a memory"

(from claim 1 of the ’084 patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the functional heart of the invention—the property that enables the clip to flex during installation and then apply a securing force. The infringement analysis for all asserted utility patents hinges on whether the material of the Accused Products meets this functional and material definition. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused clip operates via the claimed "memory" or through a different, non-infringing mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the clip may be formed from a wide variety of common plastics, including "an acrylic, a polycarbonate, a nylon, a polyethylene or polypropylene or mixtures thereof" ('084 Patent, col. 4:21-24). This broad list of exemplary materials may support an interpretation covering any plastic that exhibits basic elasticity.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification notes that the "resin material is made to withstand cold temperatures to eliminate breaking clips" ('084 Patent, col. 4:24-25). This could support an argument that the term is limited to materials with proven durability in cold weather, a specific functional requirement tied to the product's intended environment.

Term: "at least one protrusion"

(from claim 1 of the ’084 patent)

  • Context and Importance: This structural element is present in the asserted claim of the ’084 patent but absent from the asserted claim of the subsequent ’985 patent. This difference in the patent family highlights the potential significance of the term. The complaint explicitly identifies a feature on the Accused Product as this "protrusion" (Compl. ¶37, FIG. 1).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the protrusion functionally, stating it "secures body 2 on the structure, providing counter pressure" and is "useful in providing stability" (’084 Patent, col. 2:13-17). This functional description could support a broad reading where any surface feature that adds stability qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the protrusion (4) as a distinct, shelf-like feature at a specific location on the elongated body (’084 Patent, FIGS. 1-4). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed to match this depicted embodiment, particularly since the patentee later obtained claims in the ’985 patent without this feature, suggesting it was a specific, deliberate limitation in the ’084 patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five Patents-in-Suit (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 38, 47, 56, 65). The allegations are based on Defendants’ alleged actual knowledge of the patents and their infringement, stemming from a series of notice letters sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on December 29, 2020, August 31, 2022, and March 5, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶ 17-19). The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities despite receiving these notices.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope across the patent family: How will the court interpret the evolving claim language across the four asserted utility patents, which stem from the same original application? The analysis of whether the single Accused Product infringes claims with slightly different limitations—such as the presence of a "protrusion" in the ’084 patent versus its absence in the ’985 patent—will be central to the outcome.
  • A second key question will be one of visual identity versus functionality: The case presents a dual challenge of proving infringement of both a design patent, which turns on overall visual appearance to an ordinary observer, and utility patents, which turn on specific structural and functional elements. The court will have to separately analyze the product’s aesthetics under the design patent and its mechanical operation under the utility patents.
  • Finally, a critical evidentiary question will be one of proving material properties: What technical evidence will be necessary to demonstrate that the plastic used in the Accused Products possesses the claimed "memory" that "causes" a clamping force, as required by the utility patent claims? This may require more than a visual demonstration and could involve expert testimony and material science testing.