DCT
3:18-cv-02709
Tightlines Uv Technology LLC v. Pure Fishing Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tightlines UV Technology LLC (Missouri)
- Defendant: Pure Fishing, Inc. (Iowa, with headquarters in South Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC; Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
- Case Identification: Tightlines UV Technology LLC v. Pure Fishing, Inc., 3:18-cv-02709, D.S.C., 10/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of South Carolina because Defendant resides in the state, has its headquarters in the district, and conducts business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Berkley" brand fishing lures infringe a patent related to technology for making lures that reflect both visible and ultraviolet (UV) light.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns enhancing the visibility of fishing lures to fish, which, unlike humans, can perceive UV light, a property particularly useful in deeper or less clear water where the visible light spectrum is diminished.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was issued after a "full and fair examination" by the USPTO, stemming from an application filed in 2009. No other prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-04-22 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,667,728 (Application Filing) |
| 2014-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8667728 Issues |
| 2018-10-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,667,728, "FISHING LURE.", issued March 11, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional fishing lures rely on visible color, which becomes "virtually invisible to game fish" at depths below a few meters because visible light does not penetrate water well (’728 Patent, col. 1:19-25). It also notes that prior art UV-reflective coatings have drawbacks, including creating an "unrealistic appearance" and having a tendency to "wear off from the lure during use" (’728 Patent, col. 1:56-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lure with a body made from a material that is at least partially translucent to UV light (’728 Patent, col. 2:53-56). A reflective material is integrally molded into this body, not just coated on the surface (’728 Patent, col. 2:18-20; Fig. 2). This internal material is engineered to reflect both a specific wavelength of visible light (to appear colored in shallow water) and a specific wavelength of UV light (to remain visible to fish in deep water), thereby providing a more durable and consistently effective lure across different depths (’728 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-25).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to solve the durability problem of surface coatings while leveraging the biological fact of fish tetrachromic vision (sensitivity to UV light) to create a lure that is attractive in both shallow and deep water (’728 Patent, col. 1:28-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15 (’728 Patent, col. 5:13, col. 6:15; Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A lure body that is at least partially translucent to ultraviolet light.
- At least a portion of the lure body beneath the surface and within the body reflects a first peak wavelength between 401 and 800 nanometers (visible light).
- This portion absorbs at least ten percent of the visible light at that first peak wavelength.
- This same portion reflects a second peak wavelength between 300 and 400 nanometers (UV light).
- This portion absorbs less than ninety percent of the UV light at that second peak wavelength.
- The complaint does not assert any specific dependent claims but may do so later.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names the "Berkeley Flatnose Minnow Blue Back 4”" and the "Berkeley The General Blu Pearl Blk Hologram 5”" as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶7, ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are "UV reflective fishing lures" (Compl. ¶17). It provides a photograph of the packaged "Berkeley PowerBait MaxScent Flatnose Minnow" lure, which highlights a marketing claim of "CATCH 45% More Fish!" (Compl. p. 3, Figure 1). The complaint alleges these products are sold on Defendant’s website and through major retailers like Walmart and Tacklewarehouse.com (Compl. ¶18-19). The infringement theory is that these lures possess the "physical characteristics as claimed" in the patent, with reference to Exhibits B and C, which are not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claims 1 and 15 but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element analysis or include its referenced claim chart exhibits. The core of the allegation is that the Accused Products are "sport fishing lures with the physical characteristics as claimed in the '728 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶23).
’728 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lure body having a surface, wherein said lure body is at least partially translucent to ultraviolet light; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "UV reflective fishing lures" whose bodies necessarily possess the claimed physical characteristics, including translucence to UV light. A photograph of the lures is provided. (Compl. p. 3, Figure 1). | ¶17, ¶23 | col. 5:14-16 |
| wherein at least a portion of said lure body beneath the surface of, and within said lure body, reflects a first peak wavelength... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products infringe by having the claimed "physical characteristics," which would include having an internal portion that reflects visible light. | ¶23 | col. 5:17-22 |
| wherein said at least a portion of said lure body absorbs at least ten percent of the visible light at said first peak wavelength; | The infringement allegation is a general assertion that the Accused Products meet the claimed "physical characteristics," which includes this specific light absorption property. | ¶23 | col. 5:23-25 |
| wherein said at least a portion of said lure body reflects a second peak wavelength...between 300 and 400 nanometers... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "UV reflective fishing lures," directly corresponding to this claim limitation requiring reflection of UV light. | ¶17, ¶23 | col. 5:26-29 |
| wherein said at least a portion of said lure absorbs less than ninety percent of said ultraviolet light at said second peak wavelength. | The infringement allegation is a general assertion that the Accused Products meet the claimed "physical characteristics," which includes this specific UV light absorption limitation. | ¶23 | col. 5:30-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The central issue will likely be evidentiary. Can the Plaintiff demonstrate through technical testing that the Accused Products meet the specific numerical limitations of Claim 1 regarding peak reflection wavelengths (e.g., between 300-400 nm) and light absorption percentages (e.g., "absorbs at least ten percent of the visible light")? The complaint makes these allegations conclusorily without providing the underlying data from its referenced exhibits (Compl. ¶16, ¶23).
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of a reflective material "within said lure body." The patent distinguishes itself from surface coatings (’728 Patent, col. 1:56-64). The case may turn on whether the accused lures achieve their UV-reflective properties via an internal, admixed material as described in the patent, or through a surface effect that Defendant could argue falls outside the scope of the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "at least a portion of said lure body beneath the surface of, and within said lure body"
Context and Importance: This phrase is central to distinguishing the invention from prior art surface coatings. The patent’s own description of the prior art focuses on the drawbacks of coatings that wear off (’728 Patent, col. 1:56-64). Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on proving that the reflective properties of the accused lures originate from material integrated inside the lure body, not just on its surface.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the body being "integrally molded with a material which reflects" light, which could support a construction where the entire body material itself possesses the claimed reflective properties, without requiring separate embedded particles (’728 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes adding "ultraviolet particulate (46), such as titanium dioxide... to the vinyl plastisol" to create a "sparkle" (’728 Patent, col. 3:35-39). This could support a narrower construction requiring discrete reflective items to be mixed into a non-reflective base material to satisfy the "within said lure body" limitation.
The Term: "reflects a... peak wavelength"
Context and Importance: The claims require the lure to reflect both a visible "peak wavelength" and a UV "peak wavelength." The definition of "peak" will be critical for determining infringement, as the optical properties of the accused lure must be tested and compared against these limitations.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "peak" refers to any local maximum in the reflectance spectrum within the claimed nanometer range, not necessarily the single highest point of reflectance overall.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides very specific examples, such as mimicking blood by having peaks at "380 nanometers and 650 nanometers" (’728 Patent, col. 4:36-44). This specific embodiment could be used to argue that a "peak" must be a distinct and significant feature of the reflectance profile, not a minor fluctuation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s "intentional acts... have successfully, among other things, encouraged, instructed, enabled, and otherwise caused Defendant’s customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶24). The factual basis cited is the provision, sale, and support of the products to customers and vendors (Compl. ¶24, p. 6).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement." However, it alleges knowledge of the ’728 Patent "as early as the date of service of the Original Complaint" as a basis for ongoing inducement (Compl. ¶24). It also includes a prayer for a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶29.E).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical evidence: Can Plaintiff produce empirical data, presumably through expert testing, to prove that the accused Berkley lures meet the specific and quantitative optical properties required by the claims, such as reflecting peak wavelengths in the 300-400 nm range and absorbing specific percentages of light? The complaint's allegations are conclusory on this point.
- The case will also likely involve a key question of claim scope: Does the claim phrase "within said lure body" require the reflective properties to stem from a distinct material (like particulates) mixed into the lure's base material, or can it be satisfied by the inherent optical properties of the bulk material itself? The resolution of this question will define the boundary between the patented internal-reflection technology and potentially non-infringing surface-effect technologies.