DCT
2:18-cv-00254
Leader Development Industrial Corp v. Intercrown Enterprises Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Leader Development Industrial Corp. (Taiwan)
- Defendant: Intercrown Enterprise, Ltd. (Hong Kong)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP; Allen Gardner Law, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00254, E.D. Tex., 09/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation that does not reside in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cordless mini blind products infringe a patent related to a mechanism that adjusts the angle of the blind’s blades.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mechanical systems within venetian-style window blinds, specifically those aiming to simplify operation by integrating the lift and tilt functions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a "Notice of Infringement" in November 2014, approximately four years prior to filing suit. The complaint further states that Defendant hired a law firm to respond to the notice, which Plaintiff asserts as the basis for its willful infringement claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-08-09 | '453 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-11-16 | '453 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-11-XX | Alleged Notice of Infringement Sent to Defendant |
| 2018-09-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,832,453 - "Adjusting Structure of a Curtain for Adjusting the Angle of Curtain Blade"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,832,453, "Adjusting Structure of a Curtain for Adjusting the Angle of Curtain Blade," issued November 16, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional curtains as having two separate structures: one to control the raising and lowering of the blinds and another to adjust the angle of the individual blades. This separation is described as making the curtain difficult to assemble and contributing to high costs (’453 Patent, col. 1:24-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by integrating the lift and tilt mechanisms. The patented structure uses a rotatable "winding tube" and an associated "rubbing wheel" within the curtain's upper rail. A "pulling string" controls the rise and fall of the curtain by winding onto the tube. A separate "suspending string," which holds the curtain blades, is hung on the rubbing wheel. As the winding tube rotates, it simultaneously rotates the rubbing wheel, which in turn pulls or "skews" the suspending string, thereby adjusting the angle of the blades at the same time they are raised or lowered (’453 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-40, Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to create a curtain that is easier to operate and has a lower cost by achieving the rise-and-fall motion and the blade-angle adjustment simultaneously through a more integrated mechanism (’453 Patent, col. 3:3-6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’453 Patent, col. 3:22-42; Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a winding tube rotatably disposed in an upper rail of a curtain having curtain blades;
- a rubbing wheel rotatable with the winding tube;
- a pulling string for controlling the rise and fall of the curtain, wound around the winding tube, passing through the curtain blades, and having its second end at a different spacing from the winding tube when wound;
- a guide that abuts the pulling string and directs it tangentially onto the winding tube; and
- a suspending string for holding the curtain blades, with its top end hung on the rubbing wheel, which is "actuated in the rotating direction of the winding tube" to adjust the blade angle when the pulling string is pulled.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment of infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the possibility that dependent claims may be asserted later in the litigation (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Better Homes and Garden 1” Vinyl Cordless Mini Blind" (Walmart #554458745) as an exemplary infringing product (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that an examination of a sample of the accused product reveals that it is a "blinds product with curtain blades that includes a winding tube found in the upper rail, a rubbing wheel rotatable with the winding tube, a pulling string controlling the rise and fall of the curtain, a guide that abuts the pulling string, and a suspending string" (Compl. ¶22). No further technical details on the product's specific operation are provided.
- It is alleged that Defendant Intercrown manufactures the infringing products, imports them into the United States, and sells them to major retailers such as Walmart, Lowe's, and Menards (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint's infringement allegations are based on an "examination of a sample" of the accused product and are presented in a conclusory manner, asserting that the product contains components corresponding to the major elements of claim 1. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'453 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a winding tube rotatably disposed in an upper rail of a curtain having curtain blades | The accused product includes "a winding tube found in the upper rail." | ¶22 | col. 2:31-33 |
| a rubbing wheel rotatable with the winding tube | The accused product includes "a rubbing wheel rotatable with the winding tube." | ¶22 | col. 2:51-52 |
| a pulling string controlling the rise and fall of the curtain... | The accused product includes "a pulling string controlling the rise and fall of the curtain." | ¶22 | col. 2:33-36 |
| a guide abutting the pulling string... with the pulling string being directed by the guide generally tangentially onto the winding tube | The accused product includes "a guide that abuts the pulling string." | ¶22 | col. 2:47-50 |
| a suspending string for insertion of the curtain blades, with the suspending string having a top end hung on the rubbing wheel, thereby... the suspending string is capable of being actuated in the rotating direction of the winding tube, allowing for adjustment of the angle of the curtain blades... | The accused product includes "a suspending string." | ¶22 | col. 2:37-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the presence of components that share names with the claim elements but does not explain how they operate. A central question for the court will be whether the accused product’s mechanism functions in the specific manner required by the patent. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the accused "suspending string" is "actuated in the rotating direction of the winding tube" to adjust the blade angle, as the claim requires?
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "the second end of the pulling string having different spacing from the winding tube when the pulling string is wound on the winding tube." The complaint offers no facts to show that the accused product meets this specific structural and functional limitation. The case may turn on whether the accused product's string-winding mechanism exhibits this "different spacing" feature.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rubbing wheel"
- Context and Importance: This component is the nexus between the lift mechanism (winding tube) and the tilt mechanism (suspending string). The nature of its interaction with the suspending string is critical to the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the corresponding component in the accused product performs the functions of a "rubbing wheel" as described in the patent, not just whether it is a wheel-shaped part.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for the term, which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "suspending string 5 hung on the rubbing wheel 31" being "rotated along with the winding tube 3" ('453 Patent, col. 2:52-54). Figure 6 illustrates this "hanging" relationship. A party could argue this requires a direct, load-bearing, friction-based interaction, not merely any component that rotates with the winding tube.
The Term: "suspending string ... capable of being actuated in the rotating direction of the winding tube"
- Context and Importance: This phrase describes the functional result of the invention's integrated design. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product achieves blade tilting through this specific method of "actuation."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language could be argued to cover any configuration where rotation of the main lift axle causes a change in blade angle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "the suspending string is pulled to be skewed towards the rotating direction of the winding tube, so that the angle of the curtain blades is adjusted" ('453 Patent, col. 1:15-18). This suggests the term "actuated" requires a specific "skewing" motion, which could be construed as a more specific action than general tilting.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement or allege the specific facts required to support such a claim.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a count for willful infringement, alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’453 Patent since at least November 2014 via a "Notice of Infringement" (Compl. ¶¶26, 27). The complaint asserts that Defendant's awareness is further demonstrated by its hiring of a law firm to respond to the notice (Compl. ¶26). Plaintiff also alleges that the accused product "bears a striking resemblance to an embodiment of the invention described in the ’453 Patent," suggesting deliberate copying (Compl. ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused product's mechanism merely contain components with similar names to those in the patent, or does it actually operate in the specific, interconnected manner required by Claim 1? The complaint’s allegations regarding the presence of parts will require substantiation with technical evidence showing how those parts function together to achieve the claimed result.
- The case may also turn on a question of evidentiary proof: what evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused product meets subtle but potentially critical claim limitations, such as the "pulling string having different spacing from the winding tube when... wound"? The resolution of such factual questions, which are not detailed in the complaint, will be essential to determining infringement.