DCT

2:24-cv-00348

Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd v. Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. v. Ningbo Ao Sheng Mold Co., Ltd. d/b/a AOSIMI, 2:24-cv-00348, E.D. Tex., 09/12/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(3) and 1400(b), which provide that a foreign defendant may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s injection molding components, including mold products, cavity inserts, and molding apparatuses, infringe five U.S. patents related to mold stack technology, cleaning features, and component design.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance components for injection molding systems, which are critical for the mass production of plastic articles such as beverage container preforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint centers on Defendant’s marketing and offering for sale of the accused products at the NPE 2024 “The Plastics Show” in Orlando, Florida. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of its infringing activity and served the original complaint at the show. Defendant has filed an Answer to the original complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-09-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,645,132 Priority Date
2010-01-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,645,132 Issues
2010-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,834,149 Priority Date
2011-08-04 U.S. Patent Nos. 9,713,891 & 10,093,053 Priority Date
2014-09-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,834,149 Issues
2016-12-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,794,375 Priority Date
2017-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,713,891 Issues
2018-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,093,053 Issues
2023-10-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,794,375 Issues
2024-05-06 Accused Activity Begins at NPE 2024 Show
2024-05-08 Defendant Notified of Alleged Infringement
2024-09-12 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,645,132 - "Mold Insert And Mold Stack For Use With Molding Machine"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,645,132, titled "Mold Insert And Mold Stack For Use With Molding Machine," issued January 12, 2010 (’132 Patent).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the general structure of mold stacks used in injection molding, implying a persistent need for designs that are robust, efficient, and provide effective cooling of the molded article. (’132 Patent, col. 1:11-2:4).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a cavity insert for a mold stack that incorporates a sophisticated cooling channel architecture. The solution involves a mounting flange that includes a "member" specifically configured to define a second portion of the cooling channel, while the main body of the insert defines a first portion. (’132 Patent, col. 2:9-15). This structure allows for a cooling channel path that projects beyond the rear mounting extremity of the flange, potentially improving thermal management in a critical area of the mold. (’132 Patent, col. 2:20-24).
    • Technical Importance: By integrating part of the cooling channel into the mounting flange itself, the design offers a way to optimize thermal performance and component consolidation within the tight confines of a multi-cavity mold stack. (Compl. ¶ 90).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, 14-19, 21-24, and 26 (Compl. ¶ 92). Independent claim 1 is central and includes the following elements:
      • A body having an internal surface defining at least a body portion of a molding cavity.
      • An external surface defining at least a first portion of a cooling channel configured to direct a flow of coolant.
      • A mounting flange configured to support the body relative to a face of a cavity plate.
      • The mounting flange including a member configured to define a second portion of the cooling channel, with the member further defining a rear mounting extremity.
      • At least a portion of the first portion of the cooling channel projects beyond the rear mounting extremity.

U.S. Patent No. 8,834,149 - "Molding Apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,834,149, titled "Molding Apparatus," issued September 16, 2014 (’149 Patent).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses prior art methods for ejecting molded articles, such as plastic preforms, from a mold. The complexity of these mechanisms, often involving separate components for different stages of ejection, presents an ongoing need for more integrated and efficient solutions. (’149 Patent, col. 1:11-2:66).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a molding apparatus featuring a multi-function "stripper sleeve." This single component is configured to perform two key actions in the ejection sequence: first, it opens a "slide pair" (components that form part of the mold cavity around the article), and second, it strips the molded article from the core. (’149 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved through "opening cams" on the stripper sleeve that interact with cam followers on the slides, translating axial movement of the sleeve into lateral movement of the slides. (’149 Patent, col. 4:60-67).
    • Technical Importance: This design consolidates multiple mechanical functions into a single component, which may lead to a more streamlined, reliable, and compact ejection mechanism in a high-speed molding environment. (Compl. ¶ 139).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-9 and 18 (Compl. ¶ 141). Independent claim 1 is central and includes the following elements:
      • A stripper sleeve for use in a first stack portion of a mold stack.
      • The stripper sleeve is configured to open a slide pair of the first stack portion.
      • The stripper sleeve is also configured to strip a molded article from the first stack portion.
      • The stripper sleeve includes a molded article engager to cause stripping with movement of the sleeve.
      • The stripper sleeve further includes a first opening cam to engage a first opening cam follower on a first slide to cause lateral opening movement.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,713,891

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,713,891, titled "Molding System Having A Residue Cleaning Feature And An Adjustable Mold Shut Height," issued July 25, 2017 (’891 Patent).
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a molding system with features for cleaning residue from mold components. The invention provides a method to actuate a mold component, such as a neck ring, into a "vent cleaning configuration" where a portion of a vent passage becomes part of the molding surface, allowing molding material to flush out contaminants. (’891 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 105).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that AOSIMI’s Mold Product infringes the ’891 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 104).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,093,053

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,093,053, titled "Molding System Having A Residue Cleaning Feature And An Adjustable Mold Shut Height," issued October 9, 2018 (’053 Patent).
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’891 Patent, also describes a molding system with a residue cleaning feature. The technology allows a mold component to be actuated between a standard configuration and a cleaning configuration where a passage becomes part of the molding surface to be cleaned by the flow of melt. (’053 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 117).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that AOSIMI’s Mold Product infringes the ’053 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 116).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,794,375

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,794,375, titled "Split Mold Insert For Forming A Relief Portion Of A Molded Article And Mold Stack Incorporating Same," issued October 24, 2023 (’375 Patent).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a split mold insert designed with specific mating faces that include an inner face region, an offset, and an outer face region. This geometry is designed to create a "melt barrier" during a cleaning configuration, guiding the flow of molten plastic to clean vents while preventing uncontrolled flashing. (’375 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-21 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 129).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that AOSIMI’s Mold Product infringes the ’375 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 128).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are identified as AOSIMI’s “Mold Product,” “Cavity Insert Product,” and “Molding Apparatus Product” (collectively, the “Accused Products”) (Compl. ¶ 7).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are components for injection molding machines that were offered for sale in the United States at the NPE 2024 Show (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 23). The complaint asserts that the products are intended to "replicate and compete with" Husky's own commercial products (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10, 12). Visual evidence in the complaint includes side-by-side photographic comparisons of the accused products and Husky's corresponding commercial products, suggesting a high degree of visual similarity (Compl. p. 4). Another visual shows a placard for the Molding Apparatus Product specifying "Machine type: HUSKY," which alleges the product is a direct replacement part for Plaintiff's machines (Compl. p. 3). The complaint also includes an annotated excerpt from Defendant's brochure that allegedly offers "Bottle preform mould spare parts - HUSKY machine" for sale (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶¶ 92, 105, 117, 129, 141). The narrative infringement theories for the two lead patents are summarized below.

’132 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that AOSIMI's Cavity Insert Product infringes one or more claims of the ’132 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶ 91-92). The infringement theory appears to be based on direct part-for-part replication. The complaint provides a side-by-side image comparison of "AOSIMI's Cavity Insert Product" and "Husky's Cavity Insert Product," which is intended to show that the accused product is a copy of the commercial embodiment of the patented technology (Compl. p. 4). The core of the allegation is that the accused product contains the specific cooling channel architecture claimed in the patent, including the claimed "member" on the mounting flange that defines a portion of the cooling channel.

’149 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that AOSIMI’s Molding Apparatus Product infringes one or more claims of the ’149 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 140-141). This product is accused of incorporating the patented stripper sleeve technology. A photograph of the accused product on display at the NPE 2024 show is included, along with a placard stating its compatibility with a "Machine type: HUSKY" (Compl. p. 3). The infringement allegation centers on the assertion that the accused product contains a stripper sleeve that performs the dual functions of opening a slide pair and stripping a molded article, as required by the patent's claims.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be how broadly the term "stripper sleeve" in the ’149 Patent will be construed. Does its meaning require the specific cam-and-follower mechanism disclosed in the specification, or could it read on any sleeve that performs the claimed dual functions through a mechanically equivalent structure? For the ’132 Patent, a question is whether the "member configured to define... a second portion of the cooling channel" requires a discrete, separately identifiable structure on the mounting flange, or if it can be a less-defined region of the flange that serves the claimed purpose.
  • Technical Questions: Since the complaint alleges direct copying, the technical dispute may be less about functional difference and more about evidentiary proof. What level of technical evidence, beyond visual comparison, will be required to demonstrate that the internal structures of the accused products, such as the precise paths of cooling channels in the Cavity Insert Product, meet every limitation of the asserted claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’132 Patent: "member configured to define ... a second portion of the cooling channel"

  • The Term: "member configured to define"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is central to defining the structural novelty of the cavity insert's cooling system. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product possesses a "member" on its mounting flange that meets this limitation's structural and functional requirements. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether proof of a specific physical structure is required versus merely showing that a region of the flange performs the stated function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of functional language "configured to define" could support an interpretation where any structure on the flange that helps form the cooling channel satisfies the limitation, regardless of its specific shape or whether it is a discrete component.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and the term "member" itself may suggest a more limited meaning, requiring a structurally distinct or identifiable part of the mounting flange that is identifiably separate from the rest of the flange body. For example, Figure 1 of the patent depicts member "124" as a distinct structural feature of mounting flange "116". (’132 Patent, col. 4:55-60).

’149 Patent: "stripper sleeve"

  • The Term: "stripper sleeve"
  • Context and Importance: This term from independent claim 1 identifies the core component of the claimed molding apparatus. The claim defines the term functionally, stating it is "configured to open... a slide pair" and "to strip a molded article." The case may turn on whether the accused component, which appears to be a sleeve-like part, performs both of these functions in the claimed manner.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional. A party might argue that any sleeve-like component that performs the dual functions of opening slides and stripping an article is a "stripper sleeve," regardless of the specific mechanism used.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the stripper sleeve in the context of specific "opening cams" that engage "cam followers" on the slides. (’149 Patent, col. 4:60-67; col. 5:6-9). This may support a narrower construction where a "stripper sleeve" must operate via the disclosed cam mechanism or a close equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement and contributory infringement for all asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 92, 105, 117, 129, 141). The allegations for inducement are supported by claims that Defendant is "leveraging Husky's brand-name(s) to induce customers to purchase" infringing products (Compl. ¶ 15). The complaint provides visual evidence from Defendant's marketing materials that explicitly reference "HUSKY machine" compatibility, which allegedly instructs and encourages infringement by end-users (Compl. pp. 6, 7, 13, 14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and Husky's products by virtue of being a competitor and by using the "HUSKY" and "HYPET" brand names in its marketing (Compl. ¶¶ 59-67). It further alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of its infringement since at least May 8, 2024, when it was notified by Plaintiff, and has continued its infringing activities nonetheless (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 96, 98).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the functional language in the asserted claims, such as the "stripper sleeve" of the ’149 Patent being "configured to open" a slide pair, be construed broadly to cover any mechanism achieving that result, or will it be limited by the specific cam-and-follower structures disclosed in the patent's specification?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of replication: given the allegations of direct copying, what technical evidence will be sufficient to prove that the accused products, particularly their internal and non-visible features like cooling channels, are not merely visually similar but are structurally and functionally identical to the claimed inventions?
  • A third central issue relates to willfulness and damages: can Plaintiff leverage Defendant’s alleged use of the "HUSKY" brand name not only to establish pre-suit knowledge for willfulness but also to argue for enhanced damages based on intentional and egregious conduct aimed at trading on Plaintiff’s goodwill?