Upsite Tech Inc v. Sealeze Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Upsite Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sealeze, Inc. (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cozen O'Connor, P.C.; Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP
• Case Identification: 6:10-cv-00542, E.D. Tex., 10/13/2010
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts substantial business, sells the accused products to customers, and solicits business within the district. The complaint also notes that one of Plaintiff's largest distributors is located in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s brush seal grommets for raised data center floors infringe patents related to toolless, self-closing floor grommet closures designed to prevent air loss.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses energy inefficiency in data centers that use under-floor plenums for air conditioning by sealing cable openings to prevent the escape of cooled air.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts both U.S. Patent No. 6,632,999 and its reissue, U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE41,863. The reissue patent was granted on October 26, 2010, thirteen days after the complaint was filed. The assertion of a patent prior to its formal issuance, along with the assertion of the original patent it supersedes, raises potential questions regarding the scope of the suit and available claims at the time of filing.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-09-13	Priority Date for ’999 and ’863 Patents
2003-10-14	’999 Patent Issue Date
2005-10-13	Application to Reissue the ’999 Patent Filed
2010-10-13	Complaint Filing Date
2010-10-26	’863 Reissued Patent Issue Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,632,999: Toolless, Self Closing Floor Grommet Closure For Cable Openings And the Like In Raised Floors Of Data Centers Office Buildings And Other Air Conditioned Structures (Issued Oct. 14, 2003)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how modern data centers use raised floors to create an under-floor plenum for distributing conditioned air. However, the numerous cable cut-outs required for equipment allow large quantities of this cooled air to escape inefficiently, reducing static pressure and wasting significant energy (Compl. ¶7; ’999 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a floor grommet assembly designed to be installed in these cable openings. It comprises a frame holding sealing members, described as "a large plurality of thin filamentary elements" (i.e., brush bristles), that extend from opposing sides to meet in the center. These elements are flexible enough to allow cables to pass through but dense enough to form a "substantial air seal," closing around the cables to minimize air leakage (’999 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-56).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a standardized, purpose-built solution to a significant operational and economic problem in data centers, improving cooling efficiency and reducing energy costs associated with air loss through floor openings (’999 Patent, col. 7:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, but Independent Claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A frame sized to be received in a cable opening in a floor surface.
  • The frame forms a lining to guide and protect cabling.
  • At least one sealing member mounted in the frame.
  • The sealing member comprises "a large plurality of filamentary elements" anchored in a cantilever fashion to form a "substantial air seal."
  • The filamentary elements are "individually flexibly displaceable" at their outer ends to accommodate cabling.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE41,863 E: Toolless, Self Closing Floor Grommet Closure For Cable Openings And the Like In Raised Floors Of Data Centers Office Buildings And Other Air Conditioned Structures (Issued Oct. 26, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a reissue of the ’999 Patent, the ’863 Reissued Patent addresses the identical technical problem of uncontrolled airflow and pressure loss through cable openings in the raised floors of data centers (Compl. ¶8; ’863 Patent, col. 2:5-20).
• The Patented Solution: The solution remains a floor grommet assembly featuring flexible, filamentary sealing elements that substantially block airflow while allowing for the passage of cables (’863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-61). The claims of a reissue patent supersede those of the original patent upon issuance.
• Technical Importance: The technical and market importance is identical to that described for the ’999 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims. Independent Claim 1 of the reissue is representative.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A frame to be received in a cable opening separate from air directing openings.
  • The frame defines a frame opening and forms a lining for cabling.
  • At least one sealing member comprising a "large plurality of filamentary elements" anchored in cantilever fashion to form a "substantial air seal."
  • The filamentary elements are flexibly displaceable to accommodate cabling.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are identified as "brush seal closure for raised computer floor cable entrance products," including "grommets and cable cut-outs" (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are manufactured, marketed, and sold for sealing cable openings in raised computer floors (Compl. ¶¶4, 14). The complaint provides no specific details on the technical operation or construction of the accused products. It alleges that Defendant is a competitor and sells the accused products to Plaintiff's potential customers (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping any accused product feature to any specific claim limitation. The infringement theory is stated in a conclusory manner, alleging that Defendant's "brush seal closure" products infringe "one or more claims of the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on a limitation-by-limitation basis.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Given the generic nature of the allegations, a central dispute will be whether the accused products meet every element of an asserted claim. For example, do the accused products feature sealing members anchored in a "cantilever fashion" as described in the patents, or do they employ a different mounting structure?
  • Technical Questions: The primary technical question will be evidentiary. What proof will be offered to demonstrate that the accused "brush seal" performs the specific function required by the claims, such as forming a "substantial air seal"? The degree of sealing effectiveness provided by the accused products compared to the requirements of the claims will be a key factual issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a large plurality of filamentary elements" (’863 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the sealing mechanism. Its construction is critical because it determines the required density and character of the bristles in an infringing device. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused product's bristles are sufficiently numerous or "filamentary" in nature to fall within the claim's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the elements can be formed from various materials, including "nylon, polypropylene or natural horsehair," which may support a broader definition of "filamentary" (’999 Patent, col. 2:55-56). "Plurality" simply means two or more.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes preferred embodiments with bristles of "10-20 mils" thickness that are "closely packed to a thickness of around one-fourth inch" (’999 Patent, col. 3:62-65). A party could argue these details inform a narrower construction of what constitutes a "large" plurality.

• The Term: "substantial air seal" (’863 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term of degree is central to the invention's stated purpose of solving the air loss problem. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on the level of sealing performance required to be "substantial."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "substantial" should be understood relative to a completely unsealed opening, meaning any non-trivial reduction in airflow could meet the limitation (’999 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background quantifies the problem as a pressure drop from a "desired 0.10" of water . . . to as little as 0.01"" (’999 Patent, col. 2:1-4). A party could argue that a "substantial" seal must be effective enough to prevent this specified degree of pressure loss, implying a high performance standard.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of active inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶24). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as the provision of instructions to end-users or the sale of a component lacking substantial non-infringing uses.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the claim that Defendant "has continuously manufactured, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported" the accused products "[d]espite receiving notice of its infringing activities" (Compl. ¶¶16, 26). This allegation of pre-suit notice forms the primary factual basis for the willfulness claim.

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

1. A threshold issue will be one of procedural scope and timing: The complaint asserts both an original patent and its reissue, which formally issued thirteen days after the suit was filed. This will raise complex legal questions for the court regarding which claims were properly asserted at the outset of the case, the applicable period for damages, and the potential availability of an intervening rights defense for the Defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 252.

2. A central issue will be one of definitional and evidentiary proof: As the complaint lacks specific infringement allegations, the case will likely turn on the construction of key claim terms of degree, such as "substantial air seal." A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient technical evidence to prove that the accused "brush seal" products function in the specific manner required to meet this and all other limitations of the asserted claims.