DCT
6:18-cv-00267
AMG Products v. Dirt Cheap LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AMG Products, Inc. d/b/a AMG Development (Nevada) and Paul Smith (Maine)
- Defendant: Walgreen Co. (Delaware), Dirt Cheap LLC (doing business in Mississippi), Channel Control Merchants of Texas, LLC (Texas), and Fry's Electronics (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Findlay Craft, P.C.
- Case Identification: AMG Products, Inc. v. Walgreen Co., 6:18-cv-00267, E.D. Tex., 01/18/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants have regular and established physical places of business (retail stores) in the Eastern District of Texas and have sold the accused product in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ “Atomic Beam Glove” product infringes a patent related to an illuminated hand cover assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable illumination devices, specifically gloves with integrated lights designed to illuminate tasks performed by the user's hands in low-light environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent’s originally filed claims were allowed without any amendment to overcome prior art, which may suggest a reduced likelihood of claim scope limitations arising from prosecution history estoppel.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-06-04 | ’289 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-06-07 | ’289 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-02-01 | Plaintiff allegedly discovered the accused product (approximate date) |
| 2019-01-18 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,902,289 - “ILLUMINATED HAND COVER ASSEMBLY,” Issued June 7, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a flaw in prior art lighted gloves where light sources mounted on the top (dorsal surface) of a finger are obstructed by the user's own knuckles when the finger is bent, casting the fingertips and any object being grasped into shadow (’289 Patent, col. 1:45-57). This makes it difficult to locate and manipulate small objects in darkness (’289 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by moving the light source from the top of the finger to the "lateral side" of the finger portion of the glove. This new position directs the light’s illumination axis toward the palmar (palm-side) surface of the fingertip, ensuring the work area remains lit even when grasping an object (’289 Patent, col. 4:35-47; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to provide more reliable and effective illumination for close-work tasks by overcoming the line-of-sight obstruction inherent in previous top-mounted wearable light designs (’289 Patent, col. 2:8-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An illuminated hand cover assembly comprising:
- (a) a hand cover including an index finger portion, the index finger portion adapted to cover at least a portion of a user's index finger when the hand cover is donned; and
- (b) a first light source having a first light emission area coupled to a lateral side of the index finger portion such that the first light emission area is disposed adjacent a lateral side of the middle phalanx bone of the index finger of the user when the hand cover is donned.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims under the patent (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the “Atomic Beam Glove” (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The product is marketed as a “Hands-Free Light” in the form of a glove that fits on a user’s hand (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides visual evidence showing it is a fingerless-style glove covering the thumb and index finger, with LED lights mounted on top of the glove near the knuckles (Compl. ¶13; p. 5). The complaint alleges the product is a "copycat" of Plaintiffs' "Glovelite" product and is sold by Defendants in retail stores, including in the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. ¶14-16). The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of the "Glovelite" and the accused "Atomic Beam" products from both a backhand and palm view (Compl. ¶13; p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’289 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a hand cover including an index finger portion, the index finger portion adapted to cover at least a portion of a user's index finger when the hand cover is donned | The accused product is a glove, which is a hand cover. It has a portion that covers the user's index finger. An annotated image from the product packaging is used to identify this "Index Finger Portion." | ¶22 | col. 4:10-14 |
| a first light source having a first light emission area coupled to a lateral side of the index finger portion such that the first light emission area is disposed adjacent a lateral side of the middle phalanx bone of the index finger of the user when the hand cover is donned | The complaint alleges the product has a light source with a light emission area. It asserts this source is "coupled to the index finger portion." To support the "lateral side" limitation, the complaint includes an annotated photograph of a hand wearing the glove, with arrows indicating the "Lateral Side of Finger." | ¶22 | col. 4:18-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "lateral side." The complaint’s own photographs appear to show the light source of the accused product residing in a housing on the dorsal (top) surface of the glove, though potentially angled toward the side (Compl. p. 8). The case may turn on whether "coupled to a lateral side" can be construed to read on a light source mounted on the top of the glove but angled sideways, or if it requires the light source to be physically attached to the side wall of the finger portion, as depicted in the patent's figures (’289 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether the light emission area of the accused product is, in practice, "disposed adjacent a lateral side of the middle phalanx bone" when worn by a user. The complaint offers an annotated photograph to support this assertion (Compl. p. 9), but this determination will likely require expert testimony on anatomy and the product's construction and fit.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "lateral side"
- Context and Importance: The location of the light source is the key point of novelty described in the patent to overcome prior art. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 hinges entirely on whether the accused product's light placement meets the "lateral side" limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence suggests the accused light is not strictly on the side but on the dorsal-lateral aspect of the glove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent’s objective was to solve the "shadow effect" caused by purely dorsal lights (’289 Patent, col. 1:45-57). Therefore, any placement that is not purely dorsal and successfully directs light to the fingertips, away from the knuckle's shadow, could be considered "lateral" in a functional sense. The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures consistently depict the light source (114) as being distinctly on the side of the finger portion (112a), not on its top surface (’289 Patent, Fig. 2, Fig. 3). The specification repeatedly uses the phrase "coupled to a lateral side" (’289 Patent, col. 4:35-36, 4:54-55) when describing the preferred embodiment, suggesting a specific structural location rather than a general direction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants supply the product with instructions that lead customers to directly infringe Claim 1. The complaint provides an image from the product's instructions titled "HOW TO WEAR," which directs users to "Insert your thumb and index finder into the glove" and turn the light on, thereby assembling the claimed infringing system (Compl. ¶23-24; p. 13).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the Glovelite product, asserting the accused product is a "knock off, copy cat product" (Compl. ¶25). Continued sales after the filing of the original complaint are cited as a basis for ongoing willful infringement (Compl. ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Can the term “lateral side,” as defined by the patent’s text and figures, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused product’s light source, which is mounted in a housing that appears to sit on the dorsal-lateral surface of the glove rather than strictly on its side?
A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement in fact: Assuming a favorable claim construction for the Plaintiff, what evidence will demonstrate that the accused glove’s light emission area is actually “disposed adjacent a lateral side of the middle phalanx bone” when worn by a typical user, as required by the claim?