DCT
3:22-cv-02602
Luraco Health & Beauty LLC v. Luong
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Luraco Health & Beauty, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Christopher Lac Luong, Sam Nguyen, Lexor Inc, Lexor Store, LLC, Lexor Manufacturing, LLC, Pro Spa Depot, LLC, and Ecojet Inc.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Norred Law, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-02602, N.D. Tex., 11/18/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the residence and business operations of the individual and corporate defendants within the Northern District of Texas, as well as the sale of allegedly infringing products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ pedicure spa pump products infringe two patents related to the construction of magnetically coupled jet assemblies, including features for reducing friction and for stable mounting.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns magnetically coupled, or "pipeless," water jets for pedicure spas, which are designed to improve sanitation and reliability over traditional pump systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this suit is related to a prior case (3:18-CV-01933-S) and a concurrently filed case involving some of the same parties and other patents. Plaintiff notes its intent to move to join the cases. The complaint also references a prior Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complaint filed by the Plaintiff to prevent importation of allegedly infringing products, and alleges that Defendants were put on notice of the patents-in-suit through this prior litigation and via product marking.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-12-06 | ’071 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-02-05 | ’894 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-05-07 | ’894 Patent Issued |
| 2019-10-22 | ’071 Patent Issued |
| 2022-11-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,278,894 - "Jet assembly having a friction-reducing member," issued May 7, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in conventional spa pumps, where seals separating the water from the motor can wear out, leading to motor failure, and where traditional bearings are unsuitable for long-term operation in water containing salts, chemicals, and other debris (’894 Patent, col. 1:31-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a jet assembly for a magnetically coupled pump that eliminates the need for a direct motor shaft and traditional bearings. It features a magnetic impeller designed to rotate within a housing, supported by at least one "friction-reducing member" that prevents the rotating impeller from making direct, high-friction contact with the stationary housing, thereby increasing reliability and operational life (’894 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-13). Figure 1 shows an exploded view of the components, including the jet housing (120, 140), the magnetic impeller (170), and the friction-reducing members (150, 160) (’894 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to create a more durable and reliable "shaftless" and "bearingless" spa pump by minimizing wear-prone components like seals and traditional bearings (’894 Patent, col. 1:50-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1, 16, and 30 (Compl. ¶6).
- Claim 1 (Apparatus): An apparatus claim for a jet assembly comprising: (1) a jet assembly housing; (2) a magnetic impeller; (3) a mounting housing member for mounting to a basin wall; and (4) a pair of friction-reducing members positioned between the impeller and the housing.
- Claim 16 (System): A system claim for a fluid pump comprising: (1) a jet assembly with a housing, magnetic impeller, and a pair of friction-reducing members; (2) a motor assembly; and (3) a mounting housing member.
- Claim 30 (Method): A method claim for dispensing fluid using a jet assembly, comprising steps of providing the housing and impeller, securing friction-reducing members, and causing rotation of the impeller to dispense fluid.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-30, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶1, p. 7).
U.S. Patent No. 10,451,071 - "Fluid pump for dispensing a fluid to a setting or work environment," issued October 22, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for spa pumps that are easy to clean and compatible with disposable liners used for sanitation, which can interfere with traditional water sensors (’071 Patent, col. 1:35-49). It also notes that imperfect alignment in magnetic pumps can cause high vibration and noise (’071 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "combination jet assembly and mounting housing member" for a magnetic pump. It details specific structural arrangements, including a shaft assembly around which the impeller rotates, a bearing assembly, and a "locking unit" with interlocking portions on the jet assembly and mounting housing to prevent the jet from rotating during operation (’071 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-43). The complaint specifically notes that the ’071 patent covers both "shafted" and "shaftless" designs (Compl. ¶32).
- Technical Importance: The patent provides structural solutions intended to enhance the stability and sanitary operation of magnetically coupled spa jets, particularly in commercial environments where disposable liners are common.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 26 (Compl. ¶36).
- Claim 1 (Apparatus - Shafted): A combination apparatus comprising: (1) a jet assembly with a bearing assembly, a shaft assembly, a housing, and an impeller; (2) a mounting housing member; and (3) a locking unit to prevent rotation.
- Claim 10 (Apparatus - Shafted): A combination apparatus similar to claim 1, further specifying a shaft protection member.
- Claim 19 (Apparatus - Shaftless): A fluid pump comprising: (1) a jet assembly with a housing and an impeller (but no shaft assembly); (2) a mounting housing member; and (3) a locking unit, with specific geometric constraints on the impeller and inlet aperture.
- Claim 26 (System - Shaftless): A spa tub comprising a basin and the magnetic fluid pump of claim 19.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert a broad range of claims covering both shafted and shaftless designs (Compl. ¶32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as the "Ecojet MD Wet End Set 3.0," "Ecojet MD Wet End Set 3.5," and "Lexor ECOJET MD WET END Magnetic Jet Head SET 3.0" (Compl. ¶¶24, 25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are components for pedicure spa water jets that operate using a magnetic drive (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges they are manufactured and sold by the various Defendant entities for use in the spa and salon industry (Compl. ¶¶18-23). The complaint provides a screenshot from a product listing for the "Ecojet Universal Wet End Set 3.5," showing the disassembled components of the jet (Compl. ¶24, p. 5). Critically, the complaint includes a visual from a YouTube video that explicitly distinguishes between Defendants' "Shaftless" and "With Shaft" product designs, which directly corresponds to the different technologies claimed in the two asserted patents (Compl. ¶26, p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’894 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A jet assembly of a magnetic coupling-type pump used for dispensing a fluid to an environment in manicure and pedicure industries | The Accused Product includes a jet assembly of a magnetic coupling-type pump used for dispensing a fluid to an environment in manicure and pedicure industries. | ¶7 | col. 13:10-13 |
| a jet assembly housing comprising an outer surface, a back cover, a front cover, an impeller-receiving chamber, at least one inlet aperture, and at least one outlet aperture | The Accused Products include an outer surface, a back cover, a front cover, an impeller-receiving chamber, at least one inlet aperture, and at least one outlet aperture. | ¶8 | col. 13:14-18 |
| said magnetic impeller comprising a front side, a rear side, a sidewall, an outer diameter, and at least one impeller arm member | The Accused Products include magnetic impellers comprising a front side, a rear side, a sidewall, an outer diameter, and at least one impeller arm member. | ¶11 | col. 13:31-34 |
| a mounting housing member comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, and a shoulder dimensioned and configured to mount to a wall of a basin... wherein said jet assembly is magnetically coupled to said top surface of said mounting housing member | The Accused Products include mounting housing members comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, and a shoulder configured to mount to a basin wall, and are magnetically coupled to the mounting housing member. | ¶12 | col. 13:35-41 |
| a pair of friction-reducing members, wherein a first... member... is secured to said inner surface of said back cover... and wherein a second... member... is positioned between said rear side of said magnetic impeller and said first... member | The Accused Products have a pair of friction reducing members, where the first is secured to the inner surface of the back cover and the second is positioned between the rear side of the impeller and the first. | ¶13 | col. 13:42-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint alleges the accused products have a "pair of friction-reducing members" that match the claim structure (Compl. ¶13). A key technical question will be whether the accused "shaftless" device, depicted in the complaint (Compl. ¶26, p. 6), actually operates using two distinct components that function as the claimed first and second friction-reducing members, or if it achieves a low-friction, shaftless rotation through a different mechanism not covered by the claim.
- Scope Question: Claim 1 requires the second friction-reducing member to be "positioned between said rear side of said magnetic impeller and said first friction-reducing member." The court may need to determine the scope of "positioned between" and whether the physical arrangement in the accused products meets this specific positional and functional limitation, as the complaint's allegation is conclusory.
’071 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a jet assembly comprising a bearing assembly, a shaft assembly, a jet assembly housing, and an impeller | The Accused Product includes a jet assembly comprising a bearing assembly, a shaft assembly, a jet assembly housing, and an impeller. | ¶38 | col. 15:21-23 |
| wherein said shaft member extends through an inner surface of said jet assembly housing | The Accused Products include a shaft member that extends through an inner surface of the jet assembly housing. | ¶39 | col. 15:26-28 |
| a mounting housing member comprising a top surface, and a bottom surface, dimensioned and configured to mount to a wall of a basin | The Accused Products include a mounting housing member comprising a top surface, and a bottom surface, dimensioned and configured to mount to a wall of a basin in the manicure and pedicure industries. | ¶42 | col. 15:40-43 |
| said locking unit comprising said first locking portion and said second locking portion for preventing rotation of said jet assembly housing during operation | The Accused Products include a locking unit comprising a first locking portion and a second locking portion for preventing rotation of the jet assembly housing during operation. | ¶44 | col. 15:50-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The complaint asserts infringement of claims covering both "shafted" (e.g., Claim 1) and "shaftless" (e.g., Claim 19) designs (Compl. ¶32). A primary issue will be mapping the features of Defendants' different product versions—explicitly identified as "With Shaft" and "Shaftless" in complaint evidence (Compl. ¶26, p. 6)—to the correct set of claims and determining if each element is met.
- Technical Question: For the shaftless claims (e.g., Claim 19), the complaint alleges that the accused products meet specific geometric limitations, such as the spacing between the impeller and inlet being "less than half of the outer diameter of the impeller" (Compl. ¶58). A central evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can prove, through measurement and testing, that the accused products actually satisfy these precise dimensional requirements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’894 Patent:
- The Term: "friction-reducing member" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the '894 patent's shaftless design. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the "shaftless" accused product will likely depend on whether its components fall within the court's construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the function as allowing the impeller to rotate and "preferably not make contact with an inner surface" of the housing, which may support a functional definition not tied to a specific material (’894 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly states that at least one of the friction-reducing members is "made or manufactured of a hard material, such as, but not limited to, ceramic, carbon, steel" (’894 Patent, col. 6:61-64). This could be used to argue for a narrower definition limited to specific types of hard, low-wear materials.
’071 Patent:
- The Term: "locking unit" (Claim 1, 19)
- Context and Importance: This feature addresses the problem of the jet housing rotating during use. Its construction is critical because infringement will depend on whether the mechanism used to attach the accused jet to the spa basin performs the same function in the same way as the claimed "locking unit."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the unit functionally as comprising a "first locking portion and a second locking portion for preventing rotation" (’071 Patent, col. 15:50-52). This could be argued to cover any pair of corresponding structures that interlock to prevent rotation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment where "knobs" on the jet assembly's feet engage with "holes or ports" on the mounting housing (’071 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 8:64-col. 9:4). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this specific "knob-and-hole" interlocking structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that by manufacturing, marketing, and selling the accused products, Defendants induce and contribute to infringement by end-users (e.g., salons) and distributors (Compl. ¶¶24, 32).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. The factual bases cited include Defendants' alleged direct copying of Plaintiff's product design after purchasing it, along with multiple forms of notice, including patent markings on Plaintiff's products, information on its website, a prior FTC complaint, and Plaintiff's attempt to add the patents-in-suit to earlier litigation between the parties (Compl. ¶¶IV.A.2-3; ¶IV.B.33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical operation and scope: For the '894 patent, can the "shaftless" accused product's mechanism for rotation be properly characterized as the claimed "pair of friction-reducing members," or does it function according to a different, non-infringing design?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of claim mapping: Given that the patents and accused products involve both "shafted" and "shaftless" designs, can the plaintiff demonstrate, on a claim-by-claim basis, that each limitation—including specific dimensional requirements in the '071 patent—is met by the corresponding accused product version?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness: Does the extensive history of competition and alleged notice detailed in the complaint demonstrate that any infringement by the defendants was willful, potentially exposing them to an award of enhanced damages?