DCT
1:22-cv-00901
EyeVac LLC v. Stylance Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EyeVac, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Stylance Inc. (China) and Colony Brands, Inc. d/b/a Montgomery Ward (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Firm of H. Dale Langley, Jr., P.C.
- Case Identification: EyeVac, LLC v. Stylance Inc., 1:22-cv-00901, W.D. Tex., 09/08/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Stylance is a foreign corporation that can be sued in any district, and Defendant Montgomery Ward is an online business that sells, delivers, and stores the accused infringing products within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ touchless, stationary vacuum products infringe a patent related to sensor-activated vacuum systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated cleaning devices, specifically stationary vacuums that activate via a proximity sensor to collect swept debris, aiming to eliminate the manual use of a dustpan.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously notified Defendant Stylance of its infringement of the patent-in-suit on multiple occasions prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-14 | ’872 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-04-15 | ’872 Patent Issued |
| 2022-09-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,356,872 - Automated Electronic Vacuum System and Method
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,356,872, Automated Electronic Vacuum System and Method, issued April 15, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional sweeping as a process requiring a human to handle a broom and dustpan, which involves "somewhat tortuous body movements and bends" to collect refuse after it has been gathered. (U.S. Patent No. 7,356,872, col. 1:43-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a stationary electronic vacuum device designed to replace the dustpan. A user sweeps debris toward the device's inlet, and a sensor (e.g., an infrared beam) detects the refuse or the sweeping motion. This detection event triggers a controller to automatically power on the vacuum motor for a set interval, suctioning the debris into a collection canister. (’872 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6-11, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention sought to automate the final collection step of sweeping, reducing the manual labor and physical strain associated with using a traditional dustpan. (’872 Patent, col. 1:55-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8, and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10. (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
- A system for vacuuming a refuse resident on a surface
- a housing, having an inlet and an outlet
- a vacuum motor connected to the inlet and the outlet
- a light source connected to the housing
- a light sensor connected to the housing for sensing the light source
- a controller, connected to the vacuum motor, for selectively controlling the vacuum motor in response to an event near the surface, the event including interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor
- Independent Claim 8 (Method Claim):
- A method of automated operation of a vacuum device, comprising the steps of:
- providing a light sensor to the vacuum device
- providing a light source to the vacuum device, the light source visible to the light sensor if not interrupted
- positioning the vacuum device on a surface to be vacuumed
- sensing an external event to the vacuum device, the external event adjacent the surface
- controlling power to the vacuum device...based on the step of sensing
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are stationary vacuums identified as the "ELECTRICAL/Vacuum Hair Dustbin/Ref.:VA001A-BK" (sold by Stylance) and the "Montgomery Ward Touchless Vacuum Item #: SW792850" (sold by MWard). (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are stationary vacuum products that "sit on a surface, such as a floor." (Compl. ¶19). Their accused functionality involves using a light source and a light sensor to detect an "interruption" or an "external event" near the device, which in turn causes a controller to activate a vacuum motor to suction in nearby debris. (Compl. ¶¶19, 21). The complaint alleges Defendants make, use, sell, and import these products in the United States. (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’872 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing, having an inlet and an outlet, the inlet of the housing contacting the surface when the system is in use for vacuuming | The accused products include a housing with an inlet and outlet, where the inlet contacts the floor surface. | ¶19 | col. 3:12-24 |
| a vacuum motor connected to the inlet and the outlet of the housing | The accused products contain a vacuum motor connected to the inlet and outlet. | ¶19 | col. 3:12-14 |
| a light source connected to the housing | The accused products include a light source connected to the housing. | ¶19 | col. 4:2-3 |
| a light sensor connected to the housing for sensing the light source | The accused products include a light sensor connected to the housing to sense the light. | ¶19 | col. 4:2-6 |
| a controller, connected to the vacuum motor, for selectively controlling the vacuum motor in response to an event near the surface, the event including interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor | The accused products include a controller that controls the vacuum motor in response to an interruption of the light source by the light sensor. | ¶19 | col. 4:51-54 |
’872 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 8)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a light sensor to the vacuum device | The accused products are provided with a light sensor. | ¶21 | col. 4:2-3 |
| providing a light source to the vacuum device, the light source visible to the light sensor if not interrupted | The accused products are provided with a light source that is visible to the sensor if not interrupted. | ¶21 | col. 4:6-9 |
| positioning the vacuum device on a surface to be vacuumed by the vacuum device | The accused products are positioned on a surface, such as a floor, for operation. | ¶21 | col. 3:25-27 |
| sensing an external event to the vacuum device, the external event adjacent the surface for vacuuming by the vacuum device | The accused products sense an external event adjacent to the surface. | ¶21 | col. 4:6-9 |
| controlling power to the vacuum device, for vacuum operations by the vacuum device, based on the step of sensing | The accused products control power to the vacuum based on the sensing of the light source by the light sensor. | ¶21 | col. 4:51-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products' sensor and controller systems operate in the manner required by the claims. The complaint's allegations are made "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶19), and discovery will be needed to determine the precise mechanism of the accused controller and whether it responds to an "interruption of sensing of the light source" as claimed, versus some other trigger.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may examine the scope of "interruption of sensing of the light source." The claim language itself defines the "event" with this limitation, which raises the question of whether other types of proximity detection (e.g., general motion sensing not tied to a specific light source interruption) would fall outside the claim scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "an event near the surface, the event including interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the claimed automated function and is central to the infringement analysis. The definition of what constitutes a qualifying "event" and "interruption" will determine whether the accused products' activation mechanism meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether the term is limited to a specific type of line-of-sight beam break or can cover broader forms of sensor-based detection.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the sensor detecting a "triggering event, such as motion at or near the sensor" ( ’872 Patent, col. 4:7-9). This could suggest that "interruption" is an example of a triggering event, not the only possible one, although the claim language itself appears more restrictive.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly defines the "event" as "including interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor." This express definition within the claim body itself provides a strong argument for a narrower construction limited to scenarios where a specific light source's detection by a specific sensor is blocked. The specification supports this by describing an infrared beam passing from an IR LED to a photosensor, which is "interrupted (e.g., whenever refuse or a broom straw break the beam)." (’872 Patent, col. 5:19-21).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶22). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendants' instructions or manuals direct users to perform the infringing method steps.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the ’872 Patent. (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is factually supported by the claim that Plaintiff "previously notified Defendant Stylance...on multiple occasions of infringement" before filing the lawsuit. (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two primary questions:
A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: How will the court construe the term "an event...including interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor"? The case may turn on whether this requires a direct line-of-sight beam break, as detailed in the patent's embodiment, or if it can be read more broadly to cover other sensor activation methods that the accused products might employ.
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: What evidence, once obtained through discovery, will demonstrate the precise operating principles of the accused products' sensor and controller? The Plaintiff must prove that the accused devices technically perform each step of the asserted claims, particularly showing that their activation is based on the specific type of "interruption" required by the patent.