DCT
1:22-cv-00902
EyeVac LLC v. Stylance Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EyeVac, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Stylance Inc. (China) and VIP Barber Supply, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Firm of H. Dale Langley, Jr., P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00902, W.D. Tex., 09/08/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant Stylance, a foreign corporation, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). For Defendant VIP, venue is alleged based on its status as an "online only business" that delivers infringing products into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ stationary, sensor-activated vacuum products infringe a patent related to an automated electronic vacuum system.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns stationary, hands-free vacuum cleaners, often used in commercial settings like hair salons, which automatically activate to suction debris swept towards an inlet.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously notified Defendant Stylance of infringement of the asserted U.S. patent and a corresponding Chinese patent on "multiple occasions," but that Stylance failed to respond. This forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-14 | '872 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-04-15 | U.S. Patent No. 7,356,872 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,” issued April 15, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency and physical strain of conventional sweeping, where a person must manually use a broom and dustpan. This process requires "somewhat tortuous body movements and bends" to collect refuse after it has been swept into a pile (’872 Patent, col. 1:53-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a stationary vacuum system designed to eliminate the need for a dustpan. A user sweeps debris towards an inlet at the base of the unit (’872 Patent, Fig. 1). An optical sensor, such as an infrared beam, is positioned across the inlet (’872 Patent, col. 4:1-11). When swept debris interrupts the beam, a controller automatically activates the vacuum motor for a predetermined interval to suction the refuse into a canister within the housing (’872 Patent, col. 4:36-41). The system can operate in an automatic sensor-triggered mode or a manual push-button mode (’872 Patent, col. 4:12-23).
- Technical Importance: This approach automates the final collection step of sweeping, which the patent characterizes as requiring the "greatest manpower and most significant bodily capabilities and efforts" (’872 Patent, col. 2:60-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent claim 1 (System) and independent claim 8 (Method) are asserted.
- Claim 1 (System) requires:
- A housing with an inlet and outlet, where the inlet contacts the surface.
- A vacuum motor.
- A light source connected to the housing.
- A light sensor connected to the housing for sensing the light source.
- A controller to selectively control the motor in response to an "event near the surface," which includes the "interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor."
- Claim 8 (Method) requires:
- Providing a light sensor and a light source to a vacuum device.
- Positioning the vacuum device on a surface.
- Sensing an "external event" adjacent the surface.
- Controlling power to the vacuum device based on the sensing step.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as the "ELECTRICAL/Vacuum Hair Dustbin/Ref.:VA001A-BK" sold by Defendant Stylance and the "Clean All Professional Hair Vacuum SKU FSC-723" sold by Defendant VIP (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as stationary vacuums that "sit on a surface, such as a floor" (Compl. ¶19). They are alleged to operate by having a user sweep refuse to an inlet, where an interruption of a light source by the refuse triggers a controller to activate a vacuum motor. The complaint states that Defendant Stylance's infringing product is shown and described in Exhibit B (Compl. ¶19). The complaint further states that Defendant VIP's infringing product is shown and described in Exhibit C (Compl. ¶19). These products are marketed for use in settings such as hair salons for sweeping up hair clippings.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’872 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1 - System)
| 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, and the inlet contacts a surface, such as a floor (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 10:11-15 |
| a vacuum motor connected to the inlet and the outlet of the housing | The products include a vacuum motor connected to the inlet and outlet (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 10:16-17 |
| a light source connected to the housing | The products include a light source connected to the housing (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 10:18-19 |
| a light sensor connected to the housing for sensing the light source | The products include a light sensor connected to the housing to sense the light (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 10:20-21 |
| a controller, connected to the vacuum motor, for selectively controlling the vacuum motor in response to an event near the surface... | The products include a controller that controls the vacuum motor (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 10:22-24 |
| ...the event including interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor | The controller operates "in response to interruption of the light source to the light sensor" (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 10:25-27 |
- ’872 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 8 - Method)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a light sensor to the vacuum device; | The accused method includes "providing a light sensor to the vacuum product" (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 11:2 |
| providing a light source to the vacuum device, the light source visible to the light sensor if not interrupted; | The accused method includes "providing a light source to the vacuum product, which light source is visible to the light sensor if not interrupted" (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 11:3-5 |
| positioning the vacuum device on a surface to be vacuumed by the vacuum device; | The accused method includes "positioning the vacuum product on a surface" (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 11:6-7 |
| sensing an external event to the vacuum device, the external event adjacent the surface for vacuuming...; and | The accused method includes "sensing an external event to the vacuum device adjacent the surface" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint references Exhibit D, which it states shows and describes the infringing method of Defendant Stylance's product (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 11:8-10 |
| controlling power to the vacuum device, for vacuum operations by the vacuum device, based on the step of sensing. | The accused method includes "controlling power to the vacuum based on sensing of the light source by the light sensor" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint references Exhibit E, which it states shows and describes the infringing method of Defendant VIP's product (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 11:11-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the controller to respond to "an event near the surface." Claim 8 requires "sensing an external event... adjacent the surface." The case may turn on whether the sweeping of debris (e.g., hair) towards the sensor constitutes an "event" as contemplated by the patent, which describes the sensor detecting a "triggering event, such as motion at or near the sensor" (’872 Patent, col. 4:7-9).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' sensors and controllers function as claimed? The allegations are based on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶19, ¶21), and the infringement analysis will depend on evidence regarding the specific triggering logic and operation of the accused controller and sensor components.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "event near the surface" (Claim 1) / "external event... adjacent the surface" (Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: The definition of "event" is critical to infringement. The dispute will likely center on whether the passive act of refuse (e.g., hair, dust) breaking the sensor's light beam constitutes the claimed "event," or if the term requires a more active "motion" as described in the specification. Defendants may argue that the "event" is the motion of the broom or other object, not the static presence of refuse.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of Claim 1 itself defines the event as including "interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor" (’872 Patent, col. 10:25-27), which could support a reading where any interruption, regardless of cause, qualifies as the "event."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly links the sensor to detecting "motion." For example, it states the sensor "detects a triggering event, such as motion at or near the sensor" and that "Any motion optically detected by the sensor 112 triggers the electrical components" (’872 Patent, col. 4:7-9, col. 4:29-30). This could support a narrower construction requiring the detection of movement, not just the presence of an object.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of "indirect infringement" (contributory and inducement) but does not plead specific facts, such as identifying user manuals or advertising that instruct or encourage infringing use (Compl. ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff provided "multiple" notices of infringement of the ’872 Patent to Defendant Stylance, which Stylance allegedly ignored (Compl. ¶13, ¶14, ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "event", which the specification links to "motion," be construed to cover the static presence of swept debris that interrupts a light beam, as is the alleged mode of operation for the accused products?
- A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be the content and timing of the alleged "multiple" pre-suit notices sent to Defendant Stylance, and whether Plaintiff can establish that these notices provided specific and sufficient information to create a risk of infringement that was consciously disregarded.
- A central question for indirect infringement will be whether Plaintiff can develop evidence showing Defendants took active steps, beyond merely selling the products, to specifically encourage or instruct end-users (e.g., salon owners) to operate the vacuums in a manner that directly infringes the method claims.