1:23-cv-01542
EyeVac LLC v. Stylance Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EyeVac, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Stylance Inc. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Langley Law Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01542, W.D. Tex., 12/20/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district, and because the defendant has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s stationary vacuum cleaner product infringes a patent related to sensor-activated, automated vacuum systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves stationary, hands-free vacuum cleaners that automatically activate to suction debris swept towards them, a feature aimed at increasing convenience in the consumer and commercial cleaning markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement of the asserted patent on multiple occasions, to which Defendant allegedly failed to respond. This history forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
2003-03-14 | '872 Patent Priority Date |
2008-04-15 | '872 Patent Issue Date |
2023-12-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 the conventional process of sweeping with a broom and dustpan as requiring "somewhat tortuous body movements and bends," such as twisting and leaning over, to collect refuse (ʼ872 Patent, col. 1:52-54). The stated goal is to automate these manual efforts, which require significant manpower and physical effort (ʼ872 Patent, col. 1:55-62).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a stationary vacuum system that sits on the floor and eliminates the need for a dustpan. The device operates in an "Auto" mode where a sensor, such as an infrared beam, is positioned near the vacuum inlet (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:23-28; Fig. 2). When a user sweeps debris toward the inlet, the debris interrupts the sensor, which signals a controller to automatically power on the vacuum motor for a predetermined interval to suction the refuse into a canister (ʼ872 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:28-41).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to simplify the cleaning process by automating the final, and often most cumbersome, step of sweeping: collecting the gathered pile of debris (ʼ872 Patent, col. 1:55-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system) and 8 (method), as well as dependent claims 2-4 and 9-10 (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 1 (System): The essential elements are:
- A housing with an inlet that contacts the floor surface.
- A vacuum motor.
- A light source.
- A light sensor for sensing the light source.
- A controller that "selectively" controls the vacuum motor in response to an "event near the surface," where the event includes the "interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor."
- Independent Claim 8 (Method): The essential steps are:
- Providing a light sensor and a light source to a vacuum device.
- Positioning the device on a surface.
- "Sensing an external event" adjacent to the surface.
- "Controlling power" to the device for vacuum operations "based on the step of sensing."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is identified as the "ELECTRICAL/Vacuum Hair Dustbin/Ref.:VA001A-BK" (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a "stationary vacuum product... that sits on a surface, such as a floor" (Compl. ¶17). Its allegedly infringing functionality includes having a housing, an inlet that contacts the surface, a vacuum motor, a light source, a light sensor, and a controller that activates the motor "in response to interruption of the light source to the light sensor" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges the product is made, used, sold, or imported into the United States but provides no further detail on its market position or commercial importance (Compl. ¶17, ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
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 product includes a housing with an inlet and outlet, and the inlet contacts the surface. | ¶17 | col. 3:10-24 |
a vacuum motor connected to the inlet and the outlet of the housing | The product includes a vacuum motor connected to the inlet and outlet. | ¶17 | col. 3:12-13 |
a light source connected to the housing | The product includes a light source connected to the housing. | ¶17 | col. 6:5-10 |
a light sensor connected to the housing for sensing the light source | The product includes a light sensor connected to the housing to sense the light. | ¶17 | col. 6:5-10 |
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 product includes a controller that controls the vacuum motor in response to interruption of the light source to the light sensor. | ¶17 | col. 4:6-11 |
'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 method includes providing a light sensor to the vacuum product. | ¶19 | col. 6:5-10 |
providing a light source to the vacuum device, the light source visible to the light sensor if not interrupted | The method includes providing a light source to the vacuum product, which is visible to the sensor if not interrupted. | ¶19 | col. 6:5-10 |
positioning the vacuum device on a surface to be vacuumed by the vacuum device | The method includes positioning the vacuum product on a surface. | ¶19 | col. 3:25-28 |
sensing an external event to the vacuum device, the external event adjacent the surface for vacuuming by the vacuum device | The method includes sensing an external event adjacent to the surface, specifically the interruption of the light source. | ¶19 | col. 4:28-33 |
controlling power to the vacuum device, for vacuum operations by the vacuum device, based on the step of sensing | The method includes controlling power to the vacuum based on sensing of the light source by the light sensor. | ¶19 | col. 4:23-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by mapping claim elements to product features in a conclusory fashion (Compl. ¶17, ¶19). A central question will be what evidence supports the assertion that the accused product's internal components and software logic perform in the manner required by the claims. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused "controller" activates the motor "in response to" the sensor interruption, as opposed to operating on a different or more generalized logic?
- Scope Questions: The claims use broad terms like "event near the surface" (Claim 1) and "external event" (Claim 8). This raises the question of whether the specific triggering mechanism in the accused product, which the complaint alleges is an "interruption of the light source" (Compl. ¶17), falls within the scope of these terms as understood in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "selectively controlling" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the functional relationship between the controller, the sensor, and the motor. The infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused device's control system performs the specific type of "selective" control mandated by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could either broaden the claim to cover various automatic control schemes or narrow it to the specific modes described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system with distinct operational modes, including "Man" (manual), "Off," and "Auto" (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:12-23). A party could argue "selectively controlling" refers to the controller's ability to operate according to a selected mode.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the "Auto" mode states that the system "powers on and off the vacuum blower based on detections of the sensor 112" (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:25-28). A party could argue this language limits "selectively controlling" to a specific logic that directly links motor activation to sensor detection events.
The Term: "event near the surface" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the automated vacuum function. Its scope is central to determining infringement, as it must read on the specific action that activates the accused device.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself states the event "includ[es] interruption of sensing of the light source by the light sensor," and the specification describes the trigger as "a triggering event, such as motion at or near the sensor 112 or lack of motion thereat" (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:7-9; col. 10:21-25). This language suggests the term could cover a wide range of detectable occurrences.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and Figure 1 frame the invention as a solution for collecting swept refuse (ʼ872 Patent, col. 1:43-54; Fig. 1, showing refuse "A"). A party might argue that the "event" must be construed in this context, limiting it to events indicative of a user sweeping debris toward the inlet, rather than any incidental motion.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect infringement by contributory infringement and/or inducement (Compl. ¶20). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as referencing user manuals or other instructions that would encourage infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff notified Defendant of infringement on "multiple occasions" prior to filing the lawsuit and that Defendant "has had knowledge of the ʼ872 Patent, and has not ceased its infringing activities" (Compl. ¶11, ¶21-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the broad term "event near the surface," which is rooted in the patent's context of automating a dustpan, be construed to cover the specific activation mechanism of the accused stationary vacuum, or will the court narrow its meaning based on the specification's embodiments?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: The complaint provides a high-level, element-by-element map of the claims to the accused product. The case will likely turn on technical evidence that proves—or disproves—that the accused product's sensor and controller logic performs the specific function of "selectively controlling the vacuum motor in response to an event" in the precise manner required by the claims.