DCT

1:05-cv-00225

E I Products Inc v. Albertson's Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:05-cv-00225, W.D. Tex., 03/28/2005
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the Plaintiff's place of business in the district and on each Defendant having committed acts within the district, including making sales and providing customer support.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ night lights and display shelves infringe a utility patent and a design patent related to low-profile, electroluminescent night lights.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical and electrical construction of plug-in night lights, specifically methods to achieve a thin, low-profile form factor using electroluminescent panels.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit were originally assigned to Austin Innovations, Inc. On July 27, 2004, they were acquired by George Kasee and subsequently assigned on the same day to the Plaintiff, E I Products, Inc.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1993-01-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. Des. D352,564
1994-07-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,662,408
1994-11-15 U.S. Patent No. Des. 352,564 Issued
1997-09-02 U.S. Patent No. 5,662,408 Issued
2004-07-27 Both patents assigned from Austin Innovations to George Kasee
2004-07-27 Both patents assigned from George Kasee to E I Products, Inc.
2005-03-28 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 5,662,408, “Simple Plug in Night Light Having a Low Profile,” issued Sep. 2, 1997

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art low-profile night lights were often expensive to manufacture. Alternatives using small incandescent lamps were "inherently hot," necessitating larger, well-ventilated cases that defeated the goal of a low profile (’408 Patent, col. 1:22-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a night light constructed from a two-part case (front and rear) that holds an electroluminescent lamp panel. The innovation lies in the method of securing the electrical blades. The blades are held in place by a combination of forces: they pass through a slot in the rear case, have a portion that engages the interior of the front case, and have a third portion that is compressed between the interior faces of the front and rear case halves when assembled. This compression fit simultaneously secures the blades and presses the lamp's conductors against them, enabling a simple, inexpensive, and very thin assembly ('408 Patent, col. 2:62-col. 3:34, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The design allows for a "simply constructed, low-profile night light" by avoiding complex or heat-sensitive assembly methods ('408 Patent, col. 1:36-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the claims of the patent generally, with independent claim 1 being representative (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • a case having a front side and a rear side, with the front side having a portion defining a window
    • a lamp covering the window and secured between the interior faces of the case
    • a first and second blade in electrical contact with the lamp conductors, where at least one blade has a first portion extending from the rear of the case to engage an electrical outlet
    • a specific three-part securing mechanism for at least one blade, wherein it is secured (1) by the first portion being held in a slot in the rear case, (2) by a second blade portion engaging the interior face of the front case, and (3) by a third blade portion engaging the interior face of the rear case and being compressed between the front and rear sides.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. Des. 352,564, “Electroluminescent Night Light,” issued Nov. 15, 1994

  • Technology Synopsis: This is a design patent that does not claim a technical function but rather the ornamental appearance of a night light. The claimed design consists of a thin, rectangular housing with a beveled frame surrounding a central, rectangular light-emitting surface. Two electrical prongs extend from the rear (’564 Patent, Figs. 1-4).
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants Amertac and Sylvania make and sell "display shelves which embody and employ the ornamental design" of the patent (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses "night lights" of infringing the ’408 Patent (Compl. ¶14). It separately accuses "display shelves" made and sold by Defendants Amertac and Sylvania of infringing the ’564 Patent (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide any specific model numbers, product descriptions, photographs, or technical details about the accused "night lights" or "display shelves." It makes only a general allegation that all Defendants make and sell the infringing night lights and that two of the Defendants make and sell the infringing display shelves (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only high-level, conclusory allegations of infringement without reference to claim charts or specific product features.

For the ’408 Patent, the complaint alleges that all Defendants "are willfully, wantonly and deliberately infringing said United States Patent No. 5,662,408 by making and selling night lights that embody and employ the inventions defined by the claims" (Compl. ¶14).

For the ’564 Patent, the complaint alleges that Defendants Amertac and Sylvania "are willfully, wantonly and deliberately infringing said United States Patent No. Des. 352,564 by making and selling display shelves which embody and employ the ornamental design defined by the claim" (Compl. ¶15).

Due to the lack of specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question (’408 Patent): A primary question will be whether the accused "night lights" incorporate the specific three-part blade-securing mechanism recited in independent claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence regarding the internal construction of the accused products, which is absent from the complaint.
  • Scope and Factual Question (’564 Patent): The allegation that "display shelves" infringe a patent for the ornamental design of a "night light" raises an immediate question of fact and scope. The court will first need to determine what the accused "display shelves" are and whether they are the same class of article as a night light. The infringement test will then turn on whether an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design shown in the ’564 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis is based on independent claim 1 of the ’408 Patent.

The Term

  • "...secured to the case first by the first blade portion being held in a slot through the rear side of the case, and second by a second blade portion extending from the first blade portion and engaging the interior face of the front side of the case, and third by a third blade portion...engaging the interior face of the rear side of the case and being compressed between the front and rear sides of the case."

Context and Importance

  • This limitation describes the core mechanical structure that allegedly enables the simple, low-profile design. The entire infringement case for the ’408 Patent may depend on whether the internal construction of the accused products meets this multi-part definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it contains the patent's primary point of novelty over the prior art.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that terms like "engaging" and "compressed" should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, requiring only general contact and pressure between the specified components, without being limited to the exact shapes shown in the patent's figures.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim language must be read in light of the specification's detailed description and figures. The patent repeatedly describes a specific geometry where protrusions on the front case (24, 26, 28) interact with the blade portions to hold them securely within slots (30, 32) when the case is joined ('408 Patent, col. 3:19-34; Figs. 3, 4, 7). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific interlocking or compression-fit structure, not just general contact.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants acted with "full knowledge" of the patents and that "Defendants were given notice of their acts of infringement" prior to the lawsuit being filed (Compl. ¶¶14-16). This allegation of pre-suit notice forms the primary basis for the claim of willful infringement and the request for enhanced damages.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A Core Evidentiary Question: The complaint's lack of technical detail raises a fundamental evidentiary question: what evidence will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the internal mechanics of the accused night lights practice the specific, multi-part blade-securing structure claimed in the ’408 Patent?
  2. A Threshold Factual Dispute: For the design patent claim, the case presents a threshold factual dispute regarding the nature of the accused product. The court must first resolve the ambiguity arising from the allegation that "display shelves" (Compl. ¶15) infringe a design patent for an "electroluminescent night light."
  3. The Basis for Willfulness: A key issue for damages will be the nature of the pre-suit "notice" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶16). The timing, content, and specificity of this notice will be critical in determining whether Defendants' alleged infringement was willful.