DCT

1:21-cv-00657

Advanced Cartridge Tech LLC v. Mark Collier

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-10-18 U.S. Patent 8,690,374 Priority Date
2014-04-08 U.S. Patent 8,690,374 Issue Date
2022-04-21 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,690,374 - Underwater light having a faceted water-cooled thermally conductive housing

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,690,374, Underwater light having a faceted water-cooled thermally conductive housing, issued April 8, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes two problems with prior art underwater lights. First, high-intensity LEDs generate significant concentrated heat that can damage the components and shorten their lifespan if not properly dissipated. Second, many existing lights emit a narrow beam, which is less effective for illuminating a large area in shallow water to attract marine life (’374 Patent, col. 1:36-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a housing made from a thermally conductive material that features an internal chamber through which surrounding water can flow. This internal water flow directly cools the housing, which in turn draws heat away from the LEDs mounted on its surfaces (’374 Patent, col. 4:30-44). The housing also features multiple angled or "faceted" surfaces for mounting the LEDs, which directs light outward as well as upward to create a larger-diameter illumination area (’374 Patent, col. 2:11-15).
  • Technical Importance: This design approach is intended to allow the LEDs to be "safely overdriven," producing a brighter light than they were originally designed for without being damaged by excess heat (’374 Patent, col. 2:32-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements:
    • A transparent cover attached to a housing.
    • The housing comprises a chamber with a wall in contact with surrounding water and made of a thermally conductive material.
    • The housing has at least one supporting surface for a light emitting unit, positioned on a side of the wall opposite the water contact and at an angle (0-85 degrees) to the light's central axis.
    • The supporting surface is in thermal contact with the light emitting unit.
    • The chamber has an aperture to receive surrounding water.
  • Independent Claim 5 Essential Elements:
    • A light fixture housing comprising a chamber with at least one wall.
    • The wall has a first side in contact with water and an opposite second side.
    • A supporting surface is formed on the second side of the wall.
    • At least one light emitting unit is supported by the supporting surface.
    • The first side of the wall is in thermal communication with the light emitting unit, allowing heat transfer from the light unit, through the wall, and into the water within the chamber.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are "underwater fishing lights identified as 'Green Blob'" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are underwater lights that Defendants have "made, used, sold, and offered for sale" in the United States (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide any specific technical description of the accused products' design, construction, or method of operation, instead referring to a website for general details (Compl. ¶12). No allegations regarding the products' specific market position are made beyond their sale.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit B) purporting to detail the infringement of claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶16). However, this exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that the "Green Blob" underwater fishing lights directly infringe at least claims 1 and 5 of the ’374 Patent (Compl. ¶16). The pleading does not contain specific factual allegations mapping elements of the accused products to the limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement theory rests entirely on the assertion that the accused lights practice the claims, with the details presumably contained in the unattached exhibit.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the interpretation of the patent's architectural elements. The case may raise the question of whether the accused product's housing possesses a structure that meets the definition of a "chamber" with a "wall" having an inner and outer surface as recited in the claims, or if it uses a different configuration for cooling.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be whether the accused "Green Blob" light actually utilizes an internal, flow-through water-cooling mechanism as required by the claims. The complaint does not provide evidence, such as from a product teardown, to demonstrate that the accused device transfers heat from its LEDs through a conductive wall into water flowing within an internal chamber.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "chamber"

    • Context and Importance: The structure and function of the "chamber" are fundamental to the patent's water-cooling invention. Whether a generic void or cavity within the accused product constitutes the claimed "chamber" will be critical to the infringement analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "chamber," which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning as any enclosed space.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the chamber (31) as a purpose-built structure with a water intake aperture (17) and an outlet aperture (18), configured to facilitate a flow of water for cooling (’374 Patent, col. 4:30-40, Fig. 4). This may support a narrower construction requiring a structure specifically designed for water flow-through, not just an incidental cavity.

  • The Term: "supporting surface on an opposite side of said wall"

    • Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 defines the physical relationship between the cooling mechanism (the water-contacting wall) and the light source (the supporting surface). Infringement will depend on whether the accused product has this specific spatial and structural arrangement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language covers any configuration where the LEDs are mounted on a surface that is not the same surface directly touching the internal water flow.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description show a distinct, physical wall (e.g., chamber wall primary side 32) and a separate, opposite supporting surface (e.g., 22A) on the other side of the housing's solid material (’374 Patent, Fig. 20, col. 5:1-5). This suggests a construction requiring the supporting surface and the water-contacting wall to be opposing faces of the same solid, thermally conductive structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful based on the allegation, made "upon information and belief," that Defendants "lack justifiable belief that there is no infringement or that the infringed claims are invalid" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not plead specific facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused "Green Blob" light embody the specific architecture required by the claims, most notably the internal, flow-through "chamber" for cooling and the placement of LED "supporting surfaces" on a side of a wall opposite the water-contacting side? The case may turn on whether the accused product achieves its function through a fundamentally different design.
  • A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiffs can offer to show that the accused product's internal construction and thermal management system operate as claimed. Without such technical evidence included in the complaint, discovery and expert analysis of the physical products will be dispositive in establishing the factual basis for infringement.