Illumidine Inc v. Fitly Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Illumidine, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Fitly, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00082, W.D. Tex., 01/23/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established and regular place of business in the Western District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SmartPlate™ dining system infringes patents related to active foodware systems that sense food characteristics and communicate with a user's device to provide feedback.
• Technical Context: The technology resides within the "smart kitchen" and Internet of Things (IoT) sectors, focusing on devices that assist with diet and nutrition management through automated food tracking.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was put on notice of the asserted patents via a letter sent on or about June 21, 2021, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,782,027 - "Dining plate system sensing food characteristics, sending data to the internet, and displaying information on a handheld communication device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to enhance the dining experience beyond mere consumption, particularly for encouraging children to eat, while avoiding the high cost and impracticality of dedicating a full computer to the dining table (US 9,782,027 B2, col. 1:11-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part "active foodware system" consisting of removable, passive dining plates and a reusable "underplate" that contains the electronic components, such as weight sensors and wireless transmitters ('027 Patent, Abstract). This design separates the washable food-contact surfaces from the sensitive electronics, which can then weigh the food in each separate plate and send the data to a handheld device for analysis and display ('027 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-53). A 2017 prototype of the invention depicted in the complaint shows separate dining surfaces with underlying load cells connected to a microprocessor module (Compl. ¶19, p. 4).
• Technical Importance: This modular approach makes an electronic dining system more practical for household use by allowing the inexpensive plates to be washed while protecting the more valuable electronic base ('027 Patent, col. 2:48-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • An active foodware system with a recessed dining surface on a dining plate.
  • A sensing component for sensing food weight and a wireless communication component for sending data.
  • An underplate with positioning structure for removably and simultaneously mating with a plurality of separate dining plates.
  • The underplate comprises the sensing and wireless communication components.
  • The sensing component comprises a plurality of load cells.
  • Each load cell is associated with a separate dining plate.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims from the patent (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 10,085,598 - "Dining plate system with visual stimulating, sensing and/or communication means, and method of using"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the desire to make dishware dynamic and interactive, moving beyond static designs to provide entertainment, information, or other stimuli during a meal ('598 Patent, col. 1:11-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an "active foodware system" that includes a sensing component, a "visual stimulating component," and a mating structure (e.g., an underplate) that contains the sensing technology ('598 Patent, Abstract). The system senses food properties (like weight) or diner actions and provides related visual feedback. The specification describes how an underplate with electronics can project light or images through a translucent top plate, creating a programmable and interactive surface ('598 Patent, col. 2:38-53).
• Technical Importance: The patent focuses on creating a responsive dining experience where visual feedback is directly related to sensing, allowing for applications like games, dietary coaching, or entertainment that react to the diner's consumption of food ('598 Patent, col. 2:30-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶59).
• Essential elements of claim 11 include:
  • An active foodware system with a recessed dining surface on a dining plate.
  • A sensing component for sensing food characteristics (e.g., weight) or diner biometrics.
  • A visual stimulating component for providing stimulation related to the sensing.
  • A removable mating structure for positioning the dining plate, wherein the mating structure comprises the sensing component.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims from the patent (Compl. ¶58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "SmartPlate™ dining system" and the associated "SmartPlate® app" (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products constitute a system for automated nutritional tracking. The hardware consists of three separate, dishwasher-safe dining plates that rest on an underplate assembly (Compl. ¶28). This underplate contains weight sensors and a wireless communication component that connects to a smartphone or tablet running the SmartPlate® app (Compl. ¶28, ¶29). A product rendering in the complaint illustrates the multi-plate design (Compl. p. 7). The lower underplate weighs the food on the plates and transmits the weight data to the app (Compl. ¶30). The app then combines this weight data with information from a nutritional database to provide the user with real-time feedback on their consumption relative to their dietary goals (Compl. ¶30, ¶31). A screenshot from a product demonstration video shows the app updating calorie counts in real-time as a user removes food from the plate (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges the system is sold through a subscription that includes the hardware and premium app access (Compl. ¶33, p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,782,027 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A question for the court may be whether the accused product’s two-part base, comprising an "upper underplate" for positioning and a separate "lower underplate" with electronics, meets the claim limitation of a single "underplate" that performs both functions.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that each of the three dining plates is weighed by a separate, associated load cell. A key factual question will be whether the accused product’s hardware is constructed this way, or if it uses a different method to determine the weight of food in each plate. The complaint provides a screenshot showing separate weight data for different food items, which may support its allegation of independent weighing (Compl. p. 8).

U.S. Patent No. 10,085,598 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: An issue for construction may be whether the "visual stimulating component" must be integral to the physical foodware (e.g., lights in the plate) or if, as alleged, it can be a software application displaying information on a separate, general-purpose device like a smartphone.
  • Scope Questions: Similar to the '027 Patent analysis, the definition of "mating structure" will be relevant. The court may need to determine if the accused product's two-part underplate assembly constitutes the claimed "mating structure" that both positions the plates and comprises the sensing component.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: ""underplate"" ('027 Patent, claim 1) / ""mating structure"" ('598 Patent, claim 11)

• Context and Importance: The construction of these terms may be central to the infringement analysis. The claims require a single "underplate" or "mating structure" that performs multiple functions (positioning the plates, containing the sensors). The accused product uses a two-part assembly: an "upper underplate" for positioning and a "lower underplate" for the electronics (Compl. ¶28). Practitioners may focus on whether this bifurcated design meets the claim limitations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents' specifications describe the function of the underplate/mating structure without explicitly requiring it to be a single, monolithic component ('027 Patent, Abstract; '598 Patent, Abstract). A plaintiff may argue the terms should be construed functionally to cover an assembly of components that collectively perform the claimed functions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patents, such as Fig. 2C, depict a single, integrated underplate component (201) containing the electronics ('027 Patent, Fig. 2C; '598 Patent, Fig. 2C). A defendant may cite these embodiments to argue for a narrower construction limited to a single, unitary structure.

The Term: ""visual stimulating component"" ('598 Patent, claim 11)

• Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical because the accused product provides visual feedback via a smartphone app, not via lights or displays on the physical plate itself (Compl. ¶31). The infringement question for the '598 Patent may turn on whether the "system" is construed to include the wirelessly connected app.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 11 requires the component to be part of the "active foodware system" but does not restrict its location. A plaintiff may argue that because the app is necessary for the system to function and provides stimulation directly "related to said sensing," it is part of the claimed system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '598 Patent's abstract describes a "dining plate unit" that provides "light emanating from the dining plate unit" and an underplate that "direct[s] light through the upper translucent dining plate." A defendant may argue that this language, along with figures showing integrated lights (e.g., '598 Patent, Fig. 3A), defines the invention as a self-contained, light-up plate, not a system that relies on an external, general-purpose screen.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for each patent. It alleges inducement based on Defendant’s advertising, promotion, and user instructions, combined with knowledge of the patents from a June 2021 notice letter (Compl. ¶44, ¶61). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Products have special features designed for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶45, ¶62).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on Defendant’s purported knowledge since receiving the June 2021 notice letter. The complaint further alleges that Defendant maintains a practice of ""willfully blind[ing]"" itself to the patent rights of others (Compl. ¶47, ¶49, ¶64, ¶66).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "underplate" and "mating structure", as used in the patents, be construed to cover the accused product's two-part base assembly, which separates the mechanical positioning function from the electronic sensing function into distinct upper and lower components?
• Another central question will be one of system boundaries: does the term "visual stimulating component" in the '598 Patent require that visual feedback emanate from the physical foodware itself, or can the limitation be met by a software application displaying information on a separate, wirelessly connected smartphone screen?