Mibev Creations LLC v. Ao Smith Water Treatment North America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mibev Creations, LLC (Ohio)
  • Defendant: Ao. Smith Water Treatment (North America), Inc. (Delaware, with principal place of business in Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw, PLLC.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00378, W.D. Tex., 04/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant’s principal place of business is located in the district and it maintains a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Aquasana-branded water filtration appliance infringes a patent related to beverage makers with integrated, performance-monitored water filtration systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns countertop beverage appliances that incorporate certified water filtration, addressing consumer demand for purified water and consistency in beverage preparation.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,688,451. The complaint alleges that Defendant acquired the "Aquasana" brand in or around 2016.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016 (approx.)	A.O. Smith acquires Aquasana, Inc.
2017-05-15	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,235,267
2022-02-01	U.S. Patent No. 11,235,267 Issues
2024-04-09	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,235,267 - "Selected Serving and Flavored Sparkling Beverage Maker"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,235,267, "Selected Serving and Flavored Sparkling Beverage Maker", issued February 1, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes challenges for single-serve beverage makers, including inconsistent results due to variations in municipal water quality, concerns about water contaminants, and a market shift toward purified bottled water over sodas (ʻ267 Patent, col. 1:36-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention integrates a system for filtering water directly into a beverage machine to provide water of consistent quality for beverage making or for direct dispensing ('267 Patent, col. 1:49-52). The system is described as including a "performance monitoring system" that tracks filter usage—for example, by counting operational cycles or total volume processed—to ensure the filter's performance for contaminant reduction meets certified standards (e.g., NSF/ANSI) up to a specified volume limit, such as 320 gallons ('267 Patent, col. 4:15-26; col. 5:27-49). The abstract specifies that this system allows for certification of contaminant reduction at a flow rate of no more than 0.50 gallons per minute ('267 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to combine the convenience of a countertop appliance with the quality assurance of certified filtration, addressing a market need for reliable, on-demand purified water.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 13 (Compl. ¶21).
• The essential elements of Claim 13 are:
  • A beverage maker comprising:
  • a potable water source configured to provide pressurized water; and
  • a filter system in fluid communication with the water source for processing the water, which includes:
  • a performance monitoring system that allows for certification of the filter system's performance for verified contaminant reduction under NSF/ANSI standards when operated at a flow rate of no more than 0.50 gallons per minute.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" and specifically "at least Claim 13," suggesting the possibility that other claims may be asserted later (Compl. ¶20, ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Aquasana Clean Water Machine" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is a beverage maker that provides "powered filtration for potable water" (Compl. ¶13). A key feature alleged is a "filter performance monitoring system with a corresponding light sensor to indicate when a filter change is necessary" (Compl. ¶13). This system is alleged to ensure that the filter's performance "conforms to NSF/ANSI water quality standards for up to 300 gallons, at a flow rate of 0.5 gallons per minute" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint provides a photograph of the black and clear plastic countertop appliance, showing a dispensing nozzle over a platform for a container. (Compl., p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit 2 purporting to show infringement of Claim 13; however, this exhibit was not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶14, ¶21). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the Aquasana Clean Water Machine is a "beverage maker" that practices all elements of Claim 13 of the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff alleges the accused product has a "powered filtration" system, which corresponds to the claimed "filter system" for processing "pressurized water" (Compl. ¶13). Crucially, Plaintiff alleges the product's "filter performance monitoring system with a corresponding light sensor" meets the claim limitation of a "performance monitoring system that allows for certification" under NSF/ANSI standards (Compl. ¶13). The complaint specifically alleges the accused product operates at the claimed flow rate ("0.5 gallons per minute") and meets NSF/ANSI standards, aligning with the functional requirements of Claim 13 (Compl. ¶13).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A central question will be whether the accused product's "light sensor" constitutes the "performance monitoring system" required by the claim. The case may turn on evidence of how the accused system determines when to activate the light—for example, whether it is based on a simple timer, a volumetric count of water dispensed, or another method, and whether that method is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
  • Scope Question: The claim requires a system that "allows for certification" of performance. A dispute may arise over the meaning of this phrase. Does the accused product's functionality merely align with parameters used in certification (e.g., flow rate), or does the "performance monitoring system" itself have to perform a function that is a prerequisite for, or an integral part of, achieving such certification as described in the patent's specification?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "performance monitoring system"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central technical feature of the asserted claim. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's "light sensor" and its underlying logic fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification describes monitoring based on a "throughput volumetric count" or "post-filter pressure" ('267 Patent, col. 5:35-49), raising the question of whether the claims are limited to these specific methods or can cover simpler indicators.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the term itself does not specify a particular mechanism, which could support an interpretation that covers any system that monitors filter performance, including a simple indicator light triggered by a timer or a basic sensor.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific implementations, such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) that performs "volumetric counting" by tracking "the number of single serve operational uses" or by "counting down from such a functional filter life limit" ('267 Patent, col. 3:40-42; col. 5:38-44). A defendant might argue these embodiments define the scope of the claimed "system."

• The Term: "allows for certification"

• Context and Importance: This functional language links the "performance monitoring system" to an external standard (NSF/ANSI). The meaning of "allows for" will be critical. It raises the question of what capability the system must possess to satisfy this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue the term means the system operates in a manner consistent with certification requirements (e.g., by ensuring the flow rate does not exceed 0.5 gpm and alerting the user at the certified gallon limit), thus "allowing for" a user to rely on the certification. The patent states the system provides for "certification of contaminant reduction claims up through 80% of the filter life" ('267 Patent, col. 5:28-30).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue this language requires the monitoring system to be an active and necessary component of the certification process itself, rather than merely operating within certified parameters. The claim ties the monitoring system directly to the ability to make "health claims when operated at a flow rate of no more than 0.50 gallons per minute" ('267 Patent, col. 9:4-6), suggesting a tight nexus between the monitoring function and the validity of the certification.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement in its prayer for relief (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C). However, the body of the complaint does not plead any specific facts to support this allegation, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on claim construction and the subsequent factual comparison of the construed claims to the accused device's functionality. The central questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "performance monitoring system," which the patent specification describes as being managed by a CPU performing volumetric calculations, be construed to cover the "light sensor" feature in the accused product? The case may depend on what evidence is presented about how that light is triggered.

2. A key legal and evidentiary question will be one of functional requirements: What must a system do to "allow for certification" as required by Claim 13? Does the accused product's operation within certain parameters (e.g., flow rate, gallon limit) suffice, or does the claim require a more integral role for the monitoring system in establishing or maintaining the validity of that certification?