DCT

6:24-cv-00461

Yuan Mei Corp v. All Season Power LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00461, W.D. Tex., 09/06/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants conducting business in the district, including sales to Texas customers through e-commerce platforms like Amazon, use of Amazon fulfillment centers located within the district, and the Texas incorporation or registration of certain Defendant entities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Aqua Joe brand of oscillating sprinklers infringes one utility patent related to an automatic water switching mechanism and one design patent covering the sprinkler's ornamental appearance.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical oscillating sprinklers for the consumer lawn and garden market, focusing on the durability and reliability of the oscillation mechanism.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship (c. 2015-2023) where Plaintiff manufactured white-labeled sprinkler products for Defendants. Plaintiff claims it terminated the relationship after Defendants accrued nearly $10 million in unpaid invoices. Following the termination, Defendants allegedly engaged a new manufacturer to produce "copycat" products based on Plaintiff's designs and confidential CAD files, leading to this infringement suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-11-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,422,162 Priority Date
2006-02-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,422,162 Filing Date
2008-09-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,422,162 Issue Date
c. 2015 Business relationship begins between Plaintiff and Defendants' predecessor
2016-05-26 U.S. Design Patent No. D802,715 Filing Date
2017-05-10 Plaintiff presents 16-hole sprinkler at a tradeshow
2017-11-14 U.S. Design Patent No. D802,715 Issue Date
c. May 2018 Parties discuss 20-hole sprinkler design
< Jan. 2023 Defendants allegedly gain knowledge of the Asserted Patents
c. Fall 2023 Plaintiff terminates manufacturing relationship with Defendants' predecessor
2024-09-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,422,162 - "Automatic water inlet switching device for an oscillating sprinkler"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,422,162, "Automatic water inlet switching device for an oscillating sprinkler," issued September 9, 2008 (Compl. ¶21).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art oscillating sprinklers where the spring-based mechanism for switching the water flow direction can suffer from dispersed force, particularly under high water pressure. This can lead to a failure to switch or cause spring fatigue, shortening the operational life of the sprinkler (’162 Patent, col. 1:17-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a switching device where an "actuation stick" is confined within a "concaved bounded space" on a "movable swinging seat." This confinement limits the stick's movement and allows it to build up and concentrate force against "push faces," which then "instantaneously spring[s] away" the swinging seat to switch water flow between two outlet ports. This mechanism is designed to function reliably regardless of high or low water pressure (’162 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:45-68; FIG. 7).
  • Technical Importance: The design purports to create a more reliable and durable switching mechanism, addressing a common failure point in oscillating sprinklers and ensuring consistent watering performance over the product’s life (Compl. ¶43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A sprinkle control unit with a blade-equipped gear transmission set that drives a sprinkle means for angular swinging movement.
    • A water inlet switching device with an operation unit and a movable swinging seat.
    • The movable swinging seat has two water stop ends on its bottom to selectively block one of two water outlet ports.
    • A "concaved bounded space" with "push faces" is located on top of the swinging seat.
    • An "actuation stick," connected to a drive rod, operates inside the bounded space.
    • As the sprinkler reaches a limit, the actuation stick is forced against a push face, gradually building up force to "instantaneously spring away" the movable swinging seat, thereby switching water flow.

U.S. Design Patent No. D802,715 - "Sprinkler"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D802,715, "Sprinkler," issued November 14, 2017 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a sprinkler. The claimed design consists of the overall visual appearance of the sprinkler, characterized by a substantially rectangular base with flared ends, four trapezoidal indents on the top surface, and a central rectangular opening spanned by a spray tube (’715 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The specific contours, proportions, and overall shape constitute the protected design (Compl. ¶75).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of the patent's single claim for "[t]he ornamental design for a sprinkler, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶75; ’715 Patent, Claim).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the Aqua Joe SJI-OMS16 and SJI-OMS20 sprinklers embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶74). The complaint provides side-by-side comparisons to support this allegation, highlighting the similarity of the overall form and specific features (Compl. ¶¶75-76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Aqua Joe SJI-OMS16 Indestructible Metal Base Oscillating Sprinkler and the Aqua Joe SJI-OMS20 Indestructible Metal Base Oscillating Sprinkler (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as oscillating lawn sprinklers featuring a "sealed, turbo gear-driven unit" for continuous oscillation and clog-resistant nozzles (Compl. ¶¶17-18, citing product descriptions). The products are sold online via Amazon and Shop Pay and are alleged to be commercially successful, with one model reportedly selling 26,000 units per month on Amazon (Compl. ¶¶9, 13).
  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products directly compete with products manufactured by Plaintiff for other customers and that Defendants use paid advertising to divert consumers from these legitimate products to the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶39-40). The complaint includes a screenshot from an Amazon product page showing a sponsored ad for the accused Aqua Joe product displayed on a competitor's listing (Compl. ¶40, p. 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’162 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An automatic water inlet switching device for an oscillating sprinkler... The SJI-OMS16 is identified as an "oscillating sprinkler" containing an automatic switching device. ¶47 col. 5:1-9
a sprinkle control unit which drives a sprinkle means to produce angular swinging movement The product has a "Control Unit" (housing) with a "turbo drive motor" that drives the "Sprinkler Means" (spray tube) in an oscillating motion. A provided screenshot from a YouTube video shows the sprinkler in operation. ¶48, p. 18 col. 2:46-51
said sprinkle control unit having a blade-equipped gear transmission set housed therein The complaint includes an annotated photograph of the product's internals, identifying a "gear transmission set" and a "Blade" (impeller) within the control unit. ¶49, p. 19 col. 2:63-67
said movable swinging seat being provided with two water stop ends at the bottom thereof, in opposite to two water outlet ports... Annotated photos show a "Movable Swinging Seat" with two "Water Stop end[s]" at its bottom, positioned to selectively block one of two "Water outlet ports." ¶50, pp. 19-20 col. 3:15-20
a concaved bounded space having push faces defined therein and placed at the center of the top of said movable swinging seat to operate in cooperation with an actuation stick... Annotated photos identify a "Concave space" on the swinging seat that receives an "Actuation Stick," which is connected to a "Drive Rod." ¶51, p. 21 col. 3:20-23
as said sprinkle unit swings...said actuation stick will move against said push face...to gradually produce a built-up force to instantaneously spring away said movable swinging seat... As the unit oscillates, a "Restraint connector" allegedly forces the actuation stick against a "push face," building and releasing energy to switch the swinging seat's position, a function said to work even at low pressure. ¶51, p. 22 col. 4:51-68

’715 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges design patent infringement under the "ordinary observer" test, asserting that an ordinary purchaser would find the designs substantially the same (Compl. ¶76). The primary evidence presented is a series of side-by-side comparisons charting photographs of the Accused Products against the figures from the ’715 Patent (Compl. ¶¶75, pp. 30-33). One such visual presents a perspective view of the accused SJI-OMS16 product that mirrors the view in FIG. 1 of the ’715 Patent (Compl. p. 30). The complaint argues that the overall visual impression created by the products' rectangular shape, trapezoidal indents, and central opening is the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶76).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’162 Patent (Technical Question): The complaint alleges the accused device achieves an "instantaneous" switching action due to a "built-up force" (Compl. ¶51), a key functional limitation. A central question will be whether the accused device's mechanism, upon expert inspection, actually operates in this specific manner or achieves switching through a different, more continuous mechanical action not covered by the claim.
    • ’715 Patent (Scope Question): The infringement analysis will turn on whether an ordinary observer would find the overall visual appearance of the Accused Products and the patented design to be substantially the same. Defendants may argue that differences in proportion, curvature, control knob design, and other details are significant enough to create a distinct overall impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '162 patent, the construction of the following terms from claim 1 may be central to the dispute. Claim construction is not typically performed for design patents like the '715 patent, where the claim is the design as shown in the drawings.

  • The Term: "concaved bounded space"

  • Context and Importance: This structural term is at the heart of the patent's purported solution for reliable switching. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's internal cavity, which houses the actuation stick, falls within the scope of this definition.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support an interpretation covering any recessed or hollowed-out area that confines the actuation stick (’162 Patent, col. 3:20-23).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the function it must perform—enabling the "instantaneous" springing action. The specific shapes depicted in the embodiments, such as the V-shaped space with distinct high and low "push faces" (525, 526), could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to structures capable of that specific function (’162 Patent, FIG. 7; col. 5:10-26).

  • The Term: "instantaneously spring away"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language describes the result of the claimed mechanism. The dispute may turn on whether the accused device's switching action can be characterized as "instantaneous."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the term simply means "quickly" or "rapidly," without requiring a specific snap-action or non-linear release of energy.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s summary of the invention emphasizes producing an "instantaneous force" to solve the problems of the prior art, suggesting a specific type of mechanical action beyond mere movement (’162 Patent, col. 1:53-54). This could support a construction requiring a sudden release of stored potential energy, akin to a snap or click.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by providing materials like product manuals, online videos, and marketing information that instruct end-users and resellers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶60, 85). It further alleges Defendants induced infringement by training and directing their manufacturer to make the infringing products (Compl. ¶¶59, 84). The complaint also includes conclusory allegations of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶61, 86).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents, stemming from a multi-year business relationship where Plaintiff manufactured patented products for them (Compl. ¶¶56, 81). The complaint asserts that Defendants, after the relationship soured, deliberately copied Plaintiff's products using Plaintiff's own confidential CAD files, which it argues constitutes egregious conduct warranting enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶36, 62, 87).

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the answers to a few central questions:

  1. A question of functional operation: Does the accused sprinkler's internal switching mechanism function by "gradually produc[ing] a built-up force to instantaneously spring away" the swinging seat, as required by the '162 patent, or does it operate through a different mechanical process? The outcome will likely depend on expert testimony regarding the device's internal dynamics.
  2. A question of visual identity: For the '715 patent, is the overall ornamental design of the accused Aqua Joe sprinklers substantially the same as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art sprinklers?
  3. A question of deliberate copying: Given the parties' prior business relationship and the allegations of using Plaintiff's own CAD files, did Defendants knowingly and intentionally copy Plaintiff's patented technology and designs? The answer will be critical to the claim for willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages.