DCT

2:24-cv-00589

Germ Dome Industries v. Phonesoap

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00589, D. Utah, 08/16/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because Defendant PhoneSoap has a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of personal object UV sanitizers infringes a patent related to an apparatus for sanitizing a point of contact using germicidal light.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns devices that use germicidal light, such as ultraviolet (UV) light, to sanitize high-touch surfaces or personal objects, a market that gained prominence with increased public health awareness.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a chain of applications dating back to 2011, and it is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The application leading to the patent was assigned to the Plaintiff in 2019, prior to issuance.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,792,380
2019-08-19 Application for '380 Patent assigned to Germ Dome
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,792,380 Issued
2024-08-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,792,380 - "SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR SANITIZING A POINT OF CONTACT", issued October 6, 2020 (’380 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of communicable germs spreading through high-traffic "points of contact" like doorknobs, ATM buttons, and elevator control panels, which can lead to illness in various environments such as hospitals and offices (ʼ380 Patent, col. 1:26-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus designed to be placed around such a point of contact. It comprises a housing with an interior space, an anterior opening for user access (e.g., for a hand to reach a doorknob), and one or more sources of germicidal light, such as UV lamps, positioned to sanitize the object within the housing (’380 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-17). As illustrated in Figure 5, the apparatus surrounds an object like a doorknob, and internal lights (24) sanitize its surface while a protective screen (30) may separate the lights from the user (’380 Patent, col. 5:41-51).
  • Technical Importance: The described system provides a method for periodically sanitizing frequently touched surfaces automatically or with user initiation, thereby reducing the potential for germ transmission (’380 Patent, col. 1:36-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).

Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:

  • An apparatus for sanitizing an object
  • a housing comprising one or more sidewalls, the housing defining an interior configured to receive the object
  • a posterior wall disposed at a posterior end of the housing, the posterior wall extending inwardly from the one or more sidewalls
  • a dome disposed at an anterior end of the housing, the dome at least partially defining an anterior opening for access to the interior
  • one or more sources of germicidal light disposed under the dome

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "PhoneSoap Products," which include the PhoneSoap 3, PhoneSoap Pro, PhoneSoap Go, PhoneSoap Wireless, PhoneSoap Basic, and HomeSoap models (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The PhoneSoap Products are described as devices for sanitizing a surface or object (Compl. ¶10). Based on the provided images, they are generally clamshell-style enclosures into which a personal item, such as a smartphone, can be placed. The image of the PhoneSoap Pro shows an open, oblong clamshell device with a smartphone resting in the base, revealing two lit UV-C bulbs in the lid and two in the base (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges these products function as sanitizing devices by using germicidal light, consistent with the technology of the ʼ380 Patent (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (C-H) that were not included in the provided filing (Compl. ¶12). Therefore, a detailed claim-by-claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is that the PhoneSoap Products embody the invention of the ʼ380 Patent. The complaint alleges the products are "devices for sanitizing a surface or object" (Compl. ¶10) that have a "housing that defines an interior" to "receive an object to be sanitized" and use "germicidal light(s)" to perform the sanitization (Compl. ¶7). This general description appears to form the basis for alleging that the accused products meet the limitations of at least claim 1 of the ʼ380 Patent (Compl. ¶11, 14). The image of the HomeSoap device shows a user placing a remote control into a wall-mounted sanitizing unit (Compl. p. 6).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions

A central dispute may arise over the scope of the term "dome". The ʼ380 Patent's embodiments primarily illustrate a stationary, dome-like structure suited for fixed "points of contact" like doorknobs (’380 Patent, Fig. 5). This raises the question of whether the hinged lid of the clamshell-style accused products can be construed as a "dome" within the meaning of the claims.

Technical Questions

Claim 1 requires the germicidal light sources to be "disposed under the dome." The provided image of the PhoneSoap Pro shows UV lights in both the lid and the base of the device (Compl. p. 4). The analysis will question whether lights located in the base of a clamshell device can be considered "disposed under the dome" if the "dome" is construed to be the lid.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "dome"

Context and Importance

This term is central because the accused products feature a hinged lid, which is structurally different from the fixed, often hemispherical or frustoconical domes illustrated in the patent's specification (’380 Patent, Figs. 1, 13). The case may turn on whether this term is broad enough to cover a clamshell lid.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that "dome" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as a cover or roof-like structure, and that the specification does not explicitly disclaim hinged structures. The claim language only requires the dome to be "disposed at an anterior end of the housing" and to "at least partially defin[e] an anterior opening" (’380 Patent, col. 9:38-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may counter that the patent consistently depicts the dome as a specific, non-hinged structural feature, describing it as having a "hemispherical" or "frustoconical inner surface" (’380 Patent, col. 6:30-38). The use in context with fixed points of contact like doorknobs may suggest a more limited scope.

The Term: "disposed under the dome"

Context and Importance

The precise spatial relationship required by this term will be critical to the infringement analysis, especially since the accused products appear to have lights in both the lid and the base. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation determines which lights in the accused products, if any, meet the claim limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "under the dome" means anywhere within the interior cavity of the housing that is generally covered by the dome, which would include lights in the base of the device when the lid is closed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term could be construed more narrowly to mean affixed to the underside of the dome structure itself. The patent's figures, such as Figure 5, show the light sources (24) positioned on the sidewalls of the housing, below the top surface of the dome (20), which may support arguments about their specific placement relative to the dome structure (’380 Patent, Fig. 5).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The sole count for patent infringement is based on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead any specific facts regarding pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. The prayer for relief includes standard requests for damages under § 284 and a finding that the case is exceptional under § 285 (Compl. p. 8).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "dome", which in the patent’s specification is illustrated as a fixed structure for sanitizing objects like doorknobs, be construed to read on the hinged lid of a portable, clamshell-style electronics sanitizer?
  • A second key question will be one of structural configuration: does the arrangement of germicidal lights within the accused products, particularly any lights located in the base of the device, satisfy the claim 1 limitation requiring the lights to be "disposed under the dome," especially if the "dome" is construed to be the product's lid?