DCT
2:18-cv-00243
Magnetic Attraction LLC v. ALFA Laval Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Magnetic Attraction LLC (Nevada)
- Defendant: Alfa Laval Inc. (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, P.L.C.; The Simon Law Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00243, E.D. Va., 05/09/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement causing injury to Plaintiff within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s magnetic mixer products infringe a patent related to a drive apparatus that uses magnetic forces for contactless power transmission.
- Technical Context: The technology involves magnetic couplings for transferring rotational energy without physical contact, a design often used in industrial mixing applications to eliminate mechanical wear and the need for physical seals.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit was assigned to Force Field Limited Company in February 2017. Plaintiff Magnetic Attraction LLC asserts it is the exclusive licensee of the patent and has acquired all substantial rights, including the right to sue for infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-10-11 | ’929 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-09-09 | ’929 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-02-01 | ’929 Patent assigned to Force Field Limited Company (approximate date) |
| 2018-05-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,421,929, “Drive Apparatus,” issued September 9, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes problems with conventional mechanical couplings used to transfer power, such as friction, heat loss, the need for lubrication, and strict alignment requirements (’929 Patent, col. 1:13-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that uses magnetic forces to transfer rotation from a primary shaft to one or more secondary shafts without physical contact. Each shaft is fitted with magnets, and as the primary shaft turns, magnetic attraction or repulsion causes the secondary shaft(s) to turn (’929 Patent, col. 1:28-35). A key aspect of the invention is fitting the secondary shaft with an "additional mass" specifically to increase its rotational inertia, which is described as enhancing performance and enabling smoother drive induction (’929 Patent, col. 2:11-17).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for power transmission into a sealed system without the need for physical shaft seals, which can be points of failure or contamination in sensitive applications like food, pharmaceutical, or chemical processing (’929 Patent, col. 8:55-68).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An apparatus for inducing drive including a primary drive shaft and one or more secondary drive shafts,
- The primary and secondary shafts are each fitted with magnetic means oriented to cause the secondary shaft to rotate via magnetic forces when the primary shaft is rotated,
- The secondary shaft(s) are each fitted with an additional mass to increase its rotational inertia.
- The complaint notes that one or more claims of the ’929 Patent are infringed, reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Alfa Laval MM UltraPure Magnetic Mixer ("Magnetic Mixer") (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Magnetic Mixer is an apparatus for inducing drive from a "drive unit" to an "impeller" (Compl. ¶19). The drive unit (alleged primary shaft) and the impeller (alleged secondary shaft) are said to contain magnetic means that cause the impeller to rotate when the drive unit rotates (Compl. ¶¶15, 20). The complaint further alleges that the "impeller, or associated structures, contains additional mass that increases its rotational inertia" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint includes an exploded-view diagram of the Magnetic Mixer, identifying the "Drive unit" (7) and "Impeller" (1) as separate components. (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not provide specific details on the product's market position beyond alleging that Defendant manufactures, uses, and sells it (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’929 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apparatus for inducing drive including a primary drive shaft and one or more secondary drive shafts, | The infringing products are an "apparatus for inducing drive including a primary drive shaft and a secondary drive shaft." The primary shaft corresponds to the "drive unit" and the secondary shaft corresponds to the "impeller." | ¶14, ¶19 | col. 1:28-31 |
| the primary shaft and secondary shaft(s) each fitted with magnetic means oriented such that, when the primary shaft is rotated, the or each secondary shaft is caused to rotate due to magnetic forces, | The primary and secondary drive shafts are each fitted with magnetic means. Rotation is caused by "attractive or repulsive magnetic forces" between the magnetic means of the primary and secondary shafts. | ¶15, ¶16, ¶21 | col. 1:31-35 |
| with the secondary shaft(s) each being fitted with an additional mass to increase its rotational inertia. | The "secondary shaft is fitted with additional mass to increase its rotational inertia." The complaint identifies this mass as being part of the "impeller, or associated structures." | ¶17, ¶20 | col. 2:3-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue for claim construction may be whether the accused "impeller" assembly (Compl. ¶18, item 1) qualifies as a "secondary drive shaft" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that a "shaft" is a distinct component and that an impeller is functionally and structurally different. The complaint’s allegation equates the impeller with the secondary shaft (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the "additional mass" limitation raises a key factual question. Does the inherent mass of the accused "impeller" satisfy the claim requirement of being an "additional mass" that is "fitted with" the shaft to "increase its rotational inertia"? The court may need to determine whether the claim requires a distinct mass added for the specific purpose of increasing inertia, or if the mass of a functional component like an impeller, which inherently possesses inertia, meets the limitation. The patent illustrates this "additional mass" as a discrete component (e.g., item 24 in Fig. 8), which may support a narrower interpretation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "secondary drive shaft"
- Context and Importance: The plaintiff’s infringement theory identifies the accused product’s "impeller" as the "secondary drive shaft." The viability of the infringement claim depends on this characterization being accepted by the court.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discloses that the secondary shaft can be used to drive various mechanical apparatuses, such as "a propeller or impeller" (’929 Patent, col. 8:50-52). This language could support an argument that the term "shaft" should be interpreted functionally to include the entire rotating assembly that performs the work, such as an impeller.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the "secondary shaft" (e.g., item 14 in Fig. 1) as a traditional, elongated shaft. The specification also refers to the "longitudinal axes of the secondary shafts" (’929 Patent, col. 2:43-44), which suggests a component with a defined axis, potentially distinct from a more complex structure like an impeller.
- The Term: "additional mass"
- Context and Importance: Infringement of the final limitation of claim 1 hinges on this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue the impeller's mass is inherent to its mixing function, not an "additional" mass fitted for the purpose of increasing inertia.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The purpose of the limitation is to "increase its rotational inertia" to "enhance[] the performance of the apparatus" (’929 Patent, col. 2:13-15). An argument could be made that any mass, whether integrated or separate, that is designed to achieve this functional purpose meets the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes the mass as something the shaft is "fitted with" (’929 Patent, col. 2:4-5), and Figure 8 depicts the "additional mass" (24) as a discrete component added to the secondary shaft. This suggests that the mass must be a separate element added to the shaft, rather than the inherent mass of a part like an impeller.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶2, 23, 26). It alleges Defendant knowingly offers to sell products that are a "material part of the patented inventions" but does not plead specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims (Compl. ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after having notice of the ’929 Patent "since at least as early as the service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶24). This alleges post-suit willfulness and does not assert any pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "secondary drive shaft," which the patent figures depict as a traditional shaft, be construed to read on the accused product's integrated "impeller" assembly? The outcome of this definitional dispute will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional purpose: does the inherent mass of the accused product's impeller constitute an "additional mass" that is "fitted with" the shaft for the specific purpose of increasing rotational inertia, as required by Claim 1? Or is its mass simply an intrinsic property of a component designed for mixing, raising the question of whether a fundamental element of the claimed invention is present.
- A third question relates to standing: the complaint traces a chain of title from the inventor to an assignee and then to an exclusive license for the Plaintiff. The defense will likely examine the terms of the assignment and license agreements to determine whether Plaintiff possesses all substantial rights necessary to bring this infringement suit in its own name.