DCT
2:16-cv-00213
Safetycaps Inc v. Tee Zed Products Pty Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SafetyCaps, Inc. (Vermont)
- Defendant: Tee-Zed Products Pty Limited (Australia) and Tee-Zed Products, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Paul Frank + Collins P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00213, D. Vt., 07/27/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Vermont and have committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ child safety electrical outlet plugs infringe a patent related to anti-choking and oversized safety features.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns child safety devices for electrical outlets, specifically designs intended to mitigate the choking hazard posed by traditional, smaller outlet plugs.
- Key Procedural History: The patent inventors allegedly developed the invention after a 2001 incident where their daughter choked on a standard outlet plug. The patent was assigned to the Plaintiff entity, SafetyCaps, Inc., on July 14, 2016, less than two weeks before the complaint was filed. Plaintiff alleges it sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants on August 19, 2015, putting Defendants on notice of the patent nearly a year prior to filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-XX-XX | Personal incident motivating the invention occurred |
| 2003-06-09 | '426 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application) |
| 2005-02-XX | Plaintiff SafetyCaps, Inc. incorporated |
| 2005-07-XX | Plaintiff began selling products covered by the '426 Patent |
| 2006-07-04 | '426 Patent Issued |
| 2013-04-25 | Earliest alleged date of Defendants' infringing sales |
| 2015-08-19 | Plaintiff sent cease and desist letter to Defendants |
| 2016-07-14 | '426 Patent assigned from inventors to Plaintiff |
| 2016-07-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,070,426 - "ELECTRIC OUTLET CHILD SAFETY CAP"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,070,426, "ELECTRIC OUTLET CHILD SAFETY CAP," issued July 4, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a critical flaw in standard child safety outlet caps: while they protect against electrical shock, their small size makes them a significant choking hazard for infants and toddlers who may remove them and place them in their mouths ('426 Patent, col. 1:19-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem through two primary design modifications. The first is the inclusion of at least one opening in the cap’s shield, sized to permit airflow if the cap becomes lodged in a child's throat ('426 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-25). The second is an oversized shield, with a dimension larger than standard caps, to physically prevent a child from being able to fit the device into their mouth ('426 Patent, col. 2:56-63; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The invention addressed a known safety issue documented by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, attempting to create a product that protects against both electrocution and suffocation hazards inherent in prior art designs ('426 Patent, col. 1:25-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 24, and 58 ('426 Patent, Compl. ¶25).
- Independent Claim 1: A safety cap comprising:
- A shield that completely covers the electrical contact holes.
- At least one opening in the shield positioned to reduce a choking hazard.
- The opening is located outside of the electrical contact holes.
- A shield thickness around the opening ("opening region thickness") that is "not substantially less than" the shield thickness over the contact holes ("central portion thickness").
- Independent Claim 17: A method of fabricating a safety cap by:
- Providing a shield that completely covers the electrical contact holes.
- Providing at least one opening in the shield to allow sufficient airflow to reduce a choking hazard.
- The shield’s opening region thickness is "not substantially less than" its central portion thickness.
- Independent Claim 24: A safety cap comprising:
- A shield that completely covers the electrical contact holes.
- The shield has a dimension "larger than 1 1/2 inches."
- The shield's "furthest portion thickness" is "not substantially less than" its "central portion thickness."
- Independent Claim 58: A safety cap comprising:
- A shield that completely covers the electrical contact holes.
- At least two openings positioned to reduce a choking hazard.
- The openings are located outside the space between the contact holes.
- The openings define a line that is parallel to a line extending through the contact holes.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "child safety products including electrical outlet plugs" sold under the DREAMBABY® and DREAMBABY GROWING SAFELY® brands (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are plastic caps designed to be inserted into electrical outlets to prevent access by children (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges these products are sold through Defendants' own commercial websites, www.tee-zedshop.com and www.dream-baby.com, as well as major third-party U.S. retailers including Amazon.com, The Home Depot, Target, and Wal-mart (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The complaint references Exhibit C, which allegedly provides examples of offers to sell the accused products on Defendants' websites (Compl. ¶16). It also references Exhibit D, which purportedly contains examples of offers to sell through third-party retailers (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe claims 1, 17, 24, and 58 of the '426 Patent and references an exhibit, not attached to the pleading, that allegedly provides a detailed infringement analysis (Compl. ¶26). The complaint further references Exhibit E, described as a document showing that the accused products' features read on every element of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶26). The narrative infringement theory for Claim 1 is summarized below.
'426 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A safety cap for an electric outlet having a plurality of electrical contact holes, comprising a shield extending to completely cover the electrical contact holes when the safety cap is positioned on the electric outlet... | The accused DREAMBABY® products are alleged to be safety caps with a shield that covers an outlet's contact holes. | ¶¶6, 26 | col. 4:67-5:54 |
| ...said shield including at least one opening positioned for reducing a choking hazard if the cap is inserted in the mouth of a small child... | The accused products are alleged to contain at least one opening that serves to mitigate a choking hazard. | ¶26 | col. 1:36-42 |
| ...wherein said opening is located outside of the electrical contact holes and space between the electrical contact holes... | The opening(s) on the accused products are alleged to be located away from the areas corresponding to the electrical contacts. | ¶26 | col. 1:43-49 |
| ...wherein said shield has a central portion thickness adjacent said contact holes, wherein said shield has an opening region thickness adjacent said opening, wherein said opening region thickness is not substantially less than said central portion thickness. | The accused products are alleged to have a shield construction where the thickness near the opening is not substantially less than the thickness covering the contact holes. | ¶26 | col. 5:57-6:2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the meaning of relative terms. For Claim 1, the phrase "not substantially less than" is a term of degree that is not numerically defined in the patent, raising the question of how much variation in shield thickness is permissible before the limitation is not met. For Claim 24, the dispute may center on how the "dimension larger than 1 1/2 inches" is to be measured on a non-circular product.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products actually possess the physical structures required by the claims. This will likely require physical measurement and expert analysis to determine if the shield thickness ratios (Claims 1, 17, 24) and overall size (Claim 24) meet the claimed limitations. The complaint does not provide these specific measurements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "not substantially less than" (from Claims 1, 17, 24)
- Context and Importance: This term of degree is central to the infringement analysis for three of the four asserted independent claims. The case may turn on whether the accused products' shield thickness, which may vary for manufacturing or design reasons, is considered "substantially less" than the thickness at other parts of the shield.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term allows for some measurable difference in thickness, as long as the overall structural integrity of the cap is maintained. The specification discusses adding material to corners for "greater support," suggesting the purpose is functional strength, not absolute uniformity ('426 Patent, col. 6:31-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires near-uniformity, with only slight, incidental variations permitted. The figures, such as the cross-sections in Figs. 15a-15d, do not depict dramatic or intentional thinning in any region, which could suggest that any significant reduction in thickness is "substantial."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement to infringe by Defendants "making, selling, offering to sell, selling in the United States, and/or importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶25). It further alleges the products "have no substantial non-infringing uses outside of use as electrical outlet safety plugs," which is language that supports a claim for contributory infringement (Compl. ¶25).
Willful Infringement
- The willfulness allegation is based on Defendants' alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving "repeated and actual notice" (Compl. ¶19). This notice is alleged to have occurred via a cease and desist letter sent on August 19, 2015, which Defendants allegedly confirmed receiving, as well as through patent markings on Plaintiff's products and industry publications (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the scope of the relative term "not substantially less than"? The case's outcome for three key claims may depend on whether this term is construed to require near-uniform shield thickness or if it permits measurable, non-functional variations.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: does the complaint's general allegation of infringement withstand scrutiny once the accused products are physically measured? The infringement analysis will depend entirely on empirical data regarding the products' dimensions and thickness ratios, which are not detailed in the pleading.
- A third core issue will relate to willfulness: did the Defendants' alleged receipt of a cease and desist letter nearly a year before the suit was filed create an objective risk of infringement that was known or should have been known, potentially exposing them to enhanced damages? The timeline and nature of the pre-suit notice will be critical to this determination.