DCT
2:17-cv-01660
Tile Tech Inc v Appian Way Sales Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tile Tech, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Appian Way Sales, Inc. (Washington); Puget Lite-Pavers, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-01660, W.D. Wash., 12/06/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside in the judicial district, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and have regular and established places of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ paver pedestal systems infringe a patent related to apparatuses for supporting and leveling paver arrays.
- Technical Context: The technology involves adjustable pedestal systems used to create level, elevated surfaces for pavers, a common application in modern construction for areas such as rooftop decks and patios.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Tile Tech is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with actual notice of the patent and their alleged infringement via a letter dated September 19, 2016, over a year prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-08-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,410,296 Priority Date |
| Since 2014 | Accused products advertised as newly introduced by Puget Lite |
| 2016-08-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,410,296 Issues |
| 2016-09-19 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendants |
| 2017-12-06 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,410,296 - "Apparatus and Related Methods of Paving a Subsurface"
- Issued: August 9, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes challenges with prior art paver pedestal systems, including the instability of certain slope compensation mechanisms and inadequate methods for securely anchoring pavers to the pedestals, which could allow pavers to shift or fall out of place (’296 Patent, col. 1:44-62, col. 2:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a multi-component, adjustable pedestal assembly for supporting pavers. The asserted claims focus on a base component featuring a "femininely threaded support cylinder" and a concentric "riser socket." This design provides a foundation for receiving a riser and other threaded components, creating a stable and adjustable support structure to elevate and level a paver surface (’296 Patent, col. 15:59-16:5).
- Technical Importance: This modular approach sought to provide a more robust and versatile solution for creating level paver surfaces over irregular or sloped subsurfaces compared to prior systems (’296 Patent, col. 1:35-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a paver array supporting component with four key elements:
- a femininely threaded support cylinder;
- a riser socket around the support cylinder;
- a foot; and
- an outer cylindrical wall projecting perpendicularly upwardly from the foot, concentrically arranged about and spaced from the support cylinder to define the riser socket.
- Independent Claim 8 recites a broader paver array supporting apparatus comprising a component with two main elements:
- a femininely threaded support cylinder; and
- an outer cylindrical wall concentrically arranged about and spaced from the support cylinder to define a riser socket.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶31-32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as the "Diamond Head™ Series AWS™ pedestal system" (Compl. ¶8, ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a pedestal system used to support pavers and create an elevated, level surface (Compl. ¶¶13, 36). The complaint alleges the product consists of multiple components that are assembled for use, including a base component with a threaded cylinder and a second, concentric wall that allegedly forms a riser socket (Compl. ¶¶24-27). The complaint includes schematic drawings of the accused product, which depict its multi-part, cylindrical, and threaded structure (Compl. ¶21, Ex. 5).
- The complaint alleges that Defendant Appian Way manufactures and sells the accused products to Defendant Puget, who acts as a distributor (Compl. ¶¶8, 34). Puget has allegedly advertised that the products were "newly introduced... since 2014" (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement theory is based on a literal reading of the claims onto the accused product’s structure. The allegations rely heavily on schematic drawings of the accused product, such as those provided in Exhibit 5 to the complaint, to map claim elements to product features (Compl. ¶21). Another visual from the complaint, a screenshot from the defendant's website, shows a paver being supported by the assembled accused product (Compl. ¶30, Ex. 4).
’296 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a femininely threaded support cylinder; | The accused product has an "innermost cylinder having a cylindrical wall with inner threads defining a hole." | ¶24 | col. 16:21-23 |
| b. a riser socket around the support cylinder; | A "second wall" is arranged around the support cylinder, and the "gap" between the two walls defines the riser socket. | ¶25 | col. 16:23-26 |
| c. foot; | The accused product has a "wide flat base that provides support" for the other components. | ¶26 | col. 16:19-20 |
| d. an outer cylindrical wall projecting perpendicularly upwardly from the foot, the outer cylindrical wall concentrically arranged about and spaced from the femininely threaded support cylinder to define the riser socket. | The "second wall" of the accused product allegedly constitutes this outer wall, projecting perpendicularly from the foot and arranged concentrically around the support cylinder to define the socket. | ¶27 | col. 16:26-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's "gap" between two walls constitutes a "riser socket" as contemplated by the patent. The patent discloses that a riser can be "removably installed in the riser socket" (e.g., ’296 Patent, Claim 2), which may suggest a more specific functional or structural requirement than a simple gap.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a single "second wall" in the accused product meets the limitations of the "outer cylindrical wall". The infringement analysis may turn on whether that "second wall" meets all geometric and relational requirements of the claim, such as projecting "perpendicularly upwardly from the foot" and being spaced from the inner cylinder specifically "to define the riser socket."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "riser socket"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the interface for a key component of the pedestal assembly (the riser). The infringement allegation hinges on construing this term to read on the "gap" between two cylindrical walls in the accused product (Compl. ¶25).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself simply describes "a riser socket around the support cylinder," which a party could argue requires only a space configured to receive a riser.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 recites a "riser is removably installed in the riser socket." A party could argue this implies the socket must have structural features that enable this "installation," beyond being a mere void. The specification refers to a riser being positioned within a "riser receptacle 313" (’296 Patent, col. 17:1-3), language that may support a more specific structural definition.
The Term: "foot"
Context and Importance: The definition of the "foot" is important as it provides the reference plane for the claim limitation that the "outer cylindrical wall" projects "perpendicularly upwardly from the foot." Practitioners may focus on this term because its boundaries could affect the geometric analysis of the infringement claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges a "wide flat base that provides support" is the foot (Compl. ¶26). This aligns with a plain meaning of the term as the bottom support structure of the component.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures show a "foot 111" as a distinct, often flared, base structure (’296 Patent, Fig. 28A). A party could argue the term is limited to the specific embodiments shown, potentially narrowing the surface from which the "perpendicularly" requirement is measured.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement: It is alleged that Defendants induce infringement by providing customers with instructions on how to assemble and use the accused products in an infringing manner, specifically referencing an instructional video on Defendant Appian Way's website (Compl. ¶¶49-50, 52).
- Contributory: It is alleged that Defendants contribute to infringement by selling the components of the accused product as a package, knowing they are specially adapted for an infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶58-59, 61).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ continued sale of the accused products after receiving a notice letter from Plaintiff on September 19, 2016, which allegedly identified the patent and the infringing products (Compl. ¶37, ¶43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of key claim terms and the corresponding factual evidence regarding the accused product's structure.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "riser socket", which the patent links to the "removabl[e] install[ation]" of a riser, be construed to cover the alleged "gap" between two concentric walls in the accused device, or does the patent require a more specific structure?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural identity: does the accused product's "second wall" meet all the geometric and relational limitations of the "outer cylindrical wall" as recited in Claim 1, including the requirements that it project perpendicularly from the "foot" and be spaced from the inner cylinder for the express purpose of "defin[ing] the riser socket"?