Tzu Tech LLC v. Fluke Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TZU Technologies, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Fluke Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Brandt Law Firm
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00561, W.D. Wash., 04/15/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington based on the Defendant's business operations and the sale and operation of the accused product within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Fluke DS701 Diagnostic Scope infringes a patent related to inspection cameras designed for viewing areas behind walls or other obstructions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns devices commonly known as borescopes or inspection cameras, which are used in construction, automotive, and industrial maintenance to visually inspect inaccessible spaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,953,032, “SELF ARTICULATING BEHIND-WALL CAMERA,” issued February 10, 2015.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for tradespeople and renovators to know what is behind a wall before cutting or demolishing it, in order to avoid damaging hidden electrical wiring, plumbing, or structural supports ('062 Patent, col. 1:22-30). Removing a section of the wall for visual inspection is described as often being an unacceptable solution ('062 Patent, col. 1:30-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a camera system designed to be inserted through a small hole in an obstruction like a wall. As described in the summary and detailed description, the system features a camera at the tip of an "elongated member" with a small cross-section, a controller at the other end for operation, an interface for a viewing device, and a light source ('062 Patent, col. 1:40-48, Fig. 1A). This allows a user to see behind the wall without creating a large opening ('062 Patent, col. 9:1-5).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology aims to reduce the uncertainty and risk associated with working on or around enclosed structures by providing a minimally invasive inspection method ('062 Patent, col. 1:32-36).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('062 Patent, Compl. ¶12).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A system for viewing partially or fully enclosed areas, comprising: a camera coupled to a first end of an elongated member;
    • at least one interface for communicating with a viewing device;
    • a controller coupled to a second end of the elongated member for controlling the member, camera, or viewing device;
    • a light source coupled towards the first end of the elongated member for illumination;
    • wherein the elongated member has a cross sectional area of less than about one square inch at a point toward its first end.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the Fluke DS701 Diagnostic Scope as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶13).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused Product is an inspection camera system used for viewing enclosed areas (Compl. ¶15). The system is described as having an inspection camera on a cable, an interface for a display, a user interface for controlling the device, and side and forward-facing LEDs for illumination (Compl. ¶¶16-19). The complaint alleges the cable has a diameter of 0.33 inches (Compl. ¶20). No other details regarding the product's market context or commercial importance are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product contains each element of at least Claim 1 of the '062 Patent (Compl. ¶21). While the complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not provided for this analysis, it presents a narrative infringement theory in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶14-20).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'062 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges a "user interface for prompting a controller" meets the claim limitation of a "controller coupled to a second end of the elongated member" (Compl. ¶18). This raises the question of whether the claimed "controller" must be the primary control circuitry itself, or if a user interface that sends signals to a controller is sufficient to meet the limitation as construed by the court.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the alleged "controller" in the accused device controls "at least one of the member, the camera, or the viewing device" as specified in the claim? (Compl. ¶18). The allegation is conclusory, and the specific control functions will be a matter for discovery and expert testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "controller coupled to a second end of the elongated member"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement analysis will depend on the physical and functional relationship between the control unit and the cable in the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges a "user interface for prompting a controller" satisfies the limitation, suggesting a potential dispute over whether this meets the "coupled to" requirement (Compl. ¶18).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the controller as potentially being a "complex device, such as a control algorithm programmed into a control system" and notes that controls may be located on an "external viewing device 130, such as a PDA, mobile telephone, laptop computer, etc." ('062 Patent, col. 4:18-21, 4:39-42). This language may support a more functional and less physically constrained definition of "coupled."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures consistently depict a physical "base unit" (116) that encompasses the controller (114) and is physically attached to the "second end" (112) of the elongated member (104) ('062 Patent, Figs. 1A, 2A-2C). This could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a direct physical connection or housing at the second end of the member.

• The Term: "cross sectional area of less than about one square inch"

• Context and Importance: This limitation quantifies a key feature of the invention—its ability to fit through a small hole. While the accused product's alleged cross-sectional area (calculated from a 0.33" diameter) appears to be well under this threshold, the construction of "about" can still be a point of contention in patent litigation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "about" itself implies some degree of flexibility. The specification links the size to the functional purpose of being insertable through a hole made by a "typical drill" ('062 Patent, col. 6:40-42). This could support an interpretation where any size that achieves this purpose falls within the scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more specific alternative size limitations, such as "less than about 0.75 square inch" and "less than about 0.25 square inch" ('062 Patent, col. 6:35-38). A party could argue these specific examples inform and potentially limit the permissible range of the broader term "about one square inch."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The sole count is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that the defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '062 Patent or that its alleged infringement has been willful.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "controller coupled to a second end of the elongated member," which the patent figures depict as a physically integrated base unit, be construed to read on the accused product’s alleged "user interface for prompting a controller"? The outcome will likely depend on whether the court adopts a more structural or a more functional interpretation of "coupled."
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what specific evidence will show that the accused controller, however defined, actually performs the claimed function of "controlling at least one of the member, the camera, or the viewing device" in a manner that aligns with the teachings of the '062 Patent?