Anova Applied Electronics Inc v. Perch Acquisition Co 1 LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Anova Applied Electronics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Perch Acquisition Co 1 LLC d/b/a “SOUSVIDE ART,” et al. (Delaware, Ukraine, China, Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Tbillick Law
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00843, W.D. Wash., 06/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ business dealings directed at Washington, including conducting business with Seattle-based Amazon.com and making sales to customers within the state. For non-U.S. based defendants, venue is asserted as proper in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Sousvide Art Precision Cooker" products infringe a reissue patent related to the design and construction of sous-vide immersion circulator cookers.
• Technical Context: Sous-vide immersion circulators are popular kitchen appliances that heat and circulate water in a vessel to cook food at a precise and stable temperature, a technique favored for its consistent results.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE49,267, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,826,855. Reissue proceedings are typically used to correct errors in an original patent, and the file history of the reissue may provide important context for claim interpretation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-12-03	RE49,267 Patent Priority Date
2017-11-28	Original U.S. Patent No. 9,826,855 Issue Date
2018-05-23	Alleged First Use in Commerce of Accused Products
2022-11-01	U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,267 Issue Date
2023-06-06	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,267 - “Circulator Cooker with Alarm System”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the sous-vide cooking method, which requires maintaining an accurately regulated water temperature for extended periods, implying a need for devices that can achieve and signal this state effectively. (’267 Patent, col. 1:30-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part immersion circulator designed for sous-vide cooking. It features a head portion with the controls and display, a middle portion, and a lower, immersible portion containing a heating element and a fluid agitator. A key aspect of the design is a detachable "skirt" that forms the lower portion, allowing for easier cleaning of the internal components like the heater and pump. (’267 Patent, col. 2:30-38, Fig. 2). The device is structured to be partially immersed in a fluid bath to heat and circulate it. (’267 Patent, col. 6:62-65).
• Technical Importance: The modular design with a removable lower skirt addresses a practical maintenance issue in sous-vide devices, where food or mineral deposits can accumulate on the heating and circulation elements, requiring cleaning. (’267 Patent, col. 2:30-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶35).
• Claim 1 of the ’267 Patent requires:
  • An upper and middle portion containing a controller, display, input device, and motor.
  • A lower portion that is "releasably connected" to the upper and middle portions.
  • The lower portion houses a fluid agitation device and a heating element.
  • The lower portion is configured with both "a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations."
  • The lower portion is configured for at least partial immersion in a fluid.
• The complaint focuses its infringement allegations on claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶33, 35, 41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Sousvide Art Precision Cooker" and related kits sold by the various defendants on platforms including Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The complaint identifies several specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) for the accused products. (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as immersion circulator cookers used for the sous-vide cooking technique. (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides visual evidence, including a screenshot of an Amazon product listing for the "SOUSVIDE ART Precision Cooker Kit," which shows the device and accessories. (Compl. p. 17). The complaint alleges the defendants operate various seller accounts on Amazon to market and sell these products to customers throughout the United States. (Compl. ¶¶36, 37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Sousvide Art Precision Cooker infringes at least claim 1 of the RE267 Patent" and states that this infringement is "detailed in the RE267 Claim Chart (attached as Exhibit 19)." (Compl. ¶35). However, Exhibit 19 was not filed with the complaint.

In the absence of the claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint’s text and visual exhibits. The complaint alleges the accused products practice the claimed invention. (Compl. ¶36). A provided screenshot of an accused product listing depicts a device with a form factor generally consistent with the claimed three-part structure: an upper control head, a central body, and a lower, immersible section with openings for water flow. (Compl. p. 17). A second screenshot shows a customer Q&A section where a defendant, "Garnease," refers to the accused product as a "sous vide precision cooker," which Plaintiff may use to argue adoption of infringing terminology. (Compl. p. 18). The narrative suggests the accused product's physical structure and function map onto the elements of claim 1.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused product's lower housing contains both "a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations" as required by the conjunctive language of claim 1. The visual evidence in the complaint is not detailed enough to resolve this specific structural element.
• Scope Questions: The interpretation of "releasably connected" may be a point of dispute. The case may turn on whether the accused product's assembly—specifically how its lower portion connects to the upper portions—falls within the scope of this term as construed by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "releasably connected"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's modularity. The infringement analysis for this element will depend on whether the connection between the lower portion and the upper/middle portions of the accused product meets the judicially construed definition of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the method of connection (e.g., tool-less, screw-on). A party could argue that any connection that allows the parts to be separated without being destroyed meets the plain and ordinary meaning of "releasably connected."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments including a "removable, tool-less screw-on or clamp-on skirt." (’267 Patent, col. 3:15-17). A party could argue this context limits the claim term to connections that are easily user-serviceable for cleaning, as opposed to connections requiring factory-level disassembly.

• The Term: "a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific structural feature of the immersible lower portion related to water circulation. Infringement requires the accused product to possess both types of perforations. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a clear, binary condition for infringement that can be verified through physical inspection.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "perforations" or specify their size, number (beyond "plurality"), or arrangement. An argument could be made that any set of two or more vertical openings and two or more horizontal openings, regardless of their form, would satisfy this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "and" is strictly conjunctive, requiring the presence of both distinct features. A party might argue that if the accused product has only one type of opening (e.g., only vertical slots), or openings that are not clearly "vertical" or "horizontal," it does not meet this element. The patent figures may be used to argue for a particular structural meaning of these terms. (’267 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that Defendants provide instructions and encouragement to third parties (i.e., customers) on how to use the accused product in an infringing manner, citing an online community forum on Facebook as an example. (Compl. ¶¶38, 41). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging Defendants sell a product constituting a material part of the invention that is especially made for infringement and not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants had knowledge of the ’267 Patent and that their infringement has been and continues to be "knowing, intentional, and willful." (Compl. ¶¶44-45).

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

This dispute appears to center on a straightforward comparison of a consumer product against the structural claims of a patent. The core questions for the court will likely be:

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused "Sousvide Art" cooker’s lower housing physically incorporate both "a plurality of vertical perforations and a plurality of horizontal perforations" as strictly required by the conjunctive language of Claim 1? This will be a critical, fact-intensive inquiry during discovery.
2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the term "releasably connected" be construed? The outcome may depend on whether the court adopts a broad, plain-meaning definition or a narrower one informed by the specification’s "tool-less" and "screw-on" examples, which will determine if the accused product's assembly method infringes.