DCT
2:23-cv-00393
Broan Nutone LLC v. Conglom Hong Kong Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Broan-NuTone LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Conglom Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00393, E.D. Wis., 11/15/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a foreign entity not residing in the United States, and alternatively because Defendant sells the accused products within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Vissani-branded range hoods infringe three U.S. patents related to a mounting bracket system that facilitates easier, single-person installation.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the ergonomic and logistical difficulty of installing heavy, awkwardly shaped range hoods by providing a preliminary support system, reducing the need for a second installer.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that before Defendant began selling the accused products, the parties had met to discuss a potential manufacturing relationship where Plaintiff shared detailed design information about its patented "easy installation" technology. The complaint further alleges that after the parties decided not to pursue a relationship, Defendant copied the technology. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement of all three asserted patents prior to the filing of the second amended complaint and that Defendant’s counsel had previously proposed licensing the patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-05-19 | Earliest Priority Date for '329, '611, and '316 Patents (U.S. Prov. App. 62/163,769) |
| 2018-12-01 | (approx.) Conglom allegedly met with Home Depot to offer/sell accused products |
| 2020-01-21 | U.S. Patent No. 10,539,329 ('329 Patent) Issued |
| 2021-10-22 | Broan sent notice letter regarding '329 Patent to MC Appliance Corp. |
| 2021-11-09 | Conglom’s counsel allegedly contacted Broan’s counsel regarding the '329 Patent |
| 2021-12-01 | (approx.) Conglom allegedly met with Home Depot again and entered into a Supply Agreement |
| 2022-05-02 | Conglom’s counsel allegedly proposed to license the Asserted Patents |
| 2022-12-06 | U.S. Patent No. 11,519,611 ('611 Patent) Issued |
| 2023-03-30 | Broan sent e-mail notice regarding '329 and '611 Patents to Conglom |
| 2024-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 12,025,316 ('316 Patent) Issued |
| 2024-07-16 | Broan sent notice letter regarding '316 Patent to Conglom |
| 2024-11-15 | Plaintiff filed Second Amended Complaint |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,539,329 - “Range Hood Installation System”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,539,329, “Range Hood Installation System,” issued January 21, 2020. (Compl. ¶28).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the complexity of installing under-cabinet range hoods, which are often large and heavy, requiring two or more people to safely mount the hood while making electrical and ducting connections. (’329 Patent, col. 1:19-47, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system using a mounting plate that is first secured to the underside of a cabinet. This plate includes a support feature, such as a specially formed "tongue." An installer can then lift the range hood and engage a corresponding opening onto this support feature, which temporarily "hooks" and holds the entire unit in place. This frees the installer's hands to permanently secure the hood with fasteners. (’329 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-26; FIG. 3C).
- Technical Importance: This system simplifies a common installation task, reducing the labor and coordination required by enabling a single person to perform the installation safely and efficiently. (Compl. ¶32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system) and 15 (a method). (Compl. ¶46).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
- A range hood "base section" with a "support opening".
- A "mounting plate" with a "support feature" configured to be inserted through the support opening.
- The support feature is further defined as a "tongue" with a specific geometry, including a "crest" and a "trough", formed from the material of the plate's base portion. (’329 Patent, col. 15:2-24).
- Independent Claim 15 requires, in part, the method steps of:
- "coupling" a mounting plate to a cabinet.
- "engaging" the support feature on the plate with a support opening on the range hood to support the hood.
- "inserting a fastener" through the range hood to couple it to the plate. (’329 Patent, col. 16:50-68).
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,519,611 - “Range Hood Installation System”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,519,611, “Range Hood Installation System,” issued December 6, 2022. (Compl. ¶29).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '329 patent, this patent addresses the same problem: the difficulty and complexity of fitting and securing large, awkwardly shaped range hoods to the underside of cabinets. (’611 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same core solution: a mounting plate with a support feature is pre-installed on the cabinet, and the range hood is then temporarily hung from this feature, enabling hands-free final installation. The claims of the ’611 patent focus on a specific configuration of the tongue-like support feature and its function in "hooking" the range hood. (’611 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:1-5).
- Technical Importance: This patent represents an iteration on the original invention, providing differently scoped protection for the same fundamental installation system. (Compl. ¶31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (a system). (Compl. ¶62).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
- A "range hood base section" with a "support opening".
- A "mounting plate" with at least one "tongue" having a specific multi-part structure: (i) a proximal end to a "crest", (ii) a "crest" to a "trough", and (iii) a "trough" to a distal end.
- The distal end of the tongue is configured to be inserted through the support opening to "hook" the range hood. (’611 Patent, col. 15:10-20, col. 16:1-5).
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,025,316 - “Range Hood Installation System”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,025,316, “Range Hood Installation System,” issued July 2, 2024. (Compl. ¶30).
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application for the '611 patent, this patent also covers a method and apparatus for simplifying range hood installation. It describes using a pre-installed mounting plate with a support feature, such as a tongue, to temporarily hold a range hood, which allows an installer to complete the mounting and connections hands-free. (’316 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-24).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶77).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the installation system provided with the Vissani range hoods, including the installation bracket, infringes the '316 patent. (Compl. ¶77, Ex. F).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Vissani branded range hoods, specifically model numbers QR254S, QR272S, QR272BS, and QR372S, as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are sold with what the complaint describes as an infringing installation bracket. (Compl. ¶46). Marketing materials for these products allegedly tout a "1 Person Install" or "1 person installation brackets for fast and easy setup," which the complaint contends is a direct result of using the patented technology. (Compl. ¶49). The products are allegedly manufactured by Conglom and distributed in the United States through major retailers, including Home Depot, and are specifically designed for the U.S. market. (Compl. ¶¶8, 10, 21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the installation bracket provided with the Accused Products is a "mounting plate" and that its "tongue" or "hook" feature meets the limitations of the asserted claims.
Exhibit D to the complaint provides a visual comparison of the accused product's installation bracket to the elements of the '329 Patent's claims. (Compl. ¶46).
'329 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base section defining a thickness and having an upper surface and defining at least one support opening on the upper surface | The Vissani range hoods are alleged to have a base section with an upper surface containing at least one opening designed to receive the support feature of the mounting bracket. | ¶46, Ex. D | col. 5:50-55 |
| a mounting plate mountable to the cabinet... and having at least one support feature configured to be inserted through the corresponding support opening... | The Accused Products are provided with a mounting bracket that is first attached to a cabinet and has a support feature for engaging the range hood. | ¶46, Ex. D | col. 6:5-10 |
| wherein the support feature comprises a tongue formed from material of the base portion... having a proximal end... and a distal end... | The bracket's support feature is alleged to be a tongue-like structure formed from the bracket's material. | ¶46, Ex. D | col. 7:22-29 |
| wherein the tongue extends away from the base section at the tongue proximal end to a crest, the tongue extending from the crest to a trough... | The geometry of the accused bracket's support feature is alleged to match the specific crest-and-trough structure required by the claim. | ¶46, Ex. D | col. 7:30-34 |
'611 Patent Infringement Allegations
Exhibit E to the complaint illustrates the alleged infringement of the '611 Patent, focusing on the specific geometry of the accused bracket's tongue. (Compl. ¶62).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mounting plate... comprising a base portion having at least one tongue, the tongue (i) having a proximal end extending... to a crest, (ii) extending from the crest to a trough, and (iii) extending from the trough to a distal end... | The installation bracket sold with the Accused Products allegedly includes a tongue whose physical shape corresponds to the claimed proximal end, crest, trough, and distal end. | ¶62, Ex. E | col. 15:13-19 |
| wherein the distal end of the at least one tongue is configured to be inserted through the support opening... to hook the range hood as the range hood is moved... | The accused bracket's tongue is allegedly inserted into an opening on the range hood, which temporarily "hooks" and supports the unit against the cabinet. | ¶62, Ex. E | col. 16:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the construction of the term "tongue". The defense may argue that the accused bracket’s support mechanism does not possess the specific geometric and structural characteristics—such as a distinct "crest" and "trough" formed from displaced material of the base—that are explicitly recited in the independent claims of the '329 and '611 patents.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will question whether the physical interaction between the accused bracket and range hood constitutes "hooking" as described in the '611 patent. Evidence regarding the precise shape, material, and method of formation of the accused bracket's support feature will be critical to determining if it meets the detailed claim limitations. Exhibit F to the complaint provides a similar visual analysis for the '316 Patent. (Compl. ¶77).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
1. The Term: "tongue"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the '329 and '611 patents and is the structural heart of the claimed invention. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused bracket's support feature is properly characterized as a "tongue" with the specific geometric properties recited in the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine the outcome of the literal infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the invention more generally as having a "support feature" before detailing the tongue embodiment, suggesting "tongue" could be one example of a broader class of features. For instance, it states the "support feature can be inserted through an opening in the range hood to hook the range hood." (’329 Patent, col. 2:26-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both patents' asserted independent claims define the "tongue" with very specific geometric limitations (e.g., "extends away from the base section... to a crest, the tongue extending from the crest to a trough"). (’329 Patent, col. 15:19-22). The specification consistently describes the "exemplary embodiment support feature 38" as a tongue with this structure, and the figures (e.g., FIG. 3A) depict this specific form. (’329 Patent, col. 7:22-34). A party could argue the claims are limited to this disclosed and specifically defined structure.
2. The Term: "to hook the range hood"
- Context and Importance: This functional limitation in Claim 1 of the '611 patent describes the purpose of the tongue. The dispute will be whether the interaction between the accused bracket and hood performs this specific "hooking" function. Its construction is critical because a mere temporary support might not be sufficient if "hooking" is construed to require a specific type of cantilevered, latch-like engagement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overview describes the goal as to "temporarily hold the range hood proximate the cabinet," which might support a broader reading of "hook" as any means of temporary support. (’611 Patent, col. 2:20-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed claim language specifies that the "hooking" occurs "as the range hood is moved from the distal end of the at least one tongue toward the proximal end." (’611 Patent, col. 16:2-5). This suggests a specific sliding and seating motion, which could support a narrower construction that requires more than simple insertion or resting. The figures, such as 3C and 4C, illustrate this engagement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant providing installation manuals, marketing materials touting the "1 Person Install" benefit, and instructions that allegedly guide customers and resellers to install the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 51, 65, 80). Contributory infringement is alleged based on the sale and shipment of replacement mounting brackets, which are described as a material part of the invention, not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶ 52-53, 68-69, 83-84).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement through a series of specific communications, including a proposal from its own counsel to license the patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 35, 38-39). The complaint further strengthens this allegation by claiming Defendant had access to Plaintiff's proprietary design information from prior business discussions and subsequently copied the technology. (Compl. ¶33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "tongue", which is defined in the patents with specific geometric limitations like a "crest" and "trough," be construed to read on the physical structure of the support feature on the accused installation bracket, or is there a dispositive structural mismatch?
- A key factual question will be one of intent and history: what weight will be given to the allegations of prior business discussions and a subsequent licensing proposal from Defendant? This evidence, if proven, may significantly influence the analysis of willful infringement, irrespective of the ultimate outcome on direct infringement.
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused installation bracket and its interaction with the range hood perform the same function, in the same way, to achieve the same result as the claimed invention? This will be particularly relevant if the court finds no literal infringement and the analysis proceeds under the doctrine of equivalents.