Ultimate Home Protector Pans, Inc. v. Camco Mfg., Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | 1:19CV280,1:19CV675 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | ULTIMATE HOME PROTECTOR PANS, INC., d/b/a DRIPTITE, Plaintiff, v. CAMCO MANUFACTURING, INC., HAIER US APPLIANCE OPERATION, LLC, and HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. ULTIMATE HOME PROTECTOR PANS, INC., d/b/a DRIPTITE, Plaintiff, v. HAIER US APPLIANCE OPERATION, LLC, and HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. |
This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss or transfer filed by Defendants Haier US Appliance Operation, LLC, and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. (together, "GE Appliances"). (1:19CV675 (Doc. 7).) Also pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by Camco Manufacturing, Inc. ("Camco"). (1:19CV280 (Doc. 8).)1 For the reasons set forth herein, the court will deny Defendants' motions.
The facts, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, are as follows.
Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada with its principal place of business in Ohio. It develops and sells "various washer overflow pans, drip pans, leak pans or other similar products designed to protect residential dwelling from water damage and mold damage caused by dripping or leaking plumbing." (Id.) It owns U.S. Patent No. 8,393,351 (the "'351 Patent"), titled "Dual Automatic Dryer and Washing Machine Protective Basin." (Id. ¶ 1-2; Ex. A, Patent No. US 8,393,351 (Doc. 1-1) at 2.)
Defendant Camco is a corporation organized under the laws of North Carolina with its principal place of business there as well. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Defendant Haier US Appliance Operation, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal office located in Kentucky. Defendant Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Kentucky. (Id. ¶ 4.) Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., is the "sole member and parent company" of Haier US Appliance Operation, LLC. (Id.)
The '351 Patent is entitled "Dual Automatic Dryer and Washing Machine Protective Basin," and describes the invention as "a drip pan sized to fit both a washer and dryer, and to contain leakage from both appliances." .) With the Protective Basin, "[t]he position of the washer and dryer can safely be swapped, and the pan can optionally be provided with an opening directly over a floor drain, which now need not be located under the washing machine." (Id.) Further, "[t]he front wall of the basin can be sized to clear a door or pedestal drawer; alternatively, thebasin can have raised spots supporting the feet of the appliance or pedestal, so as to lift doors or drawers above the front wall." (Id.) The invention is depicted as Figure 1, '351 Patent (Doc. 1-1) at 3):
Image materials not available for display.
In the "Background of the Invention" the '351 Patent states that the Protective Basin "protects both dryer and washing machine and the underlying surface on which they are supported from drippage, and is effective with both front and top loaders installed side-by-side." (Id. at 8.) The '351 Patent recites seventeen claims for the invention. Claim 6, at issue here, reads:
(Id. at 11 (emphasis added).)
Plaintiff alleges Camco "makes, uses, offers to sell . . . [at least three] washing machine drain pans that infringe one or more claims of the '351 Patent." 2 Camco sells these products on its website, on Amazon.com, and at other retail outlets like Lowe's Home Centers. (Id.)
Plaintiff also alleges Defendants Haier US Appliance Operation, LLC, and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. (together, "GE Appliances") sell an infringing product titledthe "Low Profile Universal Washing Machine Flood Tray."
Plaintiff alleges Defendants' products infringe "at least claim 6" of the '351 Patent.
Plaintiff brought suit against Camco in this court. Camco filed a motion to dismiss, (Doc. 8), and a brief in support of its motion to dismiss. ("Camco's Br.") (Doc. 10).) Plaintiff responded, ("Pl.'s Camco Resp.") (Doc. 15)), and Camco replied. ("Camco's Reply") (Doc. 16).)
Plaintiff also brought suit against GE Appliances in the Western District of Kentucky. GE Appliances moved to dismiss or transfer the case to this district, (GE Appliances' Mot. (Doc. 7)), and the parties agreed to transfer the Complaint to this court. (Doc. 17.) Once transferred, the parties moved to consolidate the two cases, , and GE Appliances replied, (Doc. 20).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face if "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable" and demonstrates "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, this court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Further, this court liberally construes "the complaint, including all reasonable inferences therefrom, . . . in plaintiff's favor." Estate of Williams-Moore v. All. One Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 335 F. Supp. 2d 636, 646 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (citation omitted). This court does not, however, accept legal conclusions as true, and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The court may consider the complaint's attachments as well as documents "attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic." Sec'y of State forDefence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). The court may also take judicial notice of items in the public record, Hall v. Virginia, 385 F.3d 421, 424 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), including patent and trademark registrations. Zinner v. Olenych, 108 F. Supp. 3d 369, 377 n.2 (E.D. Va. 2015).
Determining patent infringement involves a two-step analysis. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993). First, a court must construe the claim at issue in order to determine its scope and meaning, as a matter of law. Id. Second, the court must compare the claim to the alleged infringer's products. Id.; see also ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Direct infringement occurs where "all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity." Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A plaintiff may prove direct infringement by proving literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Literal infringement is found if the accused products embody every limitation of the claim. Carroll Touch, 15 F.3d at1576. By contrast, under the doctrine of equivalents, "a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is 'equivalence' between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention." Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997).
Plaintiff alleges Defendants infringed the '351 Patent under either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. . In particular, Plaintiff alleges Defendants infringed Claim 6 of the '351 Patent. Plaintiff also brings a claim for willful infringement against GE Appliances. 3
In their motions, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for literal patent infringement "because none of the allegedly infringing products are sized to contain at least one washing machine and at least one dryer." (Camco's Br. (Doc.10) at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted); GE Appliances' Mot. (Doc. 7) at 5-6).)
Defendants further argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for...
To continue reading
Request your trial