DCT
1:25-cv-02769
Inventvest LLC v. Asb Glassfloor America Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Inventvest LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: ASB GlassFloor America, Inc. (New York) and ASB Systembau Horst Babinsky GmbH (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02769, S.D.N.Y., 09/08/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for the U.S. defendant, ASB GlassFloor America, Inc., as it resides in the district. For the German defendant, ASB Systembau Horst Babinsky GmbH, venue is alleged to be proper in any district as it is a foreign entity not resident in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LED glass flooring products infringe a patent related to lighted flooring assemblies capable of displaying dynamic content.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns modular flooring systems, particularly for sports, that incorporate internal light sources to display changeable game lines, advertisements, or full-video graphics on the playing surface itself.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit through license offer letters in March 2024 and subsequent cease and desist correspondence. Defendant, through counsel, is alleged to have responded in January 2025 with a position of non-infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-05-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,918,579 Priority Date |
| 2011-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,918,579 Issued |
| 2024-01-XX | Alleged infringing use at "The Athletes Lab" event begins |
| 2024-XX-XX | Alleged infringing use at NBA All-Star 2024 event |
| 2024-03-XX | Plaintiff sends license offer letters to Defendants |
| 2024-XX-XX | Alleged infringing use at "Big Blue Madness 2024" event |
| 2024-10-XX | Plaintiff sends cease and desist letters to Defendants |
| 2024-10-24 | Defendant's counsel replies to Plaintiff |
| 2025-01-27 | Plaintiff's counsel contacts Defendant's counsel for a response |
| 2025-01-29 | Defendant’s counsel provides non-infringement position |
| 2026-09-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,918,579, "Lighted Flooring," issued April 5, 2011.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the challenges with traditional sports floors, where painted lines and logos are semi-permanent. Changing these markings is a "time consuming and costly process" that requires sanding and refinishing the entire surface (’579 Patent, col. 1:28-36). The patent notes a desire to have an assembly where lights can be incorporated directly into the floor to provide changeable images or accent lighting (’579 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a floor assembly that integrates a light source below a top surface, which has a "light emitting portion" for light to pass through (’579 Patent, abstract). One embodiment describes transparent floor strips containing light sources like LEDs or cathode tubes to create illuminated lines (’579 Patent, col. 3:1-7; ’579 Patent, Fig. 1). Another embodiment discloses a floor panel that functions as a monitor (’579 Patent, Fig. 8; ’579 Patent, col. 9:5-15). A key aspect is the inclusion of a "light refracting portion" to direct light emanating from the source at various angles (’579 Patent, abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology enables the creation of dynamic, multi-purpose surfaces where markings for different sports can be changed instantly, while also opening new avenues for on-floor advertisements and interactive displays (’579 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, and 7 (’579 Patent, col. 11:10-col. 12:10; Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of asserted independent claim 1 are:
- A floor assembly comprising: a top forming at least a portion of a floor surface and having at least one light emitting portion;
- at least one light source disposed below said light emitting portion and coupled with said at least one light emitting portion; and
- said light emitting portion comprising a light refracting portion, to direct light from the light source at multiple angles.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims ('Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "ASB LumiFlex" and "ASB MultiSports" flooring systems as the accused instrumentalities ('Compl. ¶24; Compl. ¶26).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint describes the ASB LumiFlex product as "The world's first full LED video sports floor made of glass," which is used for professional sports, advertising, and player tracking ('Compl. ¶24). A photograph in the complaint shows the LumiFlex floor displaying a full-surface graphic during a basketball event ('Compl. ¶25).
- The ASB MultiSports product is alleged to feature "customizable LED game lines activated via touchscreen" that can be turned on or off for different sports ('Compl. ¶34). A screenshot from the defendant's website shows the MultiSports floor configured for a handball court with illuminated boundary lines ('Compl. ¶27).
- The complaint alleges these products are used in high-profile settings, including the NBA All-Star game and NCAA basketball events, suggesting significant commercial positioning in the sports flooring market ('Compl. ¶45).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides infringement allegations against both the LumiFlex and MultiSports products. The core theory is that both products are floor assemblies with LEDs under a glass top surface that emits light. A photograph provided for the MultiSports product purports to show a cross-section of the floor with LEDs inside ('Compl. p. 10).
'579 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a top forming at least a portion of a floor surface and having at least one light emitting portion | The accused products feature a glass top surface that acts as the floor and emits light to display video graphics or game lines. | ¶31; ¶34 | col. 6:65-7:1 |
| at least one light source disposed below said light emitting portion and coupled with said at least one light emitting portion | The products allegedly use LED modules as light sources placed beneath the glass top surface. The complaint provides a photo allegedly showing LEDs situated within a cavity in the floor panel. | ¶31; ¶34; p. 10 | col. 8:56-58 |
| said light emitting portion comprising a light refracting portion, to direct light from the light source at multiple angles | The complaint alleges this element is met by pointing to marketing images of the entire floor system, without identifying a specific component that performs this function. | ¶31; ¶34 | col. 8:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A primary technical question will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that the accused products contain a structure that qualifies as a "light refracting portion" whose function is "to direct light from the light source at multiple angles." The complaint's allegations for this element appear conclusory and are not supported by specific structural details, which may create a focal point for non-infringement arguments.
- Scope Questions: The construction of "coupled with" may be disputed. The complaint's theory suggests that optical alignment (a light source placed below a transparent surface) is sufficient. The court may need to determine if the claim requires a more direct physical or functional integration between the light source and the emitting portion.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "light refracting portion"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the final limitation of independent claim 1 and adds a specific functional requirement beyond a simple light source and transparent surface. Its construction will be critical, as infringement may depend entirely on whether any component in the accused products meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides minimal evidence of a specific corresponding structure in the accused products.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes a "light refracting portion for guiding light passing therethrough," which could support an interpretation that includes any light-guiding or diffusing element (’579 Patent, col. 2:23-25).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples, stating the "light refracting portion 340' may comprise a corner prism," "mirrors or fiber optics," or be part of a light guide assembly (’579 Patent, col. 8:2-8; ’579 Patent, Fig. 7). This language could support a narrower construction limited to discrete optical components designed to actively direct light, as opposed to a surface that passively diffuses it.
The Term: "coupled with"
Context and Importance: This term defines the required relationship between the light source and the light emitting portion. Whether a simple placement of LEDs under a glass panel satisfies this limitation will depend on its construction.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad meaning, stating, "light can travel directly from the light source 20 out of the top 15," which it describes as the source being "coupled with the light emitting portion" (’579 Patent, col. 6:46-58). This suggests optical alignment alone may suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the specification offers broad language, a defendant could argue that in the context of an integrated "floor assembly," the term implies a more structured connection than mere proximity, potentially pointing to embodiments that use light guides to establish a more defined link (’579 Patent, col. 7:48-52).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants actively induced infringement by providing the accused floors to third parties, including the National Basketball Association and Rupp Arena, with full knowledge of the ’579 patent ('Compl. ¶¶44-45). The inducement allegations are supported by references to marketing materials and specific public events where the floors were used ('Compl. ¶45).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’579 Patent. The complaint alleges that Defendants were notified of the patent via license offer letters in March 2024 and subsequent communications ('Compl. ¶36). The complaint further alleges that Defendants continued to "make, use, import, offer to sell, and/or sell" the accused floors after receiving notice, which Plaintiff asserts constitutes knowing and intentional infringement ('Compl. ¶35; Compl. ¶42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Technical Proof: A central evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: does the accused product’s top surface or an associated component perform the specific function of a "light refracting portion" that "direct[s] light... at multiple angles" as claimed, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the accused products and this claim limitation?
- Claim Construction: The outcome of the case may hinge on a question of definitional scope: will the court construe "light refracting portion" narrowly, limiting it to specific optical structures like the prisms and mirrors disclosed in the patent, or will it adopt a broader definition that could cover general light-diffusing surfaces potentially found in the accused floors?
- Willfulness: The willfulness analysis will likely turn on the defendants' state of mind after receiving notice. A key question for the fact-finder will be whether the defendants' continued activities, after being provided with the patent and an infringement theory in March 2024, constituted objectively reckless conduct rising to the level required for enhanced damages.
Analysis metadata