Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Inc. v. First Alert, Inc. et al

On June 2, 2022, Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Inc. (“Plaintiff”), represented by Aamir A. Kazi, David M. Hoffman, Michael F. Autuoro and Scott M. Flanz of Fish & Richardson P.C., filed an intellectual property lawsuit against First Alert, Inc. and BRK Brands, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking damages for the alleged infringement of the U.S. Patents owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas with Judges Alan D. Albright and Derek T. Gilliland presiding. 

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of the U.S. Patent No. 7,123,158 (“the ’158 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,525,445 (“the ’445 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,791,828 (“the ’828 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,403,128 (“the ’128 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) owned by Plaintiff.

In the complaint, Plaintiff stated that “in 2012, Kidde introduced its Worry-Free line of smoke alarms, which included a 10-year sealed-in lithium battery. In 2013, Kidde became the first manufacturer to offer carbon monoxide alarms designed to last 10 years. Kidde’s innovations also extend to interconnected alarm systems which can detect multiple types of threats, intercommunicate, send remote notifications concerning multiple detected alarm conditions, and sound together when a threat is identified in one location.”

Plaintiff claimed that “Defendants, individually and collectively, make, use, sell, and offer for sale in the United States, and import into the United States, fire safety products, including smoke and CO alarm systems, and combination smoke and CO alarm systems, under the ‘First Alert,’ ‘Onelink’ and ‘BRK’ brands (collectively, ‘Defendants’ Product Offerings’).”

Plaintiff alleged that “Defendants have each directly infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced others to infringe the ’158 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States unlicensed systems, assemblies, and/or products in a manner that infringes at least claims 1 and 12 of the ’158 Patent.”

Plaintiff also alleged that “Defendants also are liable for contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). The products sold by Defendants are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and are products that have been specifically engineered to be used, and have been used, to infringe the ’158 Patent.”

Plaintiff then alleged that “since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendants know and have known that these products are especially made and/or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’158 Patent, and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.”

Plaintiff additionally alleged that “Defendants also have known of the ’158 Patent and its relevance to the ’158 Patent Accused Products, since at least the filing of this Complaint” and “Defendants continue to engage in these activities knowing that the products they sell are made and adapted for use, and are in fact used, in a manner that constitutes infringement of the ’158 Patent.”

Similar allegations have been made by the plaintiff with respect to other Patents-in-suit.

Plaintiff presented four claims for relief alleging infringement of each of the Patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested damages, royalties, litigation costs, and attorney fees.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.