DCT
1:19-cv-00477
Tippmann Engineering LLC v. Dothan Ware
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tippmann Engineering, LLC (Indiana)
- Defendant: Dothan Warehouse Investors, LLC (Alabama)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maynard Cooper & Gale; Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00477, M.D. Ala., 11/20/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Alabama because the defendant is incorporated in Alabama and has a place of business within the judicial district, and therefore resides there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cold-storage warehouse facility infringes a patent related to a system for freezing palletized products within a racking structure.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns industrial-scale freezing systems designed to improve the efficiency of freezing and storing large quantities of palletized goods by combining the freezing and storage steps into a single process.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with a quote for a patented system, which Defendant declined. Plaintiff alleges Defendant then hired a third party to install a system that infringes. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter identifying the patent-in-suit prior to filing the lawsuit. Plaintiff notes it is contemporaneously suing the system installer, Innovative Refrigeration Systems, Inc., in a separate action in the Western District of Virginia.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-09-10 | '570 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-03-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,297,570 Issues |
| 2018-11-08 | Tippmann sells 12 "T-2" spacer components to Dothan |
| 2018-11-14 | Tippmann's counsel sends letter to Dothan identifying '570 Patent |
| 2018-11-26 | Tippmann sells 6,000 "T-2" spacer components to Dothan |
| 2018-11-26 | Dothan's counsel responds to Tippmann's letter |
| 2019-02-25 | Dothan representative emails Tippmann with photos of spacers in use |
| 2019-03-12 | Tippmann's counsel sends letter with claim chart to Innovative |
| 2019-11-20 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,297,570 - RACK-AISLE FREEZING SYSTEM FOR PALLETIZED PRODUCT, Issued March 29, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional commercial freezing warehouses often employ a two-stage process where products are first frozen in a dedicated "blast room" and then physically moved to a separate cold storage area. The patent identifies this process as inefficient, requiring extra space and labor for product transport ('570 Patent, col. 2:18-27).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a one-stage system that integrates freezing directly into the storage racks. A pallet racking system is built adjacent to an "airflow chamber." Fans draw cold air from the warehouse ambient space, through the palletized products (which are separated by spacers to create air channels), and into the airflow chamber for re-circulation or exhaust ('570 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-42). By pressing a pallet of goods against an opening in the chamber wall, a seal is formed, forcing the air to travel through the product itself, thus freezing it in its storage location ('570 Patent, col. 3:15-21; Fig. 7).
- Technical Importance: This integrated "rack-aisle" approach is presented as a way to increase warehouse capacity, reduce product handling, and improve energy efficiency over conventional multi-stage systems ('570 Patent, col. 2:20-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 16.
- Independent Claim 1 recites an installation comprising:
- A warehouse with a pallet racking assembly.
- The assembly includes a pallet receiving space, an airflow chamber with an inlet and outlet, a fan, and a wall between the pallet space and the chamber.
- The wall has an airflow opening sized to be "sealingly engaged" by a pallet assembly when "pressed against the opening periphery."
- This engagement allows cold air to pass through an "airflow pathway" in the pallet assembly to freeze the product.
- Independent Claim 16 is similar but recites an installation comprising:
- A plurality of pallet assemblies and a pallet racking assembly with a "plurality of pallet receiving spaces."
- A wall has an airflow opening "disposed at each of the plurality of pallet receiving spaces."
- Each opening is sized to be "sealingly engaged by a respective pallet assembly."
- This configuration allows for simultaneous heat transfer for a plurality of pallet assemblies.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-4, 8-15, and 19-22 (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Systems" are one or more cold-storage facilities used by Dothan, which were allegedly installed by a third-party, Innovative Refrigeration Systems, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused system as including "rooftop mounted pre-fabricated mini-penthouses for blast freezing of product" (Compl. ¶40). These penthouses contain a cooling evaporator and fans that channel cold air down into a pallet racking system in the freezer below (Compl. ¶40). The complaint alleges the system is designed such that forced air "pushes the pallet seals in place" to direct airflow through the product (Compl. ¶34). The complaint further alleges that Dothan purchased and uses "T-2" spacers, provided by Tippmann, to create airflow pathways between cases on pallets (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 36). The complaint references "Dothan Schematic Drawings" which allegedly depict the system's layout, including racking systems and an air chamber (Compl. ¶44). The complaint also refers to "Dothan Photos" showing the T-2 spacers in use within the blast freezer system (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'570 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a warehouse defining a warehouse space set to a desired air temperature | The accused system is a freezing operation that necessarily warehouses the product during the process. | ¶32 | col. 1:28-31 |
| a pallet racking assembly disposed in the warehouse space, the pallet racking assembly comprising: a pallet receiving space sized and configured to receive a pallet assembly including a pallet and a plurality of vertically stacked rows of cases...providing an airflow pathway... | The accused system includes pallet racking, and photographs allegedly show pallets with vertically stacked cases. | ¶32 | col. 2:46-50 |
| an airflow chamber including an air inlet and an air outlet | Schematic drawings allegedly show racking systems with an airflow chamber located below a "penthouse unit." | ¶32 | col. 2:43-44 |
| a fan positioned to direct air into the airflow chamber from the air inlet and exhaust air into the warehouse space through the air outlet | The accused system's "penthouses contain...the fans and motor and supply and return air channeling means and methods." | ¶32 | col. 2:64-66 |
| a wall disposed between the pallet receiving space and the airflow chamber, the wall having an airflow opening defining an opening periphery | Schematic drawings allegedly show a wall, or its equivalent, between the pallets and the airflow chamber. | ¶32 | col. 2:65-3:1 |
| the opening sized and positioned to be sealingly engaged by the pallet assembly when the pallet assembly is pressed against the opening periphery | The design allegedly requires "baffling and sealing means on the pallet racking," and forced air "pushes the pallet seals in place." | ¶32 | col. 3:15-21 |
| whereby the air at the desired air temperature can pass into the airflow pathway of the pallet assembly to thereby transfer heat between the product and the air. | Product is allegedly loaded into the racking "to be frozen," with air being pushed through the product. | ¶32 | col. 2:1-4 |
'570 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 16)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of pallet assemblies, each pallet assembly comprising: a pallet; and a plurality of vertically stacked rows of cases disposed on the pallet and providing an airflow pathway... | The accused system involves loading product onto pallet racks, and photographs allegedly show multiple pallets with vertically stacked cases and airflow pathways via spacers. | ¶57 | col. 2:13-16 |
| a pallet racking assembly disposed in the warehouse space, the pallet racking assembly comprising: a plurality of pallet receiving spaces each sized and configured to receive a respective pallet assembly therein | Photographs allegedly show multiple pallets with vertically stacked cases, implying a plurality of receiving spaces. | ¶57 | col. 3:10-13 |
| a wall disposed between the plurality of pallet receiving spaces and the airflow chamber, the wall having an airflow opening disposed at each of the plurality of pallet receiving spaces | Schematic drawings allegedly show a wall between the pallets and airflow chamber, and it is alleged that fans serve "multiple pallet positions." | ¶57 | col. 3:10-13 |
| each airflow opening defining an opening periphery sized to be sealingly engaged by a respective pallet assembly | Air is allegedly "pushed...through the product," which is alleged to mean the opening is sized to sealingly engage the pallet assembly. | ¶57 | col. 3:3-7 |
| whereby the air...can pass into respective airflow pathways of the plurality of pallet assemblies to thereby simultaneously transfer heat between the product of the respective vertically stacked rows of cases and the air... | Photographs allegedly show airflow pathways via T-2 spacers, allowing air to freeze the product across multiple pallets. | ¶57 | col. 2:20-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system uses "rooftop mounted pre-fabricated mini-penthouses" (Compl. ¶40). This raises the question of whether this configuration, which appears to separate the fan/evaporator from the floor-level racking, meets the claim limitations of an "airflow chamber" and a "wall disposed between the pallet receiving space and the airflow chamber," which are depicted in the patent as a more integrated structure (e.g., ’570 Patent, Fig. 4). The complaint's use of "or the equivalent thereof" when describing the wall suggests this may be a point of dispute (Compl. ¶32).
- Functional Questions: Claim 1 requires the pallet assembly to be "pressed against the opening periphery" to create a seal. The complaint alleges infringement because "forced air pushes the pallet seals in place" (Compl. ¶34). A potential point of contention is whether sealing achieved by air pressure alone meets the "pressed against" limitation, which the patent specification appears to illustrate as an action performed by a forklift (e.g., ’570 Patent, Figs. 7-8).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sealingly engaged"
- Context and Importance: The effectiveness of the invention relies on forcing air through the product rather than around it. The nature of the seal is therefore critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory of infringement relies on "forced air" pushing seals into place, whereas the patent's figures depict a more active mechanical pressing of the pallet assembly.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism of engagement. An argument could be made that any configuration that results in a functional seal meets the limitation, regardless of whether it is achieved by mechanical force or air pressure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "sealing engagement with one of the plurality of air intake openings" in the context of a forklift moving the pallet into position ('570 Patent, col. 4:40-44). The figures consistently show a pallet being physically moved against the racking structure (e.g., ’570 Patent, Fig. 7, dir. 28), which may support a construction requiring mechanical force to achieve the engagement.
The Term: "wall disposed between the pallet receiving space and the airflow chamber"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core structure that separates the product from the air return. Its construction is critical because the accused system's "rooftop...mini-penthouse" design may not have a simple, single "wall" as depicted in the patent's embodiments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "wall" is not explicitly defined. It could be argued that any combination of structures (e.g., racking components, floor, ceiling) that collectively function to separate the two specified spaces would satisfy the limitation. The complaint's allegation of a wall "or the equivalent thereof" suggests anticipation of this issue (Compl. ¶32).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures show "wall 32 of racking 14," suggesting the wall is an integral component of the racking assembly itself ('570 Patent, col. 2:65-66; Fig. 7). This could support a narrower definition that excludes a non-integrated or composite structure.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 68-71). The basis for this allegation is pre-suit knowledge of the '570 patent. The complaint states that on November 14, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Dothan that identified the '570 Patent by number and included a copy of the patent (Compl. ¶69). The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued use of the Accused Systems after receiving this notice demonstrates a "wanton disregard" for Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶71).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: can the elements of the accused system, which allegedly includes "rooftop mounted pre-fabricated mini-penthouses," be construed to meet the claim limitations of an "airflow chamber" and an integrated "wall" as contemplated by the patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mechanics: does the accused sealing mechanism, allegedly achieved by "forced air push[ing] the pallet seals in place," satisfy the claim requirement that the pallet assembly be "pressed against the opening periphery," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the mode of operation?
- Finally, the allegation of pre-suit notice raises a critical question regarding willfulness: did the Defendant's continued use of the accused system after receiving a letter identifying the '570 Patent rise to the level of objectively reckless conduct required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?