DCT
2:19-cv-00014
Cool Tops Inc v. Safford Trading Co LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cool Tops, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Safford Trading Company, LLC (Alabama)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A.; Maier & Maier, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00014, S.D. Ala., 01/14/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant allegedly committing acts of infringement and having at least one regular and established place of business in the Southern District of Alabama.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s canopy and fan accessory for riding mowers infringes a patent directed to a canopy assembly that integrates with a downdraft fan.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to aftermarket accessories for operator comfort on outdoor power equipment, such as zero-turn lawnmowers, which are commonly used in both commercial and residential settings.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit’s background section references the inventor's prior U.S. Patent No. 6,202,394, which disclosed a downdraft fan system without an integrated canopy. The current patent claims to be an improvement upon that earlier system.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-08-26 | '145 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-03-19 | '145 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-01-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,398,145 - "Fan And Canopy Assembly For Riding Vehicle" (issued March 19, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an accessory that provides an operator of a riding vehicle (like a lawnmower) with both a cooling flow of air and protection from sun and rain. Existing canopies were described as incompatible with available downdraft fan systems, as they could interfere with airflow, require complex and separate mounting hardware, and cause the fan to draw in dust and insects from ground level (’145 Patent, col. 1:31-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a unified system where a canopy is mounted directly onto a downdraft fan assembly. The canopy has a central opening that allows the fan to draw cleaner ambient air from above the canopy and direct it down onto the operator (’145 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:46-55). This design aims to provide both weather protection and cooling in a single, easily installed unit that leverages the structure of the fan for its own support, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 (’145 Patent, Fig. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention seeks to combine the functions of two separate accessories—a fan and a canopy—into a single integrated system, potentially simplifying installation and improving the performance of both components (’145 Patent, col. 1:46-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A canopy assembly for a riding vehicle, comprising: a canopy;
- An opening in the canopy, sized and adapted to accommodate a downdraft fan attached to the riding vehicle;
- Wherein the canopy assembly is adapted to be secured to the downdraft fan;
- Such that the canopy assembly extends substantially above one or more seats of the riding vehicle; and
- Such that the canopy assembly provides protection from at least one of sunlight or rain.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Zero Turn Canopy with Fan" sold by Defendant Safford Trading Company, also doing business as Safford Equipment Company (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product, based on Defendant's marketing materials, as a 40" x 48" canopy made of diamond tread aluminum that "comes with a 14" fan and all hardware to easily install on your mower" (Compl. ¶12). It is designed to fit on the Roll Over Protection Systems (ROPS) of mowers and provide "plenty of shade from the sun and shelter from the rain, to keep you cool and dry while mowing your lawn" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes a photograph showing the accused product's fan situated within an opening in the canopy (Compl. ¶21, p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'145 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A canopy assembly for a riding vehicle, comprising: a canopy; | The accused product is a "zero turn canopy" made of diamond tread aluminum, advertised as a "canopy assembly for a riding vehicle". | ¶18, ¶19 | col. 2:48-51 |
| an opening in the canopy, the canopy opening being sized and adapted to accommodate a downdraft fan attached to the riding vehicle, | The accused product has an opening in the canopy to accommodate a 14" fan. A photograph shows the fan assembly installed within this opening. | ¶20, ¶21 | col. 3:9-14 |
| wherein the canopy assembly is adapted to be secured to the downdraft fan | The complaint does not explicitly detail the connection mechanism but alleges the product comprises this element, supported by photographs showing the fan and canopy as an integrated unit. | ¶22 | col. 1:46-49 |
| such that the canopy assembly extends substantially above one or more seats of the riding vehicle, | The complaint provides a photograph showing multiple mowers with the accused product installed, depicting the canopies positioned above the operator seats. | ¶22 | col. 2:44-48 |
| and such that the canopy assembly provides one or more operators or passengers of the riding vehicle at least some protection from at least one of sunlight or rain. | The accused product is advertised as providing "plenty of shade from the sun and shelter from the rain". | ¶23 | col. 2:45-48 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A central question will be how the accused product's canopy and fan are physically connected. The complaint's photographs show them assembled together, but the precise nature of the "hardware" mentioned in the advertising is not detailed (Compl. ¶12). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the canopy is secured to the fan assembly, or if the canopy and fan are two distinct components that both attach to the vehicle's ROPS frame.
- Scope Questions: The claim requires the canopy assembly be "adapted to be secured to the downdraft fan." The interpretation of this phrase will be critical. The dispute may focus on whether this requires a direct mounting of the canopy onto the fan's housing, as described in the patent's preferred embodiment, or if it can be read more broadly to cover a kit where the two parts are designed to be installed together.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "adapted to be secured to the downdraft fan"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the primary point of novelty, distinguishing the invention from a separate fan and canopy. The entire infringement case may depend on whether the accused product's assembly method falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the structural relationship between the two key components.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "adapted to" simply means the components are made to be compatible or suitable for use together, without mandating a specific method of attachment. The claim language itself does not specify how they are to be secured.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the invention provides a system "wherein a canopy is directly mounted on the fan, without the need for additional mounting hardware" (’145 Patent, col. 1:46-49). Further, it describes the canopy overlying "the perimeter of the fan assembly" (’145 Patent, col. 1:50-52). This language suggests a specific, integrated physical connection where the fan structure supports the canopy.
The Term: "downdraft fan"
- Context and Importance: The complaint alleges the accused product has a "14" fan," but the claim requires a "downdraft fan" (Compl. ¶12). The definition of this term is necessary to determine if the accused fan meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: any fan that creates a downward flow of air. The patent itself describes the fan as providing "a downward flow of ambient air" (’145 Patent, col. 2:47-48).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly incorporates by reference the inventor's prior U.S. Patent No. 6,202,394 for the "Construction on the fan assembly" (’145 Patent, col. 3:1-3). A party could argue that this incorporation limits the scope of "downdraft fan" to the specific structures disclosed in that earlier patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against indirect infringement, but the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for either induced infringement (e.g., knowledge and intent to cause infringement by others) or contributory infringement (e.g., selling a component with no substantial non-infringing use) (Compl. p. 8, ¶(2)). The single count is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. p. 3).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant will have knowledge of the '145 Patent "at least, the date that Safford is served with a copy of this Complaint," forming a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural attachment: does the accused product's canopy secure to the fan assembly itself, as suggested by the patent's specification, or do the fan and canopy attach as separate components to the vehicle's frame, potentially placing the product outside the scope of the claim limitation "adapted to be secured to the downdraft fan"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of component identity: does the accused product's "14" fan" constitute a "downdraft fan" as that term is used in the patent, and how much, if at all, does the patent's incorporation of an earlier patent for the fan's construction limit the scope of that term?