DCT
1:17-cv-00070
Bad Boy Inc v. Intimidator Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bad Boy, Inc. (Arkansas)
- Defendant: Intimidator, Inc. and RF Products, Inc. (Arkansas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keisling & Pieper, PLC; Fuqua Campbell, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00070, E.D. Ark., 10/05/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants being Arkansas corporations with their principal places of business in the Eastern District of Arkansas, where they allegedly transact business and committed the acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Spartan brand zero-turn mowers infringe a patent related to a lawnmower suspension system.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns suspension systems for zero-turn riding lawnmowers, designed to improve operator comfort and vehicle stability on uneven terrain.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a principal of the Defendants, Robert Foster, was a former shareholder of the Plaintiff until November 2013. The patent-in-suit issued on August 15, 2017, less than two months before this First Amended Complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-11-XX | Defendants' principal, Robert Foster, sells his shares in Plaintiff |
| 2014-06-11 | '386 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-08-15 | '386 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-10-05 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,730,386, “Suspension System for Lawnmower,” issued August 15, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of operator discomfort and potential loss of vehicle control resulting from the "constant bouncing and jarring" of riding mowers on rough terrain ('386 Patent, col. 2:41-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by isolating the mower's frame from the rear wheels. Instead of being rigidly fixed, the hydraulic transaxles that drive the rear wheels are pivotally attached to the frame and cushioned by elastomeric "vibration pillows." This configuration allows each rear wheel to move vertically in response to terrain irregularities, with the pillows absorbing the shock, thereby providing a smoother ride for the operator. ('386 Patent, col. 4:31-40, 4:54-67; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a simple and efficient suspension system specifically for zero-turn mowers, aiming to enhance operator comfort and vehicle control without the complexity of systems found in other vehicles ('386 Patent, col. 2:53-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, and 8 (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27, 30).
- Independent Claim 1 recites, in summary:
- A riding mower with a frame, mower deck, chair, and power source.
- Forward wheels and rear driven wheels supporting the frame.
- Two hydraulic transaxles mounted beneath the frame.
- Each transaxle is "supported beneath the frame by at least one vibration pillow."
- Each transaxle is "pivotally secured to the frame" to allow upward/downward movement.
- Upward wheel movement is "dampened by the vibration pillows."
- Independent Claim 5 recites a similar mower but requires specific structural elements, including a "flange secured to the frame," "at least two vibration pillows secured to each flange and captivating a portion of the drive axle," and "an inner pivot rod secured to the frame... extending through the transaxle."
- Independent Claim 8 recites a mower where each transaxle is "pivotally secured thereto by a flange captivating vibration pillows" and "an inner pivot rod secured to the frame by apertures in downwardly depending tabs."
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9, which add further structural details to the independent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 24-26, 28-29, 31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the "SPARTAN SRT" series of mowers, including the SRT PRO, SRT HD, SRT XD, SRT HDD, and SRT Mark Martin models (Compl. ¶12).
- Functionality and Market Context: These are described as residential and commercial grade zero-turn mowers (Compl. ¶¶ 2-3). The complaint alleges these mowers "utilize a suspension system that infringes the '386 Patent" by incorporating a transaxle suspension system (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not offer technical specifications or diagrams of the accused suspension's operation, instead alleging infringement through a direct mapping of product features to claim elements.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'386 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A riding mower adapted to traverse the ground and having a frame with a mower deck supported beneath the frame and a chair supported on the frame and a source of motive power also supported on said frame | The Accused Products are a riding mower with a frame, mower deck, chair, and motive power source supported on the frame. | ¶23a-d | col. 4:5-11 |
| a pair of forward wheels spaced apart from a pair of rear driven wheels, all of the wheels adapted to support the frame | The Accused Products have a pair of forward wheels and a pair of rear driven wheels, all of which support the frame. | ¶23e-f | col. 4:5-7 |
| two hydraulic transaxles mounted beneath the frame to each selectively rotate a driven wheel when supplied motive power | The Accused Products have two hydraulic transaxles mounted beneath the frame to rotate a driven wheel. | ¶23g | col. 4:11-14 |
| where each transaxle is supported beneath the frame by at least one vibration pillow | Each transaxle in the Accused Products is supported beneath the frame by at least one vibration pillow. | ¶23h | col. 4:41-43 |
| and pivotally secured to the frame so that each transaxle may move upwardly or downwardly in response to movement by its driven wheel | Each hydraulic transaxle in the Accused Products is pivotally secured to the frame, allowing it to move upwardly or downwardly. | ¶23i | col. 4:33-40 |
| and wherein each of the driven wheels can pivot upwardly or downwardly as the mower traverses the ground and wherein upward wheel movement is dampened by the vibration pillows | The driven wheels of the Accused Products can pivot, and upward movement is dampened by the vibration pillows. | ¶23j-k | col. 5:1-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory. A primary question will be whether the components in the Spartan mowers meet the claimed definitions. For instance, does the accused component alleged to be a "vibration pillow" meet the patent's functional requirements of both supporting the transaxle and dampening movement, or does it operate differently?
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused transaxle is "pivotally secured" to the frame. The evidence substantiating this pivotal connection will be central. The complaint does not provide diagrams or detailed descriptions of the accused product's connection mechanism, which raises the question of whether the connection is truly "pivotal" in the manner claimed and described in the patent's embodiments.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vibration pillow"
Context and Importance: This term appears in all asserted independent claims and is fundamental to the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on its construction, as Defendants could argue their corresponding component is a simple bumper or stop, not a "pillow" that provides both support and dampening as described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility in material, stating the pillow may be of "any one of several durometers of rubber hardness, or may be of other suitable elastomeric materials, including elastic shells with a liquid or other compressible material there within" ('386 Patent, col. 4:50-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the pillow performing a dual function. Claim 1 requires the transaxle to be "supported... by at least one vibration pillow" and for upward movement to be "dampened by the vibration pillows." A narrower construction might require a single component to perform both functions, as shown in embodiments where the pillow is "compressed by the rapid upward movement of a wheel assembly" ('386 Patent, col. 4:66-67).
The Term: "pivotally secured"
Context and Importance: This term, found in claims 1 and 8, defines the core mechanical movement of the suspension. Infringement will depend on whether the connection between the accused transaxle and frame allows for the type of pivotal motion disclosed in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "pivotally secured," which could leave it open to cover any connection that permits some degree of rotation about an axis.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment discloses a specific mechanism: a "pivot pin 74... secured in apertures 76 in tabs 78 depending from the frame" ('386 Patent, col. 4:34-38). A court could construe the term more narrowly to require a distinct, articulated joint similar to this disclosed pin-and-aperture structure, potentially excluding systems that achieve movement through other means like material flexure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a judgment for active inducement (Compl. p. 10, ¶A). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support this claim, such as references to user manuals or advertisements that allegedly instruct users to perform infringing acts. The allegations focus on direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants continuing to "manufacture, distribute and sell their infringing products after receiving actual notice of the '386 Patent" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint also notes that a principal of the Defendants is a former shareholder of the Plaintiff, a fact that may be used to argue a pre-existing awareness of the underlying technology, though knowledge of the patent application itself is not alleged (Compl. ¶9).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "vibration pillow" be met by a component that does not simultaneously "support" the transaxle and "dampen" its movement, or does the claim language require a single structure to perform both functions? The resolution of this question may be dispositive for infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused Spartan mower's suspension possess a connection that is "pivotally secured" in a manner analogous to the patent's disclosed pin-and-tab structure, or does it achieve movement through a technically distinct mechanism that falls outside the scope of the claims as construed by the court?