DCT
1:19-cv-00017
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: Fuqua Campbell, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00017, E.D. Ark., 02/21/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that both Defendants are Arkansas corporations with principal places of business in the Eastern District of Arkansas, where they reside, regularly transact business, and have allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Spartan brand zero-turn mowers infringe a patent related to a suspension system for lawnmowers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns suspension systems for zero-turn riding lawnmowers, a market where operator comfort and vehicle stability on uneven terrain are significant design considerations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that a principal of the Defendants, Robert Foster, was a shareholder of the Plaintiff until November 2013. This prior relationship may be relevant to questions of pre-suit knowledge or willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-11-XX | Robert Foster, a principal of Defendants, sells his shares in Plaintiff. |
| 2014-06-11 | ’033 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 62/010,634). |
| 2017-01-04 | Assignment of the ’033 Patent to Plaintiff recorded at the USPTO. |
| 2019-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,188,033 issues. |
| 2019-02-21 | Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,188,033 - Suspension System for Lawnmower
Issued: January 29, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that operators of riding mowers, particularly over rough terrain for extended periods, can suffer "considerable discomfort and, in some cases, injury" from "constant bouncing and jarring" (’033 Patent, col. 1:53-58). It notes that while suspension systems are desirable, prior art systems were limited and an improved system was needed (’033 Patent, col. 2:56-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a suspension system where the mower’s two rear integrated hydraulic transaxles—the components that drive the rear wheels—are not rigidly fixed but are "pivotally secured" to the mower's frame (’033 Patent, col. 5:42-45). This allows each rear wheel and its associated transaxle to pivot independently, with the movement dampened by "resilient members" or "damping pillows" situated between the transaxle and the frame, thereby isolating the operator from vibrations (’033 Patent, col. 4:48-55; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve both vehicle stability and operator comfort by placing the suspension mechanism directly at the transaxle, allowing each drive wheel to react independently to the terrain (’033 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 and 10, as well as dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 (Compl. ¶¶18-33).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A riding mower with a frame, mower deck, chair, and power source.
- A pair of forward wheels and a pair of rear driven wheels.
- Two integrated hydraulic transaxles mounted to the frame.
- Each transaxle selectively rotates a respective rear driven wheel.
- Each transaxle is "pivotally secured to the frame" to pivot in conjunction with the respective rear driven wheel about a pivot axis.
- Independent Claim 10 requires:
- A riding mower with a frame, mower deck, chair, and power source.
- A rear drive system comprising a pair of integrated hydraulic transaxles.
- A right integrated hydraulic transaxle "pivotally coupled to the frame" to rotate a right rear drive wheel and pivot about a right pivot axis.
- A left integrated hydraulic transaxle "pivotally coupled to the frame" to rotate a left rear drive wheel and pivot about a left pivot axis.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products as the "SPARTAN SRT" series of mowers, specifically naming the SRT PRO, SRT HD, SRT XD, SRT HDD, and SRT Mark Martin models (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused Products as residential and commercial grade zero-turn mowers (Compl. ¶2). Based on the infringement allegations, the relevant functionality includes having a frame, a chair, a power source, forward and rear wheels, and two integrated hydraulic transaxles that drive the rear wheels and are allegedly mounted to the frame in a pivoting manner (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). The complaint alleges these products are sold through retail stores and marketed on Defendants' websites (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement allegations are presented in a conclusory, element-by-element format without detailed factual support or claim charts.
’033 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A riding mower having a frame with a mower deck supported beneath the frame and a chair supported by the frame and a source of motive power also supported by the frame... | The Accused Products include a frame, mower deck, chair, and source of motive power. | ¶18a-d | col. 4:16-21 |
| a pair of forward wheels spaced apart from a pair of rear driven wheels, all of the wheels connected to support the frame... | The Accused Products have a pair of forward wheels and a pair of rear driven wheels connected to support the frame. | ¶18e-f | col. 4:17-19 |
| two integrated hydraulic transaxles mounted to the frame... | The Accused Products include two integrated hydraulic transaxles mounted to the frame. | ¶18g | col. 4:19-21 |
| wherein each integrated hydraulic transaxle is configured to selectively rotate a respective rear driven wheel of the pair of rear driven wheels... | Each transaxle is configured to selectively rotate a respective rear driven wheel. | ¶18h | col. 5:39-41 |
| and is pivotally secured to the frame so that the integrated hydraulic transaxle is configured to pivot in conjunction with the respective rear driven wheel about a respective pivot axis. | Each transaxle is pivotally secured to the frame, allowing it to pivot with the rear driven wheel about a pivot axis. | ¶18i | col. 5:42-45 |
’033 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 10)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A riding mower having a frame and a mower deck, a chair, and source of motive power supported by the frame... | The Accused Products include these components. | ¶27a-c | col. 4:16-21 |
| ...the riding mower further comprising a rear drive system comprising: a pair of integrated hydraulic transaxles... | The Accused Products have a rear drive system with two integrated hydraulic transaxles. | ¶27d | col. 6:17-19 |
| a right integrated hydraulic transaxle pivotally coupled to the frame and configured to rotate a right rear drive wheel, the right integrated hydraulic transaxle configured to pivot with the right rear drive wheel about a right pivot axis... | The rear drive system has a right transaxle pivotally coupled to the frame, configured to rotate the right wheel and pivot about a right pivot axis. | ¶27e | col. 6:20-24 |
| and a left integrated hydraulic transaxle pivotally coupled to the frame and configured to rotate a left rear drive wheel, the left integrated hydraulic transaxle configured to pivot with the left rear drive wheel about a left pivot axis. | The rear drive system has a left transaxle pivotally coupled to the frame, configured to rotate the left wheel and pivot about a left pivot axis. | ¶27f | col. 6:25-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the scope of "pivotally secured to the frame" (Claim 1) and "pivotally coupled to the frame" (Claim 10). A central question will be whether the specific mounting mechanism of the accused Spartan mowers falls within the scope of these terms as construed in light of the patent’s specification, which describes a particular arrangement using pivot pins and tabs (’033 Patent, col. 4:42-47).
- Technical Questions: The complaint lacks technical evidence, such as photographs or schematics of the accused products' suspension. A key question for discovery will be whether the accused transaxles are, in fact, configured to pivot relative to the frame as required by the claims. The complaint provides an enlarged perspective view of the patented transaxle assembly from the patent itself, showing the pivot pin and damping pillows, but does not provide a corresponding visual for the accused product (Compl. Ex. A, Fig. 3).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"pivotally secured to the frame" (Claim 1) / "pivotally coupled to the frame" (Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the central inventive concept distinguishing the patent from a rigid-frame mower. The precise meaning of this connection will likely be the primary determinant of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning, suggesting any form of connection that allows the transaxle to pivot relative to the frame meets the limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited by the specific embodiment described in detail, where the transaxle is "articulated about a pivot pin 74...secured in apertures 76 in tabs 78 depending from the frame" (’033 Patent, col. 4:42-46). The consistent depiction of this specific structure in the figures could be used to argue it is not merely exemplary but essential to the invention.
"resilient members" (Claim 9) / "resilient member" (Claim 16)
- Context and Importance: These dependent claims, which are asserted, add the damping element to the system. Defining this term is critical to proving infringement of these specific claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the type and placement of the damping element are key to the system's function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the members may be of "any one of several durometers of rubber hardness, or may be of other suitable elastomeric materials" (’033 Patent, col. 4:56-59), potentially supporting a broad definition covering various types of shock absorbers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to these elements as "damping pillows 81" and "vibration pillows" that are "secured between the downwardly depending frame flanges" (’033 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:49-52). This specific language and configuration could be argued to narrow the scope of the term to such "pillow"-like structures.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The prayer for relief seeks judgment that Defendants have actively induced infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶A). However, the body of the complaint focuses on direct infringement and does not plead specific facts to support inducement, such as allegations that Defendants provided instructions or manuals encouraging an infringing use.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that continued infringement after the filing of the lawsuit "will be willful" (Compl. ¶34). It also alleges that a principal of the Defendants was a former shareholder of the Plaintiff, a fact which could be used to argue pre-suit knowledge of the technology or the pending patent application, although the complaint does not explicitly make this connection (Compl. ¶9). Plaintiff seeks treble damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the terms "pivotally secured" and "pivotally coupled" be interpreted broadly to cover any pivoting transaxle connection, or will they be narrowed to the specific pin-and-tab structure detailed in the patent's figures and description? The outcome of this question will likely control the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint relies on notice pleading, the case will hinge on whether Plaintiff can produce discovery evidence demonstrating that the accused Spartan mowers' suspension systems function as claimed. Specifically, does the transaxle assembly on the accused products actually pivot relative to the frame and, for the dependent claims, utilize "resilient members" in the manner required by the patent?