DCT
4:19-cv-00107
Jager Pro Inc v. Bull Creek Welding Fabrication Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jager Pro, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Bull Creek Welding and Fabrication, Inc. (Arkansas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC; Ballard Spahr LLP
- Case Identification: 4:19-cv-00107, E.D. Ark., 04/08/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is an Arkansas corporation that resides in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Game Changer" animal trapping systems infringe three U.S. patents related to remotely monitored and triggered traps for capturing wild animals.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of nuisance animal control, particularly for feral hogs, by enabling users to monitor a trap with a camera and remotely trigger a gate to capture an entire group of animals at once.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement for U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228 in April 2018 and for U.S. Patent No. 9,101,126 in July 2018, prior to filing suit. In subsequent proceedings separate from this case, all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,814,228 and 10,098,339 were cancelled as a result of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (IPR2020-01470 and IPR2020-01471, respectively). These cancellations significantly narrow the scope of the dispute to the single remaining patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-01-11 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2015-08-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,101,126 Issues |
| 2017-11-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228 Issues |
| 2018-04-02 | Alleged Written Notice of ’228 Patent Infringement |
| 2018-07-02 | Alleged Written Notice of ’126 Patent Infringement |
| 2018-10-16 | U.S. Patent No. 10,098,339 Issues |
| 2019-04-08 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,814,228 - "Systems and Methods for Animal Trapping"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of "animal overpopulation and expensive crop damage," noting that conventional traps often produce "low volume capture numbers" and can lead to "future trap avoidance by non-captured animals." (’228 Patent, col. 1:25-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trapping system that allows a user to remotely monitor an enclosure and trigger a gate to close at the most effective moment. The system comprises a camera assembly that detects an animal and sends a wireless signal to a display device; the display device, in turn, can transmit a control signal to a mechanism that releases the gate, thereby trapping the animal(s). (’228 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-12). This approach is designed to enable the capture of entire groups of animals simultaneously.
- Technical Importance: This method of remote observation and selective triggering was designed to increase trapping efficiency and overcome learned trap-avoidance behaviors common in intelligent nuisance species like feral hogs. (Compl. ¶¶13, 20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of method claim 1 include:
- Moving at least one portion of an enclosure from an open to a closed position to trap feral pigs.
- The enclosure cooperating with a ground surface to define a trapping area.
- The enclosure comprising a release mechanism for the movable portion.
- The release mechanism being triggered by a release signal from a control mechanism, which is in communication with a display device.
- The display device communicating with a camera assembly to receive a wireless detection signal and transmit a wireless control signal.
- The camera assembly transmitting the wireless detection signal upon detecting pigs in the enclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 9,101,126 - "Remote Control Gate Release for Trap Enclosure"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’228 Patent: the inefficiency of conventional traps that lead to "low volume capture numbers and future trap avoidance." (’126 Patent, col. 1:28-33).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a complete trapping system that includes an enclosure, a movable gate, an automatic food-dispensing mechanism to lure animals, a means for detecting animals (e.g., a camera), and a means for remotely actuating the gate. The gate is triggered "when a predetermined condition has been met," such as a certain number of animals being detected in the enclosure. (’126 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:44-53).
- Technical Importance: By integrating automated feeding with remote monitoring and conditional triggering, the invention provides a strategic tool for conditioning animals to trust the trap before capturing the entire group. (Compl. ¶¶16, 19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶61).
- The essential elements of system claim 1 include:
- An enclosure with an opening and a movable gate.
- An automatic food-dispensing mechanism inside the enclosure.
- A "means for remotely actuating the gate" to close it when a "predetermined condition has been met," with the condition including factors like date, time, or a "predetermined number of animals detected."
- A "means for detecting the presence of the plurality of animals therein the enclosure," where the number of animals is detected by a camera.
U.S. Patent No. 10,098,339 - "Systems and Methods for Animal Trapping"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a trapping system where a camera assembly detects an animal and transmits a wireless detection signal to a display device. The display device then transmits a wireless control signal to a control mechanism, which in turn generates a release signal to a release mechanism, causing a movable portion of the enclosure to close. (’339 Patent, Abstract). The invention focuses on the specific signal flow from detection to enclosure activation.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶85).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Game Changer System, with its integrated components for remote monitoring and gate closure, infringes the ’339 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶84, 85).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "Game Changer Systems." (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Game Changer Systems as portable enclosures with a gate that can be dropped remotely. (Compl. ¶¶28, 31). Promotional materials included in the complaint state the systems are "Compatible with most cellular trail cameras" and feature the ability to "Monitor live video feed" and "Drop gates remotely from the convenience of your home." (Compl. Fig. 1). A screenshot from an online video shows the system successfully trapping a large group of feral hogs at night. (Compl. Fig. 3). The complaint also alleges the system can function with an automatic feeder. (Compl. ¶34; Fig. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,814,228 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Using The Game Changer System to move at least one portion of an enclosure from an open position...to a closed position | The accused system includes a gate that can move to trap animals. | ¶37a | col. 3:6-9 |
| The Game Changer System enclosure comprises a release mechanism that effects movement | The system has a release mechanism for receiving a signal to close the gate. | ¶37c | col. 4:55-63 |
| The Game Changer System display device is in communication with a camera assembly and configured to: receive a wireless detection signal...and transmit a wireless control signal | The system is advertised as compatible with cellular cameras to monitor a live feed and allows users to "drop gates remotely." This process implies receipt of camera data and transmission of a control command. | ¶37e | col. 6:35-54 |
| Upon detection of a presence of feral pigs within the enclosure by the camera assembly, The Game Changer System camera assembly transmits the wireless detection signal to the display device. | The system uses a camera to detect animals, as shown in a provided screenshot of the system in use. (Compl. Fig. 3). | ¶37f | col. 6:6-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may present a question of whether a user's smartphone, which both displays the camera feed and initiates the command to drop the gate, meets the claim's specific architecture of a "display device" that itself "receive[s] a wireless detection signal...and transmit[s] a wireless control signal."
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not detail the specific electronic components or signal pathways within the accused system. A key question will be whether the accused system's components function in the specific sequence recited in the claim (camera → display → control mechanism → release).
9,101,126 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an automatic food-dispensing mechanism positioned in the enclosure | The complaint includes a photograph identifying an "Automatic feeder" positioned within the accused system's enclosure. (Compl. Fig. 4). | ¶61d | col. 6:63-65 |
| a means for remotely actuating the gate...when a predetermined condition has been met | The system is advertised with the feature to "Drop gates remotely," which the complaint alleges includes a transmitter and remote control mechanism. | ¶61e | col. 3:13-20 |
| the predetermined condition includes...a predetermined number of animals detected in the enclosure | The remote monitoring capability allows a user to wait until a desired number of animals are inside the trap before triggering the gate. | ¶61e | col. 6:55-62 |
| a means for detecting the presence of the plurality of animals...is detected by a camera | The system is marketed as compatible with cellular trail cameras for monitoring animals inside the enclosure. | ¶61f | col. 6:4-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 uses means-plus-function language ("means for remotely actuating," "means for detecting"). The scope of these terms is limited to the structures disclosed in the patent's specification (e.g., key fobs, specific cellular controllers, solenoids) and their legal equivalents. The central dispute will likely involve a structural comparison between the accused system's components and those disclosed in the patent.
- Technical Questions: What specific evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system operates based on a "predetermined condition" being met, as opposed to solely direct, real-time user commands? The complaint suggests the user determines when the condition is met, raising a question of whether this satisfies the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- For the ’126 Patent:
- The Term: "means for remotely actuating the gate...when a predetermined condition has been met"
- Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the scope of this term is not its plain meaning but is strictly limited to the corresponding structures described in the patent's specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend entirely on a comparison of the accused product's structure to the specific structures disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses multiple, distinct embodiments for the "means," including a hand-held push-button transmitter (key fob), a pull-pin transmitter, a motion-sensor transmitter, and a cell phone controller. (’126 Patent, col. 4:44-53; Figs. 5-8). Plaintiff may argue this variety of disclosed structures supports a broader range of equivalents.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the disclosed structures are all specific transmitter-receiver pairs operating on a particular logic (e.g., receiver, relay, solenoid circuit as shown in Fig. 9). (’126 Patent, col. 3:49-54). They may argue that any accused device that deviates from these specific circuit designs or components is not structurally equivalent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads both induced and contributory infringement for all patents-in-suit. It alleges inducement is based on Defendant selling the Game Changer Systems and providing "training and/or instruction on its use," thereby encouraging customers to perform the patented methods. (Compl. ¶¶42, 66, 90). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the systems are "especially made for or adapted for use" in an infringing manner and are not a "staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use." (Compl. ¶¶51, 75, 99).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’228 and ’126 patents, purportedly established by written notice letters sent on April 2, 2018, and July 2, 2018, respectively. (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 26). For the ’339 Patent, knowledge is alleged to have begun upon the filing of the complaint. (Compl. ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue for the litigation is the impact of subsequent events: with all claims of the '228 and '339 patents having been cancelled in IPR proceedings, the dispute is now confined solely to the allegations involving the '126 patent. This fundamentally changes the scope and potential value of the case as originally filed.
- The central technical question will be one of structural equivalence: for the remaining '126 patent, does the accused "Game Changer" system's remote-triggering technology contain structures that are identical or legally equivalent to the specific embodiments (e.g., key fob transmitters, cellular controllers, receiver/relay/solenoid circuits) disclosed in the patent's specification to perform the "remotely actuating" function?
- A key legal question will be one of claim scope: does a system that allows a human operator to remotely observe the trap and decide when to close the gate meet the limitation of actuating the gate "when a predetermined condition has been met," or does that claim language require the system itself to automatically detect the condition and trigger the gate without real-time human intervention?