DCT

2:25-cv-01690

3S Americas Incorporated v. Cooper New Energy Company Limited

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01690, D. Ariz., 05/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district. The complaint further alleges the defendant purposefully directed activities toward Arizona by importing, displaying, and offering to sell the accused product at a trade show in Phoenix.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wind turbine technician lift system infringes a patent related to safety monitoring technology for traction-based lifting equipment.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses safety and efficiency in working at height, specifically for technicians servicing wind turbines, a key area of maintenance in the renewable energy sector.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-08-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,420,849 Priority Date
2022-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 11,420,849 Issue Date
2025-05-18 Accused Product allegedly imported into the United States
2025-05-18 Complaint Filing Date
2025-05-19 CLEANPOWER 2025 Conference, where product was displayed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,420,849 - “Traction machine and lifting equipment,” issued August 23, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the physical strain, health risks, and inefficiency associated with manually climbing tall wind turbines (Compl. ¶15). It also identifies a technical problem in existing mechanized lifts: if the traction machine's rope slips or the machine otherwise malfunctions, the lifting speed can become uncontrolled, compromising the stability and safety of the equipment (’849 Patent, col. 1:21-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a lifting system that incorporates a specific safety feedback loop. It uses a "sensor sensing member" that rotates with a "first fixed pulley" (a non-driven pulley that guides the rope) and a separate "traction machine sensor" that detects the rotational speed of that member. This data is sent to a controller, which compares it to the expected speed (derived from the driven traction pulley) to determine if the rope is slipping or if there is another anomaly, and can then stop the machine if an abnormal operation is detected (’849 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a mechanism for real-time monitoring of the mechanical relationship between the drive motor and the actual movement of the lift, aiming to prevent uncontrolled operation and enhance technician safety (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims of the ’849 patent, including at least claim 9" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Independent claim 9 recites the core elements of the lifting equipment, which include:
    • A traction machine, a climbing member, a guide rail, a lifting vehicle, and a stall braking device.
    • The traction machine itself comprising one or more traction pulleys, first and second fixed pulleys, and one or more traction ropes.
    • A "sensor sensing member rotating with the first fixed pulley."
    • A "traction machine sensor" configured to detect the rotation speed of the sensor sensing member and send that data to a controller.
    • A controller that uses the data to control the traction pulleys and can "detect whether the one or more traction ropes are slipping or whether an operating speed is normal" and stop the machine in response to an "abnormal operation."
  • The complaint's phrasing suggests it may later assert other claims, including dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Cooper Free Climber Lifter" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a lifting system for wind turbine technicians (Compl. ¶4). The complaint alleges the product was imported into the United States and publicly displayed and offered for sale at the CLEANPOWER 2025 conference in Phoenix, Arizona (Compl. ¶3, ¶9). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused product on display at the trade show booth (Compl. p. 4, ¶9). This photograph shows a motorized lift assembly with a platform, designed to move along a fixed structure. The complaint alleges that Defendant's display at this "premier trade show" was in "close proximity" to Plaintiff's own products, suggesting direct competition (Compl. ¶6, ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Cooper Free Climber Lifter includes each and every limitation of exemplary claim 9" (Compl. ¶24). It states that an exemplary claim chart demonstrating this infringement is attached as Exhibit 4 (Compl. ¶24, ¶31). However, Exhibit 4 was not included with the filed complaint document.

The narrative infringement theory is that the accused lifter is a "lifting equipment" that embodies the complete combination of elements recited in claim 9 of the ’849 patent. This includes the specific safety monitoring system comprising a sensor on a fixed pulley that communicates with a controller to detect rope slippage or other abnormal operations. The complaint relies on the product's importation, display, and marketing at the CLEANPOWER trade show as acts of infringement (Compl. ¶9-11).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central question will be evidentiary: what proof can be adduced to show that the accused "Cooper Free Climber Lifter" actually contains the specific sensor architecture claimed? Specifically, does it monitor the rotation of a fixed (non-driven) pulley and use that data in comparison with the driven pulley's operation to "detect whether the... traction ropes are slipping"? The complaint itself provides no technical details on the accused product's internal operation, and the provided photograph does not reveal the functionality of its safety mechanisms (Compl. p. 4, ¶9).
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on whether the accused product's safety system, if one exists, operates in the same way as the claimed invention. For example, a key question is whether a generic overspeed sensor, which does not monitor a fixed pulley to detect slippage, would fall within the scope of the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a sensor sensing member rotating with the first fixed pulley"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the claimed safety mechanism. The construction of this term will determine whether the claim requires a discrete component physically attached to the pulley, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it can cover other methods of sensing a fixed pulley's rotation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to limit the physical nature of the "sensor sensing member," which could support an argument that any component or feature that achieves the function of rotating with the pulley and being detectable by the sensor meets the limitation (’849 Patent, col. 6:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may argue for a narrower scope based on the patent’s figures, which depict a distinct component "1k" mounted onto the "first fixed pulley 1e" (’849 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 2). The specification states, "The sensor sensing member 1k is mounted on the first fixed pulley 1e" (’849 Patent, col. 6:67-68), which could be used to argue the term is limited to such an externally mounted structure.

"detect whether the one or more traction ropes are slipping"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language defines the purpose and operation of the sensor system. Whether the accused device performs this specific function, and how it does so, will be critical to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the controller's function as comparing the fixed pulley's rotation speed with the traction pulley's rotation speed to determine if the rope's movement "meets the setting requirements" (’849 Patent, col. 6:21-26). This could support a reading that any system detecting a mismatch between expected and actual lift speed infringes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the system to "detect whether the one or more traction ropes are slipping or whether an operating speed is normal" (’849 Patent, col. 28:40-42). A defendant could argue this requires a specific algorithm that directly calculates slippage based on a comparison of two distinct rotational inputs, and that a simpler system that only detects general overspeed (without reference to a fixed pulley) does not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads both inducement and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c). The inducement allegation is based on the claim that Defendant encourages its customers to use the product in an infringing manner with knowledge of the infringement (Compl. ¶33). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the product being "especially designed for use in a patent system" and not being a staple article of commerce, and is supported by allegations of providing "customer support, installation and instruction materials" (Compl. ¶34).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’849 patent and its infringement "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶35-36). This primarily raises the issue of potential post-suit willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of technical evidence: what proof will be presented during discovery to demonstrate that the accused "Cooper Free Climber Lifter" internally operates using the specific safety architecture of claim 9? The case will likely depend on whether the accused device actually monitors a fixed pulley's rotation and compares it to the driven system's operation to detect rope slippage, or if it uses an alternative, non-infringing safety mechanism like a simple overspeed governor.
  • The dispute may also center on claim scope: can the functional requirement to "detect whether the...traction ropes are slipping" be met by a generic malfunction or overspeed detection system, or does it strictly require the comparative two-pulley measurement process described in the ’849 patent's specification? The court's construction of this and related terms will be pivotal in defining the patent's protective boundary.