Kevin Michael Heuerman v. D'Addario & Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kevin Michael Heuerman (C.D. Cal.)
  • Defendant: D'Addario & Company, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barry Van Sickle
• Case Identification: [Kevin Michael Heuerman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/kevin-michael-heuerman) v. [D'Addario & Company, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/daddario-co-inc), 2:10-cv-00464, C.D. Cal., 01/22/2010
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Plaintiff's principal place of business is in the district, the alleged infringement occurred in the district, and the Defendant maintains a registered agent for service of process there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Ecopad" drum practice pad infringes a patent related to a snare drum simulator.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns musical instrument accessories, specifically percussion practice pads designed to replicate the sound and feel of an acoustic snare drum for quiet practice.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship in which Defendant’s representative inspected Plaintiff’s production facilities and purchased components covered by the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff further alleges it put Defendant on notice of infringement prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-05-31	'340 Patent Priority Date
2001-05-29	'340 Patent Issue Date
2010-01-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,239,340 - "Snare Drum Simulator Practice Pad" (issued May 29, 2001)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional drum practice pads available at the time could simulate the physical feel of striking a drum, but produced a "severely muted" sound that did not replicate the acoustic qualities of a real snare drum. This shortcoming allegedly prevented drummers from practicing the correct rhythm and technique, as they lacked the necessary auditory feedback (’340 Patent, col. 1:16-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes to solve this problem with a practice pad containing a dedicated sound-generating mechanism. The device comprises a substrate (e.g., wood) with a rubber striking surface on top and a recessed channel on the bottom. Within this channel, a layer of small pellets (e.g., steel balls) is sandwiched between two rigid plates. When a user strikes the top surface, the vibrations travel through the substrate to the plates and pellets, causing them to vibrate against each other and produce a sound that simulates a snare drum (’340 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-41; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to create a compact and portable practice device that, unlike prior art pads, could provide realistic auditory feedback, thereby allowing for more effective practice (’340 Patent, col. 1:42-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. The analysis below is based on the patent's first independent claim, Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • a substrate having a top surface and a bottom surface, with the bottom surface having a center point
  • a rubber pad connected to the top surface
  • a recessed channel on the bottom surface located proximate to the center point
  • a first plate contained in the recessed channel and in physical contact with the substrate
  • a layer of pellets in the recessed channel and in physical contact with the first plate
  • a second plate in the recessed channel and in physical contact with the layer of pellets
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the accused instrumentalities as one or more practice pads, "most commonly known as the 'Ecopad'," and/or a component called a "snare drum cartridge" (Compl. ¶3, 7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "simulate the feel and sound of a snare drum" (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that the accused products are "essentially copies" of the patented device and "perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result" (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific construction or operation of the accused "Ecopad" or "snare drum cartridge."

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products constitute a literal infringement of the ’340 Patent, or alternatively, infringe under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶8). However, it does not provide a detailed mapping of accused product features to the specific limitations of any asserted claim. The infringement theory is based on the general allegation that the Defendant "copied the '340 patented device" and that the accused products operate by "substantially the same design and principles" (Compl. ¶7, 9). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: A primary issue for discovery will be establishing the actual physical construction of the accused "Ecopad." The complaint’s allegations are conclusory and lack specific evidence that the accused product contains the claimed arrangement of a recessed channel, two plates, and a layer of pellets.
  • Technical Question: Assuming the accused product contains a sound-generating mechanism, a key question will be whether its components and their arrangement meet the specific structural limitations of the asserted claims. For example, the case may turn on whether the accused product's rattling elements constitute a "layer of pellets" and are contained between two distinct "plates" as recited in Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "layer of pellets" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the sound-generating mechanism. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the material inside the accused product qualifies as a "layer of pellets." Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its product uses a different type of material (e.g., sand, a single rattling object, or irregularly shaped beads) that falls outside a proper construction of the term.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the pellets functionally as being in "sufficient number to completely cover the exposed surface of the first plate but still allow slight movement," which might support a construction not strictly limited by material or shape (’340 Patent, col. 4:32-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment describes the pellets as "spherical" and made of "steel" (’340 Patent, col. 4:36-39). A party could cite this language to argue for a narrower construction limited to small, spherical, metallic objects.

• The Term: "recessed channel" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The structure housing the sound mechanism is a key limitation. A defendant with a product featuring a different type of cavity or indentation may argue it does not meet this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the channel "can be in any shape" and provides the example of a "straight groove" (’340 Patent, col. 3:13-15), suggesting the term is not limited to a specific geometry.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and the description of the preferred embodiment show the channel as a "polygonal shape that surrounds the center point" of the pad’s bottom surface, leaving a "plateau in the center" (’340 Patent, col. 3:16-22; Fig. 2). This could support an argument that the term implies a channel that encloses a central area, rather than a simple linear groove.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges facts that may support a claim for willful infringement. It asserts that "Plaintiff has put Defendant on notice of said infringement" before the lawsuit was filed and that Defendant "has refused to cease infringement" (Compl. ¶3). Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patented technology through a prior business relationship, including an inspection of Plaintiff’s "production facilities," and "has instead copied the '340 patented device" (Compl. ¶9). The prayer for relief requests treble damages (Compl. ¶17).

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

• A primary question will be one of evidentiary proof: What is the actual internal construction of the accused "Ecopad"? As the complaint provides no specific evidence, the case will hinge on whether discovery reveals a structure that includes the two plates and a layer of pellets within a recessed channel, as required by the patent’s claims.
• A central issue will be one of claim construction: Assuming the accused product has a sound-producing mechanism, can the claim term "layer of pellets" be construed to cover the specific material and arrangement used in the "Ecopad," or is its scope limited by the "spherical, steel pellets" disclosed in the patent's preferred embodiment?
• A critical question will relate to culpability: What evidence exists to support the allegation of deliberate copying, especially given the alleged pre-existing business relationship and inspection of Plaintiff’s facilities? The resolution of this question will be determinative for the claim of willful infringement and any potential award of enhanced damages.