RSA Protective Tech LLC v. Delta Scientific Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RSA Protective Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Delta Scientific Corporation (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maynard Cooper & Gale LLP
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-06024, C.D. Cal., 07/12/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a California corporation with its principal place of business in Palmdale, California, maintaining regular and established places of business in the district, and committing the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shallow mount security bollard systems infringe a patent related to anti-ram systems with shallow foundations.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns anti-ram security bollards, which are critical infrastructure components used to protect buildings and public spaces from vehicle-based terrorist attacks.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,699,558. The complaint alleges that the Defendant represented to the U.S. Department of State that it was "deliberately attempting to copy Plaintiff's patented technology." Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the ’865 patent underwent two ex parte reexaminations. A first reexamination certificate (C1) issued in 2020 confirmed the patentability of all claims. A second reexamination certificate (C2) issued in 2022 canceled independent claim 1, which was a central claim in the original complaint, while confirming the patentability of independent claims 16 and 33 and amending several dependent claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-07-26	'865 Patent Priority Date
2007-10-29	Accused Product DSC600 Specification Effective Date
2007-12-04	Accused Product DSC650 Specification Document Date
2010-07-01	'865 Patent Application Published
2012-07-10	'865 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-12	Complaint Filing Date
2020-07-23	'865 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued
2022-11-17	'865 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,215,865 - "Anti-Ram System and Method of Installation"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,215,865, "Anti-Ram System and Method of Installation," issued July 10, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of installing conventional anti-ram bollards in developed urban areas. Traditional methods require deep excavations (e.g., four to six feet), which are expensive, disruptive, and often impossible due to the presence of underground utilities like gas, water, and electrical lines (’865 Patent, col. 1:55 - col. 2:10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "shallow mount" bollard system that requires minimal excavation. The system features a base or "grillage" constructed from interconnected structural members, which is placed in a shallow trench (e.g., 3 to 14 inches deep) and from which one or more bollards extend upward (’865 Patent, col. 2:30-36). Instead of relying on deep anchoring, the system dissipates the energy of a vehicle impact by transferring the force to this wide, heavy base, which resists rotation and is pushed down and back into the surrounding soil (’865 Patent, col. 2:42-55). This design, illustrated in figures such as Fig. 3, allows for easier installation and adaptation to various site constraints.
• Technical Importance: By enabling installation with only shallow excavation, the technology makes it feasible to retrofit high-security bollards around existing buildings in dense urban environments where deep digging is impractical (’865 Patent, col. 2:11-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 16, and 33. It should be noted that claim 1 was canceled during ex parte reexamination proceedings that concluded after the complaint was filed. The analysis will focus on the surviving independent claims 16 and 33.
• Independent Claim 16: This claim recites a bollard structure comprising:
  • a plurality of bollards;
  • a base with opposed ends and a plurality of structural members that intersect and are tied together;
  • for each bollard, a specific arrangement of a "first structural member" extending between opposed ends and another intersecting structural member;
  • each bollard is secured to the base members and extends upwardly to transmit forces to the base;
  • the base is configured for mounting in a shallow excavation; and
  • the structural members are configured to retain supporting media (e.g., concrete) to resist rotation upon impact.
• Independent Claim 33: This claim is similar to claim 16 but adds a further limitation:
  • It requires "at least one of the plurality of members that extend parallel to the ends of the base extending between a structural member to which a first bollard is secured and a structural member to which a second bollard adjacent to the first bollard is secured."
• The complaint also asserts infringement of numerous dependent claims and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶ 31-43, 46-52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Delta Scientific's shallow mount bollard systems, specifically models DSC600 and DSC650 (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The DSC600 is described as a "shallow foundation fixed Bollard Module" with a foundation depth of 14 inches (Compl., Ex. D, p. 28-29). The DSC650 is a similar system with a 12-inch foundation depth and optional "manual lift out" bollards (Compl. ¶29; Compl., Ex. E, p. 32).
• The products are designed to function as standalone modules or be arranged in extended, curved, or inclined arrays (Compl., Ex. D, p. 28). They are crash-tested and certified to U.S. Department of State or ASTM standards for stopping vehicle attacks (Compl., Ex. D, p. 30; Ex. E, p. 34).
• The complaint alleges these products are sold for high-profile installations, including U.S. government facilities, embassies, and major airports (Compl. ¶8). A product drawing included in the complaint shows the general assembly of the accused DSC600 module, depicting two bollards attached to a sub-grade frame (Compl. p. 6, Excerpt from Exhibit B).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'865 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 16)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A bollard structure comprising: a plurality of bollards;	The accused DSC600 and DSC650 products are sold as modules containing multiple bollards, and are shown installed in arrays. An engineering drawing depicts an "incline array" of multiple bollards (Compl. p. 17).	¶45	col. 9:16-17
and a base comprising opposed ends and a plurality of structural members which intersect and are tied together,	The accused products allegedly have a base with a "plurality of structural members," identified as steel members that intersect and are tied together. An included diagram shows bollards mounted on a grid-like framework of structural members (Compl. p. 8).	¶26	col. 9:18-20
for each bollard of the bollard structure at least one first structural member extending from a first of the opposed ends of the base to a second of the opposed ends of the base in a first direction intersecting with the opposed ends, and at least one structural member extending to intersect with the at least one first structural member;	The complaint alleges that the accused products' base includes structural members extending between opposed ends (longitudinal members) and other members that intersect them (transverse members). A top-down diagram illustrates this intersecting grid structure (Compl. p. 10).	¶27	col. 9:20-27
each of the plurality of bollards being secured to at least one of the at least one first structural member and the at least one structural member of the base for the respective bollard and extending upwardly from the base so as to transmit forces applied to the at least one bollard to the base;	The bollards are alleged to be secured to the structural members of the base and extend above grade. A cross-section drawing shows a bollard mounted in the base framework, which is embedded in a shallow excavation (Compl. p. 11).	¶28	col. 9:28-32
wherein the base is configured to be mounted in a shallow excavation with the plurality of bollards extending above grade of the excavation;	The accused products are marketed as "shallow foundation" bollards, with the DSC600 having a 14-inch foundation and the DSC650 having a 12-inch foundation.	¶29	col. 9:33-35
and wherein the at least one first structural member or the at least one structural member or both are configured or tied together to retain within the base supporting media...such that the rotation is resisted of a bollard or bollards...	The complaint alleges the structural members are configured to retain supporting media (e.g., concrete) poured into the base, which allows the base to support the bollard and resist rotation upon impact.	¶30	col. 9:36-42

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the Defendant's method of connecting its structural members constitutes being "tied together" as the term is used in the patent. The defense could argue for a narrower interpretation of this term based on specific embodiments in the patent specification.
  • Technical Questions: For claim 33, which requires a specific geometry of parallel members connecting the structures that support adjacent bollards (Compl. ¶50), a key question will be whether the accused products’ base frame meets this specific structural limitation. The infringement allegation rests on the precise configuration of the accused products' internal framework.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a plurality of structural members which intersect and are tied together" (Claim 16)

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core architecture of the claimed base. The interpretation of "intersect" and "tied together" is central to determining the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific method of fabricating the base (e.g., welding discrete tubes versus using a different connection method) could be a key point of non-infringement for the defense.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the base in general terms as a "framework" or "grillage" made of "structural tubes" like pipes, tubes, and channels, suggesting various forms are contemplated ('865 Patent, col. 4:39-42). This may support an interpretation covering any interconnected frame.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently show distinct, separate tubular members welded to one another at right angles, as depicted in Figures 3 and 5 ('865 Patent, col. 7:50-65). This could support an argument that "tied together" requires direct welding of separate components in this manner.

• The Term: "configured or tied together to retain within the base supporting media" (Claim 16)

• Context and Importance: This functional language is crucial because it describes how the base achieves its mass and stability. The infringement theory depends on the accused product's frame being designed to be filled with a material like concrete.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses broad, functional language ("configured to retain"). The specification supports this by stating the base is completed on-site by "filling the shallow excavation and grillage with concrete" ('865 Patent, col. 4:46-49), implying that the open structure of the grillage is inherently configured for this purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific features for this purpose, such as "apertures 31" in the tubular members that allow them to be filled with concrete ('865 Patent, col. 8:7-10). A defendant could argue that "configured to retain" requires such specific design features intended for filling, not merely an open frame that can be incidentally filled.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a formal count for indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "deliberate, willful, and knowing" (Compl. ¶60). This allegation is based on two primary assertions: first, that Plaintiff provided constructive notice by marking its products with the patent number (Compl. ¶17), and second, a more direct allegation that Defendant had actual knowledge and intent, claiming that "Delta Scientific represented to the Department of State that it was deliberately attempting to copy Plaintiff's patented technology" (Compl. ¶16).

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

• A primary issue, arising from post-filing reexamination, is the impact of claim cancellation. With independent claim 1 now canceled, Plaintiff's case must proceed on the remaining asserted independent claims 16 and 33. This narrows the dispute to bollard systems comprising a "plurality of bollards" and may require a more focused evidentiary presentation on the specific structural elements of those claims.
• The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim construction. A key question will be one of structural scope: can the term "tied together", as used in the context of the patent's embodiments, be construed to read on the specific manufacturing and assembly techniques used for the accused DSC600 and DSC650 base frames?
• A critical question will be one of evidence and intent. The allegation of deliberate copying is unusually specific. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence, potentially from communications involving the Department of State, to substantiate the claim that Defendant was deliberately copying the patented technology, which would strongly support the willfulness allegation.