RSA Protective Tech LLC v. Los Angeles Intl Airport

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RSA Protective Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Los Angeles International Airport (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-10371, C.D. Cal., 12/06/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the defendant, LAX, is organized under California law, maintains a regular and established place of business within the district, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of certain shallow mount anti-ram security bollards infringes a patent related to the structure and installation method of such systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns anti-ram vehicle barriers, which are critical for protecting public and private infrastructure from hostile vehicle attacks by creating a physical impediment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent through quotes submitted by the plaintiff for bids, subsequent cease and desist letters, and the plaintiff’s marking of its own products with the patent number. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, the asserted patent underwent two ex parte re-examinations. The second re-examination, concluded in November 2022, resulted in the cancellation of asserted independent claim 1 and the amendment of other claims, which may significantly influence the scope of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-07-26	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,215,865
2010-07-01	Publication Date of Application for '865 Patent
2012-07-10	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,215,865
2019-12-06	Complaint Filed
2020-07-23	First Ex Parte Re-examination Certificate (C1) Issued
2022-11-17	Second Ex Parte Re-examination 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 "’865 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and cost associated with installing conventional anti-ram bollards, which typically require deep excavations of several feet. Such deep foundations are often impractical or impossible in developed urban areas 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 proposes a bollard system founded on a shallow mounting pad or base, requiring significantly less excavation depth (e.g., 5 to 14 inches) (’865 Patent, col. 2:42-43). This base, typically a grillage of structural steel members encased in concrete, is designed to be wide and massive, distributing the force of a vehicle impact horizontally into the surrounding soil to resist the bollard's rotation, rather than relying on deep vertical anchoring (’865 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-54). Figure 3 of the patent illustrates an embodiment with bollards mounted on a framework of transversely and longitudinally extending tubular members (’865 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: By enabling installation with minimal excavation, the patented technology allows for the deployment of high-security anti-ram barriers in locations previously considered unsuitable, thereby expanding protection for existing buildings and infrastructure (’865 Patent, col. 2:11-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 16, and 33. The complaint also asserts a broad range of dependent claims and reserves the right to assert others (’865 Patent, col. 9:16 - col. 12:25; Compl. ¶¶ 34-47, 50-52, 55-56, etc.).
• Independent Claim 1 (Cancelled in 2022 Re-examination):
  • A bollard structure comprising at least one bollard and a base.
  • The base comprises opposed ends and a plurality of structural members which intersect and are tied together.
  • For each bollard, at least one first structural member extends between the opposed ends, and at least one other structural member intersects it.
  • The bollard is secured to these members and extends upwardly to transmit forces to the base.
  • The base is configured for mounting in a shallow excavation and its members are configured to retain supporting media to resist rotation from an impact.
• Independent Claim 16 (Confirmed in Re-examination):
  • A bollard structure comprising a plurality of bollards.
  • The base structure, bollard securement, shallow excavation, and rotation resistance elements are substantially similar to those recited in the original Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 33 (Confirmed in Re-examination):
  • Includes the limitations of a "plurality of bollards" and a base structure similar to Claim 16.
  • Adds a limitation requiring "at least one of the plurality of members that extend parallel to the ends of the base extending between the 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."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses "shallow mount security bollards" installed at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) that were allegedly designed and/or manufactured by two entities: Barrier1 Systems, Inc. (specifically, models SMB-400, SMB-800, and SMB-1200) and Ameristar Perimeter Security, Inc. (specifically, the "Ultra Shallow Mount Bollard" series) (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 19-22).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentalities are high-security, anti-ram vehicle barriers. Their function is to prevent unauthorized vehicle access and mitigate the threat of vehicle-based attacks on infrastructure (Compl. ¶33, ¶65). The complaint alleges these products achieve this function using a shallow foundation design, with Barrier1 models requiring 12-to-14-inch deep excavations and Ameristar models requiring 6-to-10-inch excavations (Compl. ¶31, ¶63, ¶68). The complaint supports the high-security context by citing Department of Defense crash-test ratings, such as the Barrier1 SMB400 model’s alleged capability of stopping a 15,000-pound vehicle traveling at 30 mph (Compl. ¶33). A 3D rendering of an accused Barrier1 system shows multiple bollards connected to a subterranean base of intersecting structural members (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Barrier1 and Ameristar bollard systems installed at LAX meet every limitation of the asserted claims. The analysis below summarizes the allegations for independent claim 16, which was confirmed during re-examination.

'865 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A bollard structure comprising: a plurality of bollards;	The accused Barrier1 and Ameristar products are installed as arrays of multiple bollards. A photograph depicts a row of installed Ameristar bollards at LAX (Compl. ¶79).	¶49, ¶79	col. 10:7
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 opposed ends and are made of structural members, including rebar and other components, that "intersect with each other and are tied together." For the Ameristar products, these are identified as base plates, link arms, and rebar (Compl. ¶28, ¶60).	¶28, ¶60	col. 10:8-10
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... and at least one structural member extending to intersect with the at least one first structural member;	Plaintiff alleges that in the accused products, structural members (such as rebar) extend from one end of the base to the other, and other structural members intersect them. Technical drawings for the Barrier1 products show horizontal rebar running the length of the base, with the vertical bollard tubes intersecting this rebar (Compl. ¶10, ¶29).	¶29, ¶61	col. 10:11-17
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... and extending upwardly from the base so as to transmit forces... to the base;	The bollards are allegedly secured to the structural members of the base and extend above grade. This arrangement is alleged to transmit impact forces from the bollard to the base. A detail drawing of an Ameristar product shows a bollard with "integral steel reinforcing" connected to the base (Compl. ¶62).	¶30, ¶62	col. 10:18-23
wherein the base is configured to be mounted in a shallow excavation with the plurality of bollards extending above grade...	The accused products are marketed as "shallow mount" or "shallow foundation" systems. The Barrier1 products are alleged to require a 12-inch or 14-inch deep foundation, and the Ameristar products are alleged to require a 6 to 10-inch excavation (Compl. ¶31, ¶63).	¶31, ¶63	col. 10:24-26
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...	The complaint alleges the structural members of the accused products form a framework that retains supporting media (concrete) poured into the excavation. This construction allegedly allows the base to resist rotation upon impact, a claim supported by reference to the products' crash-test ratings (Compl. ¶32, ¶33, ¶64, ¶65).	¶32, ¶64	col. 10:27-34

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The term "tied together" is not explicitly defined in the patent. A question for the court may be whether the various methods used in the accused products to connect structural members (e.g., welding, or simply being held in a matrix of poured concrete) fall within the scope of being "tied together" as required by the claims.
• Technical Questions: Does the specific arrangement of components in the accused products, such as Ameristar's "link arms" and "base plates," map onto the claim language requiring a "first structural member" that extends between the base's "opposed ends" for each bollard in the structure? The infringement analysis may focus on whether the accused structures meet this specific geometric and functional configuration or differ in a material way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "shallow excavation"

• Context and Importance: The central premise of the ’865 Patent is its departure from prior art deep-trench systems. The definition of "shallow" is therefore fundamental to determining the scope of the claims and whether the accused products, with foundation depths alleged to be between 6 and 14 inches, infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides explicit numerical examples, stating the invention relates to a "shallow mount pad (5" to 14" in depth)" (’865 Patent, col. 2:42-43). It also describes a specific embodiment requiring an excavation "approximately 14 inches deep" and another where the "overall height of the pad could be only 6 and 1/2 inches" (’865 Patent, col. 7:31-33, col. 7:40-41). A patentee may argue this language directly reads on the accused products' alleged excavation depths.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "shallow" should be defined functionally, in contrast to the prior art's "rather deep excavations, several feet or more" (’865 Patent, col. 1:56-57). They might contend that the numerical ranges are merely examples and that the term should be limited to a structure that achieves its anti-rotation properties because it operates according to the specific physical principles of a wide, shallow base described in the patent, potentially seeking to distinguish the operation of their own products.

The Term: "structural members which intersect and are tied together"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the claimed base. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the specific components of the accused bases (e.g., rebar, tubes, link arms) and their connection methods (e.g., welding, mechanical fastening, or placement within a concrete monolith) satisfy this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple embodiments for the base, including a "framework" of "structural tubes" (’865 Patent, col. 3:39-40), a "rebar cage, or grillage" (’865 Patent, col. 7:11-12), and angle members (’865 Patent, col. 7:53-54). This variety could support a broad interpretation that encompasses any combination of structural steel elements that are joined to form a cohesive, force-resisting grid.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "the tubes (or other structural steel elements) [are] tied together to form the grillage" (’865 Patent, col. 3:44-45). A defendant could argue this implies that the structural members must be physically joined into a self-supporting framework before the introduction of supporting media like concrete, potentially distinguishing it from systems where unconnected rebar is simply held in place by the concrete itself.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that the defendant's infringement has been willful and deliberate. This allegation is based on claims that LAX had pre-suit knowledge of the ’865 Patent through at least three channels: (1) notice provided by Plaintiff RSA during bidding processes; (2) subsequent cease and desist letters sent to LAX; and (3) constructive notice via Plaintiff RSA marking its own products with the ’865 Patent number (Compl. ¶17, ¶94).

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

• Impact of Post-Filing Re-examination: A threshold issue for the court will be the effect of the 2022 ex parte re-examination, which occurred after the complaint was filed. The cancellation of independent claim 1—one of three independent claims asserted—and the amendment of others will require a re-evaluation of the pleadings and may narrow the focus of the infringement case to the surviving, and potentially more specific, claims.
• Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction. A central question will be one of definitional scope: will the term "shallow excavation" be construed based on the explicit 5-to-14-inch range provided in the specification, or will it be given a more functional definition relative to the prior art, and how will the construction of "tied together" apply to the accused products where components may be welded, fastened, or simply encased in concrete?
• Structural Correspondence: A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional mapping: does the specific arrangement of the accused products' base components—including rebar, base plates, and link arms—constitute the "first structural member extending from a first of the opposed ends... to a second" for each bollard as recited in the claims, or is there a material difference in their geometry and load-transfer mechanics that places them outside the scope of the patented invention?