Barrier Guard Tech LLC v. Karagozian & Case Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Barrier Guard Technologies, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Karagozian & Case, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea—IP Trial Boutique
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-04358, C.D. Cal., 05/24/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence in the Central District of California, including physical office locations, employees, and substantial revenue generation within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Shallow Buried Bollard System infringes a patent related to anti-ram security bollard systems that utilize a shallow-mount base.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns vehicle security barriers, specifically bollard systems designed to be installed with minimal excavation, a key consideration in urban environments with extensive underground utilities.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined by the USPTO, which considered 19 U.S. patents and numerous other publications, and asserts that the claims are novel and non-obvious over this art.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,699,558 - "Anti-Ram System and Method of Installation," Issued April 20, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of installing traditional anti-ram bollard systems, which typically require deep excavations (e.g., four to six feet). Such deep work is costly, time-consuming, and often infeasible in developed urban areas due to the presence of underground utilities like gas, water, and communication lines (’558 Patent, col. 1:47-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a bollard system with a "shallow mounting pad or base" that requires "very little or no excavation" (e.g., 5" to 14" deep) (’558 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-39). This base is formed from a grillage of structural members (e.g., steel tubes) to which the bollards are secured. The shallow, wide base is designed to transfer the force of a vehicle impact into the surrounding soil horizontally, rather than vertically, providing resistance without deep anchoring (’558 Patent, col. 2:34-47; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This shallow-mount approach allows for the deployment of high-security barriers in locations where traditional deep-foundation systems are impractical, expanding protection options for existing buildings in dense environments (’558 Patent, col. 1:53-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶15, 28). The patent contains three independent claims: 1, 18, and 20 (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A bollard assembly comprising:
  • at least one bollard comprising a hollow tubular member having an upper and a lower end,
  • a base member formed of a plurality of hollow tubular base members which are secured to each other, and intersect to form a grid,
  • said at least one bollard secured to said base member at an intersection of said tubular base members, so as to project upwardly from said tubular base members.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Shallow Buried Bollard System" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is an exemplary offering that "requires very little or no excavation for the base of the Bollard system" (Compl. ¶¶23, 25).
• The complaint alleges Defendant "sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or otherwise provides" these systems (Compl. ¶23).
• To support its venue allegations, the complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website showing its headquarters in Glendale, California, within the judicial district (Compl. ¶13; Fig. 1). This visual, a map and contact form from Defendant's website, is offered as evidence of a regular and established place of business in the district (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "Claim Chart attached hereto as Exhibit B" to detail its infringement allegations against Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶17, 33). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. The narrative infringement theory is that the Defendant's "Shallow Buried Bollard System" practices the technology of the ’558 Patent (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges that the accused system infringes because it is an anti-ram system that utilizes a shallow base requiring little to no excavation, aligning with the core concept of the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶16, 23). The specific mapping of claim elements to accused product features is contained within the unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges infringement both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused product's base structure meets the claim limitation of "a plurality of hollow tubular base members which... intersect to form a grid." The definition of "grid" and the specific manner of intersection will likely be a focus of dispute.
• Technical Questions: Without access to the specifics of the accused product's design, a key evidentiary question will be how its base is constructed. The case may turn on whether the accused base is formed from intersecting "hollow tubular base members" or achieves a similar shallow-mount function using a different structure, such as a solid plate or a non-grid framework, which could raise arguments of non-infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "a base member formed of a plurality of hollow tubular base members"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental structure of the patented foundation. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's base is "formed of" such components, as opposed to being, for example, a single cast or forged unit with hollow portions.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the base as a "framework" and "grillage," which could suggest that any structure comprising multiple hollow tubes that functions as a grid-like frame would meet the limitation, regardless of the precise manufacturing method (’558 Patent, col. 3:36-39).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict the base as an assembly of discrete, separate tubular members "welded" together (e.g., "longitudinally extending tubular members 26 are welded to the sides of the transversely extending tubular members 24") (’558 Patent, col. 7:43-46; Figs. 3, 5). This could support a narrower construction requiring the base to be an assemblage of separate pieces rather than a monolithic structure.

Term 2: "intersect to form a grid"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required geometric arrangement of the base members. Whether the accused product's base members "intersect to form a grid" will be a critical factual and legal question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to create a shallow foundation that transfers force laterally. Practitioners may argue that any arrangement of intersecting members that achieves this purpose, including non-orthogonal or curved intersections as shown in the corner-unit embodiment (Fig. 23), constitutes a "grid" in the functional sense intended by the patent.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiments show a rectilinear arrangement of "transversely extending" and "longitudinally extending" members, suggesting a classic right-angled grid (’558 Patent, col. 7:37-43; Figs. 4, 5). A defendant may argue that "grid" should be limited to such orthogonal arrangements and that a non-orthogonal or radial structure would not meet this limitation literally.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’558 Patent" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint asserts these materials demonstrate how end users commit patent infringement (Compl. ¶¶31-32).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that the service of the complaint and its (unprovided) claim chart provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶30-32).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of structural definition: Does the accused "Shallow Buried Bollard System" feature a base "formed of a plurality of hollow tubular base members which... intersect to form a grid," as required by Claim 1? This will necessitate a detailed claim construction and a factual comparison of the accused product's specific architecture against that construction.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: Since the complaint's detailed infringement contentions are in a missing exhibit, the plaintiff will need to produce discovery evidence that maps the specific components and arrangement of the accused product to the limitations of the asserted claim, particularly the "grid" of "hollow tubular base members."