DCT
2:25-cv-07384
Veer Gear LLC v. Olympia Tools Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Veer Gear LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: OLYMPIA TOOLS INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a COHO OUTDOORS (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP; Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-07384, C.D. Cal., 08/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the judicial district, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including acts of infringement, occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pack-N-Stroll Premium Folding Wagon" infringes two patents related to the design and functionality of collapsible, premium stroller-wagons.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the consumer juvenile products market, specifically addressing mechanical improvements for "stroller-wagon crossovers" that combine the utility of a wagon with the safety and convenience features of a premium stroller.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural events such as prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, or a prior licensing relationship.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-09-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,242,663 Earliest Priority Date |
| 2016-01-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,242,663 Issued |
| 2016-03-08 | U.S. Patent No. 11,760,399 Earliest Priority Date |
| 2023-09-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,760,399 Issued |
| 2025-06-06 | Defendant allegedly began distributing copied manual |
| 2025-08-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,242,663 - Wagon with Minimized-Play Collapsible Wall
Issued January 26, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a problem in prior art collapsible wagons where pivoted walls exhibit "play" or "wiggling" when in their upright, locked position, which can affect structural integrity and user perception of quality (’663 Patent, col. 1:35-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "minimized-play feature" that uses a specific mechanical interaction to create a tensioned, stable connection between collapsible walls. When a movable wall is pivoted toward its upright use position, a ramped surface on one wall engages another, causing one of the walls to resiliently deflect (i.e., bend elastically) to provide clearance. Once in position, this stored resilient force creates a continuous compression force between the walls, holding them "tightly under pressure to prevent wiggling relative to each other" (’663 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-12).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the sturdiness and stability of collapsible wagons by creating a pre-loaded, tensioned connection between structural components, a more sophisticated solution than a simple latch.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A wagon for cargo with a base.
- At least a first and a second wall, with the second wall being movably mounted to the base to move between a use position and a collapsed storage position.
- A "minimized-play feature" that includes: (i) at least one ramped surface on one of the walls, (ii) an interference between the walls, and (iii) a "resilient deflection feature" of the first wall.
- The feature functions such that as the second wall moves to the upright position, the walls interfere, the ramped surface slidingly engages the other wall to cause a lateral displacement force, and the first wall is "resiliently displaced" to provide clearance, generating a "compression force" that holds the walls tightly together.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’663 Patent, Compl. ¶55).
U.S. Patent No. 11,760,399 - Wagon with Footwell and Handle
Issued September 19, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a general need for "improved features for consumer-use wagons for multi-purpose use," including for carrying children (’399 Patent, col. 1:35-37).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses two primary improvements for wagons: 1) a collapsible footwell that can be positioned in an extended state for a child's use or a collapsed state to make the wagon more compact for storage and transport, and 2) a position-locking handle that can be secured in multiple, discrete positions (e.g., stowed, upright for pushing, or down for pulling) using a lock mechanism (’399 Patent, Abstract). The handle lock prevents the handle from falling freely and allows for different modes of operation (’399 Patent, col. 6:1-10).
- Technical Importance: The invention integrates features typically found in high-end strollers—such as dedicated foot space for child comfort and an adjustable, locking handle for user convenience—into the more rugged form factor of a wagon.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶67).
- The essential elements of independent claim 23 include:
- A wagon with at least one positionable sidewall, a bottom surface defining a container, and "removably coupleable" wheels.
- A "footwell extending below a bottom surface of the container."
- A handle positionable in a first locked position and a second position for pulling.
- The handle lock mechanism is an "automatic handle lock mechanism for automatically locking the handle in the first position."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’399 Patent, Compl. ¶67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "Pack-N-Stroll Premium Folding Wagon" sold by Defendant under the brand "Coho Outdoors" (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Pack-N-Stroll Wagon is a "confusingly similar knock-off" of Plaintiff's "Cruiser Wagons" and that it incorporates infringing features such as collapsible walls (Compl. ¶¶30, 34). The complaint provides an image of the accused product, which shows a four-wheeled wagon with a deep cargo area and a T-bar handle (Compl. p. 10, ¶32).
- Based on the infringement allegations for the ’399 Patent, the accused product is alleged to have a footwell, removable wheels, and a handle with a locking mechanism (Compl. ¶67). A side-by-side visual comparison in the complaint depicts the accused product alongside the Plaintiff's "All-Terrain Cruiser," highlighting similarities in overall design and appearance (Compl. p. 14, ¶42).
- The complaint frames the accused product as a direct competitor that allegedly omits key safety certifications and features, such as child harnesses and non-toxic materials, found in the Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶45-52).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'663 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a wagon for cargo; | The Pack-N-Stroll Wagon is a wagon for cargo. | ¶55(a) | col. 1:14-18 |
| a base; | The Pack-N-Stroll Wagon includes a base. | ¶55(b) | col. 3:58-60 |
| at least first and second walls that extend generally upright from the base in a use position to help hold the cargo, wherein the second wall is movably mounted to the base and moves relative to the base between the upright use position and a storage position collapsed into a compact arrangement; | The Pack-N-Stroll Wagon includes at least first and second collapsible walls that move between an upright use position and a collapsed storage position. | ¶55(c) | col. 4:54-57 |
| a minimized-play feature including at least one ramped surface on one of the first and second walls, an interference between the first and second walls, and a resilient deflection feature of the first wall, wherein...the ramped surface...slidingly engages the other...wall to generate a lateral displacement force, the first wall is resiliently displaced...to provide clearance...and the resilient displacement...generates a compression force...to prevent wiggling... | The complaint alleges the Pack-N-Stroll Wagon includes a minimized-play feature where, upon moving to the use position, the walls interfere and a ramped surface on one wall slidingly engages the other, causing a resilient displacement that generates a compression force to hold the walls together tightly. | ¶55(d) | col. 6:1-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the accused wagon's wall connection mechanism actually functions as described in the claim. The case may require detailed evidence (e.g., expert testimony, high-speed video) to determine if there is a "ramped surface" causing a "resilient deflection" that results in a "compression force." The complaint’s alternative pleading under the doctrine of equivalents suggests that a literal match on this complex functional limitation may be a point of dispute (Compl. ¶56).
- Scope Questions: The analysis will focus on whether the interactions between the accused product's walls meet the specific, multi-part definition of the "minimized-play feature." The court will need to determine if the accused mechanism, which may be a simpler latch or snap-fit, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result.
'399 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a wagon; | The Pack-N-Stroll Wagon is a wagon. | ¶67(a) | col. 1:24-27 |
| at least one sidewall positionable in a use position and in a second position different from the use position; | The wagon includes at least one sidewall that is positionable in a use position and a second, different position. | ¶67(b) | col. 9:13-15 |
| a bottom surface, wherein the at least one sidewall and the bottom surface together define a container; | The wagon includes a bottom surface, and the sidewall and bottom surface together define a container. | ¶67(c) | col. 9:8-10 |
| a footwell extending below a bottom surface of the container; | The wagon includes a footwell that extends below the bottom surface of the container. | ¶67(d) | col. 10:5-7 |
| a plurality of wheels removably coupleable to the wagon; | The wagon includes a plurality of wheels that are removably coupleable to it. | ¶67(e) | col. 3:8-10 |
| a handle positionable in a first position in which a handle lock mechanism locks the handle... [and] in a second position to facilitate pulling...; | The wagon includes a handle that is positionable in a first, locked position and a second position for pulling. | ¶67(f, g) | col. 6:46-54 |
| wherein the handle lock mechanism is an automatic handle lock mechanism for automatically locking the handle in the first position. | The handle lock mechanism is an automatic handle lock mechanism that automatically locks the handle in the first position. | ¶67(h) | col. 10:49-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the construction of "automatic handle lock mechanism." The complaint alleges the accused product's handle "can be manually locked or automatically locked" (Compl. ¶48). This raises the question of whether a mechanism with an optional manual mode can satisfy a claim limitation requiring an "automatic" mechanism. The outcome may depend on whether "automatic" is construed to mean "exclusively automatic" or "capable of automatic operation."
- Technical Questions: Infringement of the "removably coupleable" wheels limitation will be a factual question dependent on the design of the accused product's wheel attachments. Likewise, the existence and structure of the "footwell extending below a bottom surface" will require a direct comparison of the accused product's geometry to the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "resiliently displaced" / "resilient deflection feature" (’663 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: These terms are the technical core of the ’663 Patent's invention, distinguishing it from simple latches by requiring an elastic, spring-like deformation to create a tensioned fit. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused product’s wall-joining mechanism involves this specific type of physical deflection to create a compression force, or if it achieves connection through a non-resilient means.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the feature can be a "portion of the first wall being made of a material with an elastic deformation property" (’663 Patent, col. 16:5-8), which a party could argue covers a wide range of materials and even very slight, localized bending.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description show the entire upper frame member of a sidewall flexing outward to accommodate the connecting endwall (’663 Patent, Fig. 31; col. 12:1-4). A party could argue this supports a construction requiring a more substantial, structural deflection rather than the flexing of a small, incidental tab.
The Term: "automatic handle lock mechanism" (’399 Patent, Claim 23)
- Context and Importance: The claim requires the lock mechanism to be "automatic" for locking the handle in the first position. This term is critical because the complaint itself alleges the accused product has a handle that can be "manually locked or automatically locked" (Compl. ¶48). The viability of the infringement claim may depend entirely on the construction of "automatic."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the handle locks "automatically (under the spring influence) when the handle is placed into one of the preset locking positions" (’399 Patent, col. 6:64-67). A party could argue that if the primary or default mode of locking is automatic, the presence of an alternative manual mode does not negate this "automatic" capability.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain meaning of "automatic" implies an action that occurs without manual intervention. The patent's description of a spring-biased lock (’399 Patent, col. 6:36-41) could be contrasted with the alleged manual mode of the accused product to argue that the accused system is functionally different and not "automatic" as required by the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes passing reference to indirect infringement (Compl. ¶54, ¶66), but it does not plead specific facts required to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as acts of encouraging others to infringe or providing a special component for infringement. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. The allegations are based on asserted pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It is alleged that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patents and infringement "at least as early as during the design of the Pack-N-Stroll Wagon" (Compl. ¶61, ¶73), and that infringement has been and continues to be "intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶62, ¶74). Notice is also formally established by the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶60, ¶72).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the court's findings regarding two central issues:
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused wagon’s mechanism for connecting its collapsible walls meet the specific, multi-step functional requirements of the ’663 Patent’s "minimized-play feature"—including a "ramped surface" causing "resilient deflection" to generate a "compression force"—or does it employ a mechanically distinct solution, pushing the dispute into a nuanced doctrine of equivalents analysis?
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: For the ’399 Patent, can the claim term "automatic handle lock mechanism" be construed to read on a product that allegedly possesses both manual and automatic locking modes, or does the claim require a mechanism that functions exclusively automatically to lock the handle in place?