DCT

2:25-cv-10745

Machiningcloud Inc v. Kennametal Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-10745, C.D. Cal., 11/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district, has marketed and sold the patented technology there, and has asserted its patents against Plaintiff in the district in other litigation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s U.S. Patent No. 12,430,675 is invalid, alleging the patent was improperly obtained using Plaintiffs' confidential and trade secret information and claims unpatentable subject matter.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to computer-based platforms for selecting and configuring industrial machining tools, a process complicated by the vast number of tool and machine variations available.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges this dispute arises from a prior business relationship where Plaintiff developed a technology platform ("Novo") for Defendant. It references a pending case (2:25-cv-02158) involving claims of breach of contract by Plaintiff and counterclaims of patent infringement by Defendant on two related patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-05-26 MachiningCloud and Kennametal allegedly enter into an agreement for the development of the "Novo" platform
2016-01-01 Earliest alleged date that the purported inventors of the '675 patent began working with MachiningCloud and Novo
2021-12-17 '675 Patent Priority Date
2022-06-03 Application for '675 Patent filed
2025-02-04 MachiningCloud files contract and trade secret action against Kennametal
2025-04-30 Kennametal asserts infringement of two related patents ('387 and '322) against MachiningCloud in prior litigation
2025-09-30 '675 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-07 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,430,675 - "Computer-based platform for developing and implementing industrial tool solutions (DCX platform)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,430,675, "Computer-based platform for developing and implementing industrial tool solutions (DCX platform)," issued September 30, 2025 (the "’675 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that selecting an optimal industrial tool solution is "extremely challenging" for users due to the "complexity of available options for different possible industrial tool solutions" involving the tool, tool holder, machine, and workpiece material (’675 Patent, col. 1:46-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-based "digital platform" that functions as a "virtual tool box" to help users manage this complexity (’675 Patent, col. 2:16-18). As shown in the system architecture diagram in Figure 1A, the platform comprises several distinct software modules: a "solutions module" for configuring tool assemblies, a "machines module" for creating digital replicas of user machines, a "project module" for managing workflows, and a "workpiece features module" for specifying the material and geometry to be machined (’675 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:14-36). These modules are designed to facilitate "technical and commercial interactions" among tool providers, distributors, and end users (’675 Patent, col. 2:16-24).
  • Technical Importance: The platform aims to consolidate the gathering, analysis, and display of both technical and transactional data related to industrial tooling, moving beyond static digital catalogs to a dynamic, integrated configuration environment (’675 Patent, col. 4:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity of "the claims" of the ’675 Patent without specifying which claims are at issue (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A computer-based system for processing information associated with industrial tool solutions comprising a digital platform with a computer processor programmed for executing modules.
    • A "solutions module" programmed for receiving information for multiple configurations of industrial tool solutions and displaying graphical representations of them.
    • A "machines module" programmed for receiving information for at least one machine and displaying a digital replica of it.
    • A "project module" programmed for receiving and displaying project information (a combination of tool solution and machine information) and connecting this information to various tool solutions (pre-existing or customized).
    • A "workpiece features module" programmed for receiving and displaying parameters of a workpiece.
    • A "download function" programmed for generating a 2D or 3D model of the tool solution and communicating it to an independent computer system.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff, MachiningCloud, seeks to invalidate the ’675 Patent. The underlying controversy involves MachiningCloud's "Novo" platform, which Kennametal has accused of infringing other patents in separate litigation (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6). The complaint alleges the ’675 Patent is based on technology stolen from MachiningCloud's Novo platform (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11, 22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes Novo as a "sophisticated cloud-based digital commerce platform" developed by MachiningCloud for Kennametal (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 22).
  • Its alleged purpose was to provide Kennametal's users the ability to "efficiently browse and select cutting tools, access tool data and tool compatibilities, prepare tool assemblies, and purchase tools" electronically, replacing traditional paper catalogs and manual ordering processes (Compl. ¶15).
  • The complaint alleges that MachiningCloud developed the platform, while Kennametal provided the underlying tool data (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 27). Kennametal allegedly now markets an "unauthorized knockoff" of Novo called the "Kennametal Platform" (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, 21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This complaint is for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and does not contain infringement allegations against a defendant. Therefore, this section is not applicable.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not raise specific claim construction disputes, focusing instead on broader allegations of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. Therefore, this section is not applicable.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity Allegations: The complaint asserts that the ’675 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (Compl. ¶28).
    • The primary factual basis for these allegations is that the patent is an "unlawful copying" of MachiningCloud's confidential information and its Novo platform (Compl. ¶25). It is alleged that the patent's functionality "reflects descriptions of the scope of work" from the parties' prior agreement and that the named inventors were "intimately involved in working with MachiningCloud and Novo" (Compl. ¶25).
    • The complaint specifically alleges the patent fails under § 101 because its claims "recite only conventional, abstract ideas—searching through catalogs to find appropriate machining tools—and automate them using a computer" (Compl. ¶23).
  • Exceptional Case: The prayer for relief seeks a finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 8, ¶2). This request appears to be based on the allegations that Kennametal willfully misappropriated trade secrets to file the patent application (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 24, 27).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action may turn on the following central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of patent eligibility: does Claim 1 of the ’675 Patent recite a patent-ineligible abstract idea, as Plaintiff alleges, by merely automating the conventional process of searching and selecting industrial tools on a generic computer platform? Or does the claim's specific modular architecture represent a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of derivation and prior art: can Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to show that the named inventors on the ’675 Patent derived the invention from MachiningCloud's pre-existing "Novo" platform and confidential information? The answer will likely determine the outcome of the invalidity challenges under §§ 102 and 103.
  • A central factual dispute will concern inventorship and ownership: what was the nature of the collaboration between the parties, and does the evidence support Plaintiff's claim that Kennametal falsely claimed inventorship over technology that contractually belonged to MachiningCloud? This may raise questions of inequitable conduct or improper inventorship.