DCT
5:25-cv-01910
Fox Factory Inc v. Suspension Direct Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FOX Factory, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Suspension Direct, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP; Hawkinson Yang LLP
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01910, C.D. Cal., 07/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronically controlled sway bar link products infringe three patents related to adjustable automotive suspension systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance suspension systems for off-road vehicles, specifically enabling on-the-fly electronic adjustment of sway bar stiffness to optimize for different driving conditions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter alleging infringement on May 7, 2025, and that Defendant responded on May 21, 2025, denying infringement and declining to cease its allegedly infringing activities. This exchange forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,981,429 Priority Date |
| 2020-12-17 | U.S. Patent No. 11,634,003 Priority Date |
| 2020-12-17 | U.S. Patent No. 12,263,711 Priority Date |
| 2021-04-20 | U.S. Patent No. 10,981,429 Issues |
| 2023-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,634,003 Issues |
| 2025-04-01 | U.S. Patent No. 12,263,711 Issues |
| 2025-05-07 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-05-21 | Defendant responds to notice letter, denying infringement |
| 2025-07-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,981,429 - “ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED SWAY BAR DAMPING LINK”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inherent compromise in conventional vehicle suspension design, noting that a "stiff" sway bar system is desirable for high-speed cornering and racing, while a "soft" system provides better comfort and articulation for slow-speed activities like "rock crawling" (’429 Patent, col. 2:56-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention replaces a vehicle's standard sway bar end link with an "electronically controlled damper link" (’429 Patent, col. 4:9-11). This damper link contains a remotely adjustable active valve that controls the flow of hydraulic fluid, thereby altering the link's damping characteristics. This allows a user to manipulate the overall stiffness of the sway bar system remotely, adapting the vehicle's handling characteristics to different conditions without manual adjustment (’429 Patent, col. 2:47-53; Fig. 1A).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a dynamic solution to the traditional trade-off between on-road stability and off-road articulation, allowing a single vehicle to be optimized for both scenarios (’429 Patent, col. 8:41-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (’429 Patent, col. 20:60-65; Compl. ¶34).
- Essential elements of Claim 12 include:
- A sway bar having a first end and a second end.
- A first electronically controlled damper link coupled to the first end of the sway bar and configured for coupling to a vehicle, with this damper link having electronically adjustable operational damping characteristics.
- A second link coupled to the second end of the sway bar and configured for coupling to a vehicle.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims may be preserved (Compl. ¶33).
U.S. Patent No. 11,634,003 - “AUTOMATED CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED SWAY BAR LINK”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the user-facing control aspect of an adjustable sway bar system. The technical challenge is to provide an integrated and intuitive way for a driver to control a sway bar's physical connection or disconnection from within the vehicle cabin (’003 Patent, col. 3:4-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising an "electronically controlled connector" capable of physically linking and delinking the sway bar from the vehicle suspension (’003 Patent, Abstract). This mechanical action is controlled by an electronic system that includes a graphical user interface (GUI). The GUI displays the connector's status (e.g., connected or disconnected) and accepts user input to change that status, which is then automatically executed by a control system (’003 Patent, col. 29:62-30:9).
- Technical Importance: The invention integrates a mechanical suspension component into a vehicle's electronic control architecture, allowing for remote, automated control of the sway bar disconnect function via a user-friendly interface (’003 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A sway bar and an electronically controlled connector with remotely controllable physical connection/disconnection capability.
- A graphical user interface (GUI) communicatively coupled with the vehicle.
- The GUI presents configuration information about the connector in a user-interactive format.
- The GUI is configured to receive a user input to change the connector's state from connected to disconnected (or vice-versa).
- A control system receives the user input from the GUI and automatically connects or disconnects the connector based on that input.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims may be preserved (Compl. ¶82).
U.S. Patent No. 12,263,711 - “AUTOMATED CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED SWAY BAR LINK”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,263,711, “AUTOMATED CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED SWAY BAR LINK,” issued April 1, 2025 (Compl. ¶20).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a sway bar system with an electronically controlled connector similar to the ’003 Patent. The claims focus on the control scheme, wherein a GUI is coupled with the vehicle to receive a user input that changes a "vehicle suspension mode," and a control system automatically connects or disconnects the connector based on that mode selection (’711 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:1-8).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶140).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the SDi E-LINK product when used with the SDi E-CLIK system. The E-CLIK system’s GUI allegedly allows a user to select a suspension mode (e.g., "unlocked, locked, and auto mode"), which in turn causes the control system to connect or disconnect the E-LINK connector (Compl. ¶¶158-159, 161).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the SDi E-LINK sway bar link disconnect products, particularly when used in conjunction with the SDi E-CLIK control system (collectively, the "Accused Systems") (Compl. ¶¶23, 31).
Functionality and Market Context
The SDi E-LINK is marketed as a product that can "instantly change from being connected to disconnected, automatically" (Compl. ¶24). This functionality is integrated with the E-CLIK system's "Terrain Modes," such as "Trail Mode," "Desert mode," and "Street mode," which automatically engage or disengage the sway bar based on driving conditions like speed and turns (Compl. ¶25). Control is provided via the E-CLIK system's touch screen controller, which functions as a GUI (Compl. ¶¶101, 103). A promotional video shows the SDi E-CLIK system's GUI, which displays information to the user and allows for mode selection (Compl. ¶101, image on p. 24). The complaint notes the product is marketed for off-road vehicles like the Jeep Wrangler and has received industry awards (Compl. ¶¶26, 37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,981,429 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a sway bar having a first end and a second end, said second end distal from said first end | The Accused Systems are utilized with vehicle sway bars that have a first and second end. | ¶41 | col. 6:1-2 |
| a first electronically controlled damper link coupled to said first end of said sway bar...said first electronically controlled damper link having operational damping characteristics which are electronically adjustable | The Accused E-LINK Products are alleged to be electronically controlled links that engage and disengage to provide adjustable damping characteristics via the E-CLIK electronic control system. An installation video depicts the E-LINK product being coupled to the first end of a sway bar and a location on the vehicle (Compl. ¶45). | ¶¶44, 46, 49 | col. 6:3-9 |
| and a second link coupled to said second end of said sway bar and said second link configured to be coupled to a second location of said vehicle | The Accused E-LINK Products are allegedly configured to be installed in pairs, such that a second E-LINK product functions as the second link coupled to the second end of the sway bar. | ¶¶52, 53 | col. 6:10-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused SDi E-LINK, which is described as a device that "engages and disengages" (Compl. ¶24), meets the claim limitation of a "damper link having operational damping characteristics which are electronically adjustable." The defense may argue that a binary connect/disconnect mechanism is not a "damper link" in the sense described by the ’429 Patent, which details modulating hydraulic fluid flow to achieve proportional changes in stiffness (’429 Patent, col. 8:35-39).
- Technical Questions: The analysis raises the question of what evidence the complaint provides that the accused product performs damping, as opposed to merely mechanical connection and disconnection. The complaint alleges the E-LINK products "comprise a first electronically controlled damper link having operational damping characteristics" (Compl. ¶46), but the supporting marketing materials focus on its ability to "change from being connected to disconnected" (Compl. ¶49).
U.S. Patent No. 11,634,003 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an electronically controlled connector to provide a remotely controllable physical connection and disconnection capability between a first location on a vehicle and said first end of said sway bar | The Accused E-LINK product is alleged to be an electronically controlled connector that provides a remotely controllable connection and disconnection, as it can "instantly change from being connected to disconnected, automatically." | ¶¶93, 94 | col. 29:55-59 |
| a graphical user interface (GUI) communicatively coupled with said vehicle | The Accused System includes the SDi E-CLIK system, which has a touch screen controller that functions as a GUI and is coupled with the vehicle. The complaint provides an image of this GUI (Compl. ¶101). | ¶101 | col. 29:62-63 |
| said GUI to present configuration information about said electronically controlled connector in a user interactive format | The GUI of the SDi E-CLIK system allegedly "depicts E-LINK data regarding locking and unlocking the sway bar." | ¶105 | col. 29:64-67 |
| said GUI configured to receive a user input, said user input to change said electronically controlled connector from a present connected or disconnected configuration to the other... | The Accused System's GUI is allegedly configured to receive user input in the form of a "terrain mode" selection, which changes the connected/disconnected status of the E-LINK. | ¶¶107, 108 | col. 30:1-5 |
| a control system to receive said user input from said GUI and automatically connect or disconnect said electronically controlled connector based on said user input | The SDi E-CLIK system allegedly functions as the control system, accepting the "terrain mode" selection from the GUI and automatically connecting or disconnecting the E-LINK connector based on that selection. | ¶110 | col. 30:6-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The parties may dispute what constitutes "configuration information" as required by the claim. The question is whether the icons and mode names displayed on the accused GUI (Compl. ¶101, image on p. 24) are sufficiently detailed to meet this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "damper link" (’429 Patent, Claim 12)
Context and Importance
The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis of the ’429 Patent. If the accused E-LINK product is not construed as a "damper link," the infringement case for this patent may fail. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is primarily marketed as a connect/disconnect device, while the patent specification heavily emphasizes the modulation of hydraulic fluid for damping.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the links as replacing conventional "end links," and their primary function is to couple the sway bar to the vehicle, which the accused product does (’429 Patent, col. 5:1-2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention in the context of hydraulic dampers with valves that control fluid flow to create "proportional changes to compression and/or rebound damping rates" (’429 Patent, col. 8:35-39). The detailed descriptions and figures almost exclusively depict hydraulic damper structures (e.g., ’429 Patent, Figs. 2A, 3A, 5-7), which may support an argument that the term is limited to such structures.
The Term: "operational damping characteristics which are electronically adjustable" (’429 Patent, Claim 12)
Context and Importance
This term is tied to "damper link" and is equally central to the dispute. The case may turn on whether a binary, on/off state (connected vs. disconnected) qualifies as "electronically adjustable" damping.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the system can be changed from a "compliantly dampened" to a "highly dampened and 'stiffer' (or fully locked out) system," which could be read to encompass the two states offered by the accused product (’429 Patent, col. 14:11-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses the ability to "manipulate the stiffness," provide "proportional changes," and create "more or less damping resistance," suggesting a range of adjustment beyond a simple binary choice (’429 Patent, col. 2:51-53; col. 8:35-36; col. 12:7-9).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is premised on Defendant’s alleged creation and distribution of marketing materials, product literature, and installation videos that instruct customers on how to install and use the Accused Systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶60-63, 117-120, 169-172). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused E-LINK Products are material components of the claimed inventions, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are sold by Defendant with knowledge that they are especially made for use in an infringing combination (Compl. ¶¶73, 75, 130, 132, 182, 184).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement of all three patents, based on Defendant’s alleged continued infringement after receiving actual notice via Plaintiff’s letter dated May 7, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶56, 113, 165).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the term “damper link having...electronically adjustable...damping characteristics,” which is described in the ’429 Patent specification in the context of modulating hydraulic fluid, be construed to cover the accused E-LINK product, which is marketed as an electronically-actuated mechanical connection and disconnection device?
A second key question will be one of functional sufficiency: does the accused E-CLIK system’s user interface, which allows a user to select high-level "Terrain Modes," satisfy the more specific requirements of the ’003 and ’711 patents to present "configuration information about said...connector" and receive a user input to directly "change said...connector" from one state to another?