DCT

8:17-cv-01914

Lund Motion Products Inc v. T Max Hangzhou Technology Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:17-cv-01914, C.D. Cal., 10/31/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants have offered for sale, sold, and imported the accused products into the district, including through sales to a California-based corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ retractable vehicle steps infringe three U.S. patents related to the mechanical linkages and geometry of such steps.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves retractable running boards for high-clearance vehicles like trucks and SUVs, an important product category in the automotive aftermarket accessory industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a "now-defunct U.S. affiliate of T-Max" was previously the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit by Plaintiff's predecessor, which resulted in a consent judgment and permanent injunction regarding infringement of two patents within the same family as the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff asserts this history provides a basis for Defendants' knowledge of the asserted patents and its claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-15 Earliest Priority Date for ’277, ’626, and ’751 Patents
2012-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,157,277 Issues
2016-04-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,302,626 Issues
2017-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,561,751 Issues
2017-10-31 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,157,277 - "Retractable Vehicle Step", issued April 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes several drawbacks of conventional fixed running boards on vehicles with high ground clearance: they are often too high to provide a useful intermediate step, they reduce ground clearance for off-road driving, and they can become soiled, dirtying a user's clothing ('277 Patent, col. 1:49-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a retractable step that moves between a stowed position under the vehicle and a deployed position downward and away from the vehicle ('277 Patent, Abstract). It employs a four-bar linkage system with specific geometric properties, including non-parallel support arms, to control the step's motion and provide stability ('277 Patent, col. 13:28-34). The linkage is designed such that when a load is placed on the deployed step, the forces are borne by the mechanical structure rather than the motor, preventing damage to the drive mechanism ('277 Patent, col. 14:17-30).
  • Technical Importance: The described linkage geometry provided a robust mechanism for deploying a convenient, low-profile step while preserving the vehicle's original ground clearance when retracted ('277 Patent, col. 1:46-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 27 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Essential elements of Claim 27 include:
    • A first and second support arm pivotable with respect to a vehicle's underside about a first and second axis, respectively, with the second axis located inboard of the first.
    • A step member pivotably connected to the support arms about a third and fourth axis.
    • The linkage allows the step member to move between a retracted and deployed position.
    • When viewed in a plane perpendicular to the first axis, a line between the first and third axes and a line between the second and fourth axes are non-parallel.
    • In the retracted position, these two non-parallel lines intersect at a point spaced "outboard of said arms."
    • The step member defines a plane that is inclined in the retracted position, with its outboard end located upwards from its inboard end.
  • The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims of the '277 patent, including at least Claim 27" (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 9,302,626 - "Retractable Vehicle Step", issued April 5, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem as the ’277 Patent: providing a functional stepping assist for high-clearance vehicles without the drawbacks of fixed running boards (’626 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention also describes a retractable vehicle step using a pair of linkage arms. The claims focus on specific structural and relative dimensional characteristics of the assembly, such as one linkage arm being longer than the other and the stepping deck being wider than the linkage arms to ensure a stable platform capable of receiving a user's force (’626 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-61).
  • Technical Importance: This patent appears to claim specific refinements to the linkage design aimed at optimizing the deployment path and the stability of the stepping surface (’626 Patent, col. 1:42-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An attachment portion for connecting to a vehicle.
    • A pair of linkage arms pivotably connected to the attachment portion, with one arm located more towards the vehicle's longitudinal centerline than the other.
    • A stepping member pivotably connected to the linkage arms, comprising a stepping deck wider than each linkage arm.
    • The linkage is configured to translate the stepping member between a retracted position under the vehicle and a deployed position extending from under the vehicle.
    • One pair of linkage arms is longer than another pair of linkage arms.
  • Essential elements of Claim 8 are similar to Claim 1 but omit the "longer arm" limitation and add a limitation requiring the stepping deck to have an inclined orientation in the retracted position.
  • The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims of the '626 patent, including at least Claims 1 and 8" (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 9,561,751 - "Retractable Vehicle Step", issued February 7, 2017

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a retractable vehicle step utilizing non-parallel support linkages, focusing on the specific structure connecting the linkages to the stepping platform (Compl. ¶¶73-74). A key feature is a "stepping platform linkage" that includes a "straddling segment" with two flanges designed to retain and straddle the end of a support linkage, a configuration intended to enhance the strength and stability of the pivot joint (’751 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

At least Claim 13 (Compl. ¶67).

Accused Features

The accused T-Max Steps are alleged to incorporate a stepping platform, mounting bracket, non-parallel support linkages, and a stepping platform linkage with a straddling segment containing two flanges that straddle a support linkage (Compl. ¶¶71-74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are retractable vehicle steps identified as the "Rev Wheel Step" and the "Rocky Ridge Step," collectively referred to as the "T-Max Steps" (Compl. ¶¶22-24).

Functionality and Market Context

The T-Max Steps are described as retractable running boards that attach to a vehicle's side and are capable of extending outward for use and retracting at least partially under the vehicle (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges that T-Max manufactures, markets, and sells these steps in the United States to distributors and specialty vehicle outfitters, positioning them as competitors to Plaintiff's "PowerStep" product line (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,157,277 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first support arm and a second support arm connectable with respect to an underside of a vehicle so as to be pivotable about a first axis oriented generally parallel to the ground and a second axis oriented generally parallel to the ground... The T-Max Steps include a first and second support arm connectable to a vehicle's underside and pivotable about two axes oriented generally parallel to the ground. ¶41 col. 2:11-15
a step member... connected to said step member so that said first support arm and said second support arm are pivotable with respect to said step member about a third axis and a fourth axis, where the second axis is located inboard from the first axis... The T-Max Steps include a step member connected to the support arms, allowing them to pivot about a third and fourth axis, with the second axis located inboard from the first. ¶42 col. 12:47-55
When the T-Max Steps are viewed in a plane perpendicular to the first axis, a first line can be drawn between the first axis and the third axis and a second line... where the first line and the second line are not parallel and will intersect at a point spaced outboard of the support arms... When viewed in a plane perpendicular to the first axis, lines drawn through the pivot axes of the T-Max Steps are not parallel and intersect at a point spaced outboard of the arms. ¶43 col. 13:28-34
The step member... includes a plane for supporting at least a forefoot... The second orientation is inclined with respect to the first orientation so that the outboard end is located upwards from the inboard end... The step member of the T-Max Steps has a plane that is in a first orientation when deployed and an inclined second orientation when retracted, with the outboard end located higher than the inboard end. ¶44 col. 14:8-15

9,302,626 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an attachment portion configured to connect to an underside of a vehicle; The T-Max Steps include an attachment portion configured to connect to a vehicle's underside. ¶55 col. 2:42-43
a pair of linkage arms... pivotably attached to the attachment portion... where a first pair of linkage arms is located more towards the longitudinal vehicle centerline than a second pair of linkage arms. The T-Max Steps include a pair of linkage arms where one pair is located more towards the vehicle centerline than the other. ¶56 col. 2:44-48
a stepping member... comprises a stepping deck having a width greater than a width of each of the pair of linkage arms... The T-Max Steps' stepping member has a stepping deck with a width greater than that of each linkage arm. ¶57 col. 2:51-53
one pair of linkage arms is longer than another pair of linkage arms. In the T-Max Steps, one pair of linkage arms is longer than the other. ¶59 col. 2:60-61

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’277 patent may focus on the geometric scope of "intersect at a point spaced outboard of said arms." The key question will be whether the accused products' linkage geometry, when diagrammed, satisfies this precise spatial relationship as defined in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’626 patent, a central evidentiary question may be how "length" is measured for the linkage arms to determine if one is "longer" than the other, as required by claim 1. Further, it raises the question of what evidence demonstrates the relative positioning of the linkage arms with respect to the vehicle's "longitudinal vehicle centerline."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’277 Patent: "outboard of said arms" (Claim 27)

Context and Importance

This term defines the location of the instantaneous center of rotation for the linkage in its retracted state. The precise definition of what constitutes the "arms" for this spatial comparison (e.g., the physical structure, the pivot points) will be critical to determining whether the accused linkage geometry infringes.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

The specification describes the linkage in functional geometric terms, stating that "a line connecting the first axis A-A and the third axis C-C is non-parallel to a line connecting the second axis B-B and the fourth axis D-D" (’277 Patent, col. 13:28-34). A party might argue "outboard of said arms" should be interpreted functionally in this context, not limited to a specific physical boundary.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

Figure 1 of the patent illustrates a specific embodiment where the intersection point is located physically lateral to the entire linkage structure. A party could argue that this figure defines the scope of the term, limiting it to constructions where the intersection point is located spatially outside the physical components of the arms.

Term from ’626 Patent: "longitudinal vehicle centerline" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

Claim 1 requires that one linkage arm be "located more towards the longitudinal vehicle centerline than a second pair of linkage arms." The definition of this reference point is fundamental to the infringement analysis, as the relative position of the arms is measured against it. Practitioners may focus on this term because its potential ambiguity could be a basis for a non-infringement or indefiniteness argument.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

The patent does not explicitly define this term, suggesting it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood in the automotive field—an imaginary line running down the middle of the vehicle from front to back. The specification uses the term without further qualification (’626 Patent, col. 2:47-48).

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

The specification and figures do not provide a precise datum or reference for establishing the "centerline" on a vehicle, which could support an argument that the term is ambiguous as applied. A party might argue that without a clear definition in the intrinsic record, the claim fails to inform one of skill in the art with reasonable certainty about the scope of the invention.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for all three patents, asserting that Defendants encourage direct infringement by providing customers with "directions, guides, manuals, [and] training for use" for the T-Max Steps, with knowledge that these instructions would cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶46, 62, 80).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on a theory of pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's patent portfolio due to (1) Plaintiff's prominent "PowerStep" product being marked with patents from the asserted patent family, (2) Defendants' attendance at industry trade shows where these products were displayed, and (3) a prior patent infringement lawsuit against a T-Max affiliate involving patents from the same family (Compl. ¶¶30-31, 45, 61, 79).

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

  • A core issue will be one of geometric scope: can the specific four-bar linkage geometry of the accused products be proven to satisfy the "outboard" intersection point required by the ’277 patent, a limitation that appears central to its novelty?
  • A second key question will center on scienter and evidence of copying: what evidence will Plaintiff present to substantiate its claim that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit, particularly in light of the prior litigation against an affiliate, and will this evidence be sufficient to meet the high bar for willful infringement?
  • A final dispositive issue may be one of claim construction and proof: how will the court construe terms like "longitudinal vehicle centerline" (’626 Patent) and "straddling segment" (’751 Patent), and can Plaintiff provide sufficient technical evidence, such as measurements and expert analysis, to prove these structural limitations are met by the accused products?