DCT
8:18-cv-01611
SKB Corp v. Dicks Sporting Goods Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: S.K.B. Corporation (California)
- Defendant: Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: CHARLES C.H. WU & ASSOCIATES, APC Associates
- Case Identification: 8:18-cv-01611, C.D. Cal., 09/10/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business in, and is subject to personal jurisdiction in, the Central District of California, where the acts giving rise to the complaint allegedly occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "TourTrek TC-Tank Travel Cover" product infringes a patent related to a trigger latch assembly for transport cases.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mechanical latching mechanisms designed to provide a secure closure for transport cases, such as luggage, that is resistant to accidental opening yet easy for a user to operate intentionally.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant on May 10, 2018, putting Defendant on notice of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-09-01 | ’364 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-06-02 | ’364 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-05-10 | Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter |
| 2018-09-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,540,364 - "TRIGGER LATCH ASSEMBLY"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,540,364, "TRIGGER LATCH ASSEMBLY", issued June 2, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent is directed to a latch for items like transport cases that must be securely fastened for transit. The design aims to provide a latching mechanism that is both easy for a user to operate and secure against inadvertent opening. (’364 Patent, col. 2:10-14, col. 3:37-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a latch assembly comprising a main latch cover that pivots on the case and a smaller latch trigger that pivots on the cover. A biasing member (e.g., a spring) holds the trigger and cover in a default state. To close, a user presses down on the latch cover, causing a detent on the trigger to engage and slide over a retaining lip on the other part of the case, locking it with an audible "click." To open, the user squeezes the trigger and cover together, which pivots the detent away from the retaining lip, releasing the latch. (’364 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-67).
- Technical Importance: This configuration seeks to minimize the risk of unintentional unlatching, as it requires a specific, deliberate action (squeezing the trigger towards the cover) to release the mechanism. (’364 Patent, col. 3:37-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’364 Patent are asserted, instead alleging infringement of the patent generally (Compl. ¶20). The allegations map most closely to independent claim 2, which claims a transport case incorporating the latch assembly.
- The essential elements of independent claim 2 include:
- A transport case with first and second portions.
- A trigger latch assembly attached to the first portion.
- The assembly includes a "latch cover" pivotably secured to the case.
- A "latch trigger" is pivotally attached to the underside of the latch cover.
- A "latch trigger biasing member" engages both the trigger and cover, biasing the forward portion of the trigger away from the cover.
- A "detent" is formed on the latch trigger for releasable engagement with a "lip" on the second portion of the case.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert that additional products infringe the ’364 Patent (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "TourTrek TC-Tank Travel Cover" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a transport case sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that this case incorporates latches which are "identical to the 'TRIGGER LATCH ASSEMBLY'" described in the patent (Compl. ¶13). Accused Product-Figure 2 provides a labeled side view of the accused latch, identifying key components like the "Latch Trigger," "Latch Trigger Biasing Member," and "Detent" (Compl. p. 4, Fig. 2). The complaint provides images of the accused product obtained from Defendant's e-commerce website, suggesting its commercial availability (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’364 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trigger latch assembly attached to the first portion of the transport case | The accused product is a case that incorporates a "Trigger Latch Assembly." | ¶13; p. 4, Fig. 1 | col. 4:24-26 |
| a latch cover pivotably secured to the first portion of the transport case | The accused latch includes a "Latch Cover" that pivots on a "Fixed Pivot Rod." | p. 4, Fig. 2 | col. 4:27-29 |
| a latch trigger pivotally attached to the underside surface of said latch cover | The accused latch includes a "Latch Trigger" attached to the cover via a "Pivot Pin." | p. 4, Fig. 2 | col. 4:30-32 |
| a latch trigger biasing member attached to said latch trigger and engaging said latch cover | The accused latch has a "Latch Trigger Biasing Member" shown positioned between the trigger and the cover. | p. 4, Fig. 2 | col. 4:32-34 |
| a detent formed on said latch member for releasable engagement with a lip on the second portion of the transport case | The accused latch trigger has a "Trigger Engagement Member" with a "Detent" designed to engage a lip on the case. | ¶13; p. 4, Fig. 2 | col. 4:37-39 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused latch is "identical" to the patented invention (Compl. ¶13). The litigation will test this conclusory statement. A central question will be whether the specific geometry and cooperative movement of the accused latch components, as they actually operate, fall within the scope of the claim terms as they are ultimately construed by the court.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies on labeled diagrams to show the presence of claimed components (Compl. p. 4). A key factual question will be whether the accused "Latch Trigger Biasing Member" performs the specific function required by the claim: biasing the forward portion of the latch trigger away from the latch cover to maintain the locked state, a key aspect of the patented invention.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "latch trigger biasing member"
- Context and Importance: The function of this component is central to both the automatic locking and the deliberate unlocking actions of the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its precise interaction with the latch trigger and cover defines the core mechanics of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 2 requires only that the member is "attached to said latch trigger and engaging said latch cover" and biases the trigger away from the cover (col. 4:32-36). This could be argued to encompass any spring-like element that achieves this general result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific preferred embodiment where the biasing member is a "torsional coil spring" that is "positioned and preferably coiled about pivot pin 11" to urge the components apart in a specific rotational manner (col. 2:63-67; Fig. 8). A party could argue that this disclosure limits the scope of the term.
The Term: "detent"
- Context and Importance: The shape of the detent and its interaction with the case's retaining lip are what creates the secure, releasable lock. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused latch's engagement feature meets the definition of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "detent" is used in the claim without further structural definition, suggesting any projection or recess that releasably engages the lip could meet the limitation (col. 4:37).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description defines the detent with more specificity as comprising "an outwardly protruding sloped surface 15 culminating in latch protrusion 17" (col. 2:15-17; Fig. 3). An argument could be made that the term should be construed to require this specific sloped surface and protrusion geometry.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint includes generic allegations of induced and contributory infringement, stating Defendant's actions cause "others" to infringe (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of these claims, such as referencing user manuals or instructions that direct infringing use.
Willful Infringement
- The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant's continued infringement after being "placed on notice of the '364 Patent" by a cease and desist letter dated May 10, 2018, approximately four months before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶15, 23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the key terms "latch trigger biasing member" and "detent" be interpreted broadly based on their plain meaning, or will the court narrow their scope to the specific "torsional coil spring" and "sloped surface" embodiments detailed in the patent's specification and figures?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: beyond the conclusory allegations and labeled diagrams in the complaint, can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused latch’s components function in the specific cooperative manner required by the claims, particularly regarding the biasing forces and the precise interaction between the detent and the retaining lip during latching and unlatching?