DCT
8:20-cv-00288
Brian Horowitz v. Crosslinks Enterprises Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Brian Horowitz (California)
- Defendant: Crosslinks Enterprise Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Goe Forsythe & Hodges LLP
- Case Identification: 8:20-cv-00288, C.D. Cal., 02/12/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as both the Plaintiff and Defendant are located within California, with the Plaintiff residing in Orange County and the Defendant maintaining a principal place of business in Los Angeles.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of folding utility wagons infringes two patents related to the mechanical structure and features of folding wagons.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns folding utility wagons, a consumer product category valued for portability and convenience in transporting goods for recreation or general use.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on November 4, 2019, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to Defendant providing notice of alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,145,154. This pre-suit notice may form the basis for a subsequent claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,145,154 Priority Date |
| 2015-09-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,145,154 Issued |
| 2018-02-22 | U.S. Patent No. 10,040,470 Priority Date |
| 2018-08-07 | U.S. Patent No. 10,040,470 Issued |
| 2019-10-01 | Alleged Infringement Begins (On or Before) |
| 2019-11-04 | Plaintiff Sends Notice Letter to Defendant |
| 2020-02-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,145,154 - "Folding Wagon"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,145,154, "Folding Wagon," issued September 29, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes issues with conventional folding wagons, including instability and a tendency to tip over due to the placement of wheels directly under the basket. It also notes that the frames can bind during folding and that handle placement can cause the wheels to stall during use (’154 Patent, col. 1:15-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more stable design by spacing the front and rear wheels "ahead of and behind the basket" (’154 Patent, col. 2:26-30). This configuration, combined with a frame structure designed to fold without binding and a handle attached near the top of the frame, is intended to improve stability and usability (’154 Patent, col. 2:17-24; Fig. 1). A key feature is a folding mechanism that results in the front and rear wheels becoming "axially aligned," which is described as facilitating transport and storage when the wagon is collapsed (’154 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to enhance the safety and convenience of a common consumer product by addressing fundamental design limitations related to stability and ease of folding.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶26).
- Essential elements of independent claim 19 include:
- A basket and a collapsible frame that folds between an expanded and a compact configuration.
- A pair of separated front wheels connected to the front and a pair of separated rear wheels connected to the rear of the wagon.
- A mechanism where the wheels of a "first" pair (e.g., the rear wheels) move towards each other during folding, while the wheels of the "other" pair (e.g., the front wheels) remain separated.
- A final folded configuration where the first pair of wheels is located between the other pair of wheels.
- A final state where the pairs of front and rear wheels are "axially aligned" and their axes of rotation are parallel.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,040,470 - "Folding Wagon Having a Removable Canopy and Detachable Canopy Support Means"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,040,470, "Folding Wagon Having a Removable Canopy and Detachable Canopy Support Means," issued August 7, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a limitation in prior art wagons where canopy support rods may be permanently affixed, creating an obstruction when the canopy is not needed. The invention seeks a way to not only remove the canopy but also to reconfigure or completely remove the support structure itself (’470 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a modular canopy support system. The system uses "hollow canopy mounting posts" that are "pivotally and detachably connected" to corner brackets on the wagon's frame. These posts can be rotated from a vertical, in-use position to a stowed position alongside the basket, or they can be detached entirely. This detachment frees the corner brackets to receive other accessories, such as cup or fishing rod holders (’470 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12).
- Technical Importance: This design introduces modularity to folding wagons, allowing users to customize the wagon's functionality by reconfiguring or swapping out the canopy support system for other attachments.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "at least one claim" of the ’470 patent but does not specify which one(s) (Compl. ¶39). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A wagon with a frame, wheel, basket, and removable overhead canopy.
- A plurality of "canopy mounting means" that are "pivotally coupled" to the frame.
- The mounting means are "rotatable" relative to the frame between a "first position standing upwardly" to hold the canopy and a "second position lying alongside said basket" for when the canopy is removed.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are folding wagons sold by Defendant Crosslinks Enterprise Inc. under names including "Collapsible Foldable Outdoor Utility Wagon Cart with All Terrain Wheels and Canopy" and the brand name "Clevr" (Compl. ¶¶13-14; Ex. C, D).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The accused products are advertised as having an "EASY FOLD DESIGN" and a "UNIQUE REMOVABLE CANOPY" (Compl., Ex. C, p. 51). Exhibit C includes a product page from Defendant's website showing the wagon with a red canopy supported by four vertical posts (Compl., Ex. C, p. 56). The complaint includes evidence of the accused products being sold across multiple major e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Walmart, and eBay, indicating broad commercial distribution (Compl., Ex. C, D).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'154 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused wagons embody all elements of at least claim 19 (Compl. ¶26). Exhibit E to the complaint contains a rudimentary claim chart juxtaposing elements of claim 19 with photographs of an accused wagon, forming the basis for the infringement theory (Compl., Ex. E, p. 105-108).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a basket within which to carry articles; | The accused wagon has a fabric basket for carrying articles. | ¶26 | col. 3:15-20 |
| a collapsible frame by which the folding wagon is folded between an expanded open configuration...and a compact closed configuration... | The accused wagon has a frame that folds from an open to a compact state. | ¶26 | col. 6:7-16 |
| a pair of front wheels connected to the front of the folding wagon, said pair of front wheels being separated from one another; | The accused wagon has two separated front wheels. | ¶26 | col. 4:50-55 |
| a pair of rear wheels connected to the rear of the folding wagon, said pair of rear wheels being separated from one another, | The accused wagon has two separated rear wheels. | ¶26 | col. 4:60-65 |
| the wheels of a first of said pairs of front and rear wheels being movable towards and away from one another...while the wheels of the other one...remain separated, | The complaint alleges that the accused wagon's rear wheels move toward one another during folding while the front wheels remain separated. | ¶26 | col. 5:62-6:4 |
| so that when said folding wagon is folded to said compact closed configuration, the first of said pairs of wheels is located between the other one of said pairs of wheels, | The complaint alleges that when folded, the rear wheels are positioned between the front wheels. | ¶26 | col. 6:8-12 |
| whereby said pairs of front and rear wheels are axially aligned with one another and wherein...an axis of rotation of said pair of front wheels is parallel to an axis of rotation of said pair of rear wheels. | The complaint alleges that in the folded configuration, the front and rear wheels are axially aligned and parallel. | ¶26 | col. 6:12-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused wagon's folding mechanism performs the specific sequence required by claim 19: that one pair of wheels moves "towards one another" while the other pair "remain[s] separated." The static images provided in the complaint do not depict this dynamic action, suggesting this will be a key area for discovery and expert testimony.
- Scope Questions: The construction of "axially aligned" will be critical. The parties may dispute whether this term requires a precise geometric relationship, as shown in the patent's figures, or a more general alignment that facilitates rolling.
'470 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not specify an asserted claim from the ’470 Patent or provide a detailed infringement theory. The analysis below is based on representative independent claim 1 and the product images provided.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a removable overhead canopy lying above said basket; | The accused product is advertised as having a "UNIQUE REMOVABLE CANOPY." An online advertisement shows the wagon with its canopy attached. | ¶39; Ex. D, p. 62 | col. 5:10-15 |
| a plurality of canopy mounting means pivotally coupled to said frame and being rotatable relative to said frame... | The accused product has vertical posts that hold the canopy. The complaint will need to establish that these posts are the claimed "canopy mounting means." | ¶39; Ex. D, p. 65 | col. 6:28-45 |
| ...between a first position standing upwardly from said frame...and a second position lying alongside said basket... | Plaintiff will need to prove that the accused product's canopy posts are both pivotally attached and can rotate between an upright, in-use position and a stowed position alongside the basket. The complaint does not provide visual evidence of this claimed rotational functionality. | ¶39 | col. 6:33-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The primary technical dispute will likely center on the mechanism that attaches the canopy support posts to the wagon frame. The case may turn on whether this mechanism allows the posts to be "pivotally coupled" and "rotatable" as those terms are used in the patent.
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks evidence showing the accused product's canopy posts in the "second position lying alongside said basket." Plaintiff will need to produce evidence, likely from an inspection of the physical product, to demonstrate this claimed feature.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'154 Patent
- The Term: "axially aligned" (Claim 19)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the spatial relationship of the front and rear wheel pairs when the wagon is in its compact, folded state. The definition is critical because infringement depends on whether the accused product's folded configuration meets this geometric constraint.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that axial alignment's purpose is "to facilitate a complete folding of the wagon" and "facilitate transport and/or storage" (’154 Patent, col. 2:37-40), which could support an argument that any functional alignment meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 11 and 12 depict a specific side-by-side arrangement where the wheels are neatly nested and parallel. A defendant may argue these embodiments define the required scope, pointing to language that "the pairs of front and rear wheels 40 and 44 are correspondingly held in axial alignment and side-by-side one another" (’154 Patent, col. 5:12-16).
'470 Patent
- The Term: "pivotally coupled" and "rotatable" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: These terms define the nature of the connection between the "canopy mounting means" and the wagon's frame. Infringement hinges on whether the accused product's connection allows for the specific movements of pivoting and rotating between an upright and a stowed position.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that any connection allowing movement between the two claimed positions, even a simple pin that is removed and reinserted to change the post's orientation, satisfies the terms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures suggest a more integrated mechanism. The patent describes rotation "between a first substantially vertical position...and a second out of the way position" (’470 Patent, col. 6:33-40) and shows rotation arrows (Fig. 2, item 80), which may support an argument that the terms require a connection that remains intact while moving between positions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of its infringement of the ’154 patent as of November 4, 2019, the date a notice letter was sent (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges that despite this notice, Defendant "continued to engage in activities that infringe on Plaintiff's '154 patent" and that this conduct has been "intentional" (Compl. ¶¶31-32). Plaintiff seeks treble damages for this alleged willful infringement (Compl. ¶44.c).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of mechanical operation and proof: For the ’154 patent, can Plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused wagon folds via the specific, multi-step wheel movement sequence required by claim 19, where one wheelset collapses while the other remains spread apart?
- A central question will be one of definitional scope and functionality: For the ’470 patent, does the accused product's canopy support structure meet the claim requirements of being "pivotally coupled" and "rotatable" between an upright and a stowed position, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the connection mechanism?
- Finally, a key issue for damages will be willfulness: If infringement is found, will Defendant’s sales activities after receiving the November 2019 notice letter be deemed willful, thereby exposing Defendant to a risk of enhanced damages?