DCT
4:12-cv-01373
Feeney Inc v. QMH Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Feeney, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: QMH, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cozen Oconnor
- Case Identification: 4:12-cv-01373, N.D. Cal., 03/19/2012
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district, regularly conducts business there, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fittings for wire rope infringe a patent related to a spring-loaded, self-locking cable gripping apparatus.
- Technical Context: The technology pertains to mechanical hardware used to secure and tension cables, a component commonly found in architectural applications such as cable railing systems.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. RE43,194, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,043,801. A significant post-filing event concerns the patent's validity. An Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate (US RE43,194 C1) was issued on October 30, 2013, which cancelled all 20 claims of the patent. As this cancellation occurred after the complaint was filed, it raises fundamental questions about the continued viability of the infringement action from that date forward.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-03 | '194 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-05-16 | Original Patent (7,043,801) Issue Date |
| 2012-02-21 | Reissue Patent ('194 Patent) Issue Date |
| 2012-03-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,194 - "Spring Loaded and Self-Locking Cable Gripping Apparatus"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,194, "Spring Loaded and Self-Locking Cable Gripping Apparatus," issued February 21, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art cable gripping devices as often having too many components, making them confusing for users and prone to loss or damage. It further notes these prior devices were often larger than necessary, expensive to manufacture, and susceptible to trapping dirt and moisture, which leads to corrosion of the cable. (’194 Patent, col. 1:36-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a compact, self-locking apparatus that allows a cable to be inserted and secured in one direction without tools. It comprises a housing containing a set of tapered half-jaws, a spring, and a spacer. When a cable is pushed into the housing, it forces the jaws apart against the spring. When the insertion force is removed, the spring presses the spacer against the jaws, which are then wedged together by the tapered inner wall of the housing, securely gripping the cable. (’194 Patent, col. 2:25-41, Fig. 1.2).
- Technical Importance: The design aimed to provide a mechanically simpler, more robust, and more corrosion-resistant solution for securing small-diameter cables, with a low-profile finish suitable for architectural use. (’194 Patent, col. 2:1-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶13). Independent claims 1 and 11 are the broadest apparatus claims. The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- a cylindrical main housing having a central passage, an open first end and an open second end;
- an outside flange abutting the second end and formed as an integral structure of the main housing;
- a pair of half jaws, housed within said main housing;
- a spacer positioned within the main housing against the pair of half jaws;
- a spring positioned in the main housing abutting the spacer;
- a retaining mechanism positioned in the main housing next to the spring; and
- a functional relationship wherein inserting a cable compresses the spring, which then exerts force on the spacer and the jaws to self-lock the cable.
- The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims but implicitly reserves the right to do so.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as "fittings for wire rope, including at least those components associated with item nos. 815S-03 and 816S-03." (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are "cable gripping apparatus" that infringe the ’194 Patent (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that the defendant, a competitor, "has copied Feeney's Quick-Connect® fittings, which embody the '194 Patent." (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the structure or operation of the accused fittings. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed narrative mapping claim elements to the accused products. The following chart is constructed based on the general allegations that QMH's fittings infringe the claims of the '194 Patent.
- '194 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cylindrical main housing having a central passage, an open first end and an open second end | The accused QMH fittings are alleged to include a cylindrical main housing with a central passage for receiving a cable. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 5:16-18 |
| an outside flange abutting the second end and formed as an integral structure of the main housing | The accused fittings are alleged to incorporate an integral outside flange at one end of the housing. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 5:18-20 |
| a pair of half jaws, housed within said main housing | The accused fittings are alleged to contain a pair of half jaws within the housing to grip the cable. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 5:21-22 |
| a spacer ... positioned within the main housing against the pair of half jaws | The internal mechanism of the accused fittings is alleged to include a spacer that acts against the half jaws. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 5:23-26 |
| a spring ... positioned in the main housing abutting the spacer | The accused fittings are alleged to contain a spring that provides force to the spacer. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 5:27-29 |
| a retaining mechanism positioned in the main housing next to the spring | The accused fittings are alleged to contain a mechanism to retain the spring within the housing. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 5:30-32 |
| wherein a cable enters ... and is advanced through the housing ... as the spring is compressed, force is exerted upon the spacer and the jaws, thereby self-locking the cable | The accused fittings are alleged to operate in a self-locking manner where an inserted cable causes the spring to compress and then lock the cable via the jaws. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 5:33-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: Because the complaint lacks technical specifics, the core of the dispute will be factual and evidentiary. A primary question will be whether the internal construction of QMH's 815S-03 and 816S-03 fittings contains the complete combination of discrete elements as claimed—specifically, a distinct "spacer", "half jaws", and a "retaining mechanism"—or if it achieves a similar function through a different mechanical arrangement that omits or combines these claimed parts.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to identify specific terms in dispute. However, based on the claim language and the nature of the technology, certain terms may become focal points.
The Term: "retaining mechanism"
Context and Importance: This element is recited in Claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products contain a structure that meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its product either lacks a "retaining mechanism" entirely or integrates the retention function into another component, thereby designing around the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional ("a retaining mechanism"), suggesting that any structure that performs the function of retaining the spring could satisfy the limitation, regardless of its specific form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment, a "retaining clip 11" that fits into an "annular groove 15" (’194 Patent, col. 4:49-51; Fig. 2). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this disclosed structure or structures equivalent to it.
The Term: "spacer"
Context and Importance: The "spacer" is claimed as a discrete element positioned between the "half jaws" and the "spring". Its presence as a separate component is a requirement of Claim 1. A potential non-infringement argument could be that the accused device combines the function of the spacer with another part, such as the spring or the jaws, and therefore does not meet this limitation literally.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires a "spacer", but does not limit its shape or material beyond its position and function of transmitting force from the spring to the jaws.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 2 show the "spacer" (8) as a distinct component with a specific shape, including a flange section and a narrower end to guide the spring (’194 Patent, col. 4:63-col. 5:5). A party might argue this specific structure informs the meaning of the term.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to inducement ("contributed to or induced acts of patent infringement by others") in its section on jurisdiction and venue (Compl. ¶5). However, it does not plead specific facts, such as the provision of instructions or manuals, to support a claim for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was "willful, intentional and in conscious disregard of Feeney's rights" (Compl. ¶15). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that QMH, a competitor, "has copied Feeney's Quick-Connect® fittings" (Compl. ¶9).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the internal assembly of the accused QMH fittings contain the specific combination of discrete mechanical components recited in Claim 1—including a distinct "spacer" and "retaining mechanism"—or does it achieve its cable-gripping function through a materially different structure that omits or combines these claimed elements?
A dispositive procedural question concerns the effect of post-filing claim cancellation: Given that all claims of the asserted patent were cancelled in a reexamination proceeding that concluded after the lawsuit was filed, a threshold issue for the court is whether any viable claim for relief, including for past damages, remains.