Hanna v. Financial Analysts Consultants Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: John Hanna (California)
  • Defendant: Financial Analysts Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Coil n’ Wrap (Arizona); Ken Wilton (Individual); Judy Wilton (Individual)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
• Case Identification: 5:08-cv-02476, N.D. Cal., 05/14/2008
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including sales of the accused products, occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s recreational vehicle (RV) awning pull straps infringe a patent related to an adjustable awning strap assembly.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns accessories for RVs, specifically pull-straps used to extend and retract fabric awnings, a common feature in the consumer RV market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Defendant Coil n’ Wrap was the exclusive distributor for Plaintiff’s patented products from approximately 2003 to 2005. During this period, Defendants were allegedly aware that Plaintiff had a pending patent application for the products. The complaint alleges that after the distributorship terminated, Defendants began manufacturing and selling their own competing, and allegedly infringing, products. Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter in February 2008, which allegedly went unheeded.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-06-03	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,044,189 B1
c. 2003	Start of exclusive distributorship agreement between Hanna and Coil n' Wrap
c. 2005	Termination of exclusive distributorship agreement
c. 2005	Alleged start of Defendant's infringing manufacturing and sales
2006-05-16	U.S. Patent No. 7,044,189 B1 Issues
c. Jan 2008	Plaintiff alleges learning of Defendant's infringing activity
2008-02-25	Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendant
2008-05-14	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,044,189 B1, "ADJUSTABLE WINDOW AWNING ASSEMBLAGE," Issued May 16, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional RV awning pull-straps as being prone to deterioration from sun and weather, difficult to replace (often requiring sewing or end-cap disassembly), and having a fixed length that may not accurately match the distance to a vehicle’s mounting hook (’189 Patent, col. 1:15-24, 1:39-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a pull-strap assembly designed for improved durability, adjustability, and ease of installation. The strap is formed from two layers of material that are permanently bonded together at spaced intervals to create a series of openable "pockets" along its length (’189 Patent, col. 1:55-62). A separate, removable connector—described as a rigid stem with enlarged heads (see Fig. 3)—can be inserted into any one of these pockets. This connector then engages a slot in the awning's roller-tube, allowing the user to effectively change the strap's length by choosing a different pocket, thereby achieving an accurate fit without modification (’189 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-29).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for end-users to easily install and adjust an awning strap's length to fit various vehicle configurations without requiring special tools, sewing, or disassembly of the awning mechanism (’189 Patent, col. 2:50-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more of the claims" of the '189 patent (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 1 is representative of the combination, and independent claim 3 covers the pull-strap assembly as a standalone product.

• Independent Claim 1:

  • A combination of a roller-tube (with a slot) and a pull-strap assembly.
  • The pull-strap assembly comprises a strap made of a "thin composite of two layers of strong and thin material."
  • The two layers are "permanently mated" to form a "plurality of spaced pockets" that are openable to their longitudinal edges.
  • A "connecting means" is included, which is "removably mountable" in any of the pockets.
  • The connecting means has a "pair of heads" on a "stem," where the heads are larger than the stem and are sized to seat on the body of the roller-tube behind its slot.

• Independent Claim 3:

  • A pull-strap assembly for use with another assembly having a slot.
  • Includes a pull-strap with "longitudinal edges" and a "plurality of spaced pockets" openable to those edges.
  • Includes a "connecting means" with a stem and a pair of heads.
  • The stem is "disposable throughout any one" of the pockets, with the heads projecting from the stem "exteriorly of said longitudinal edges."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are the "Coil n' Wrap Awning Pull Straps," which include several branded versions such as the "Main/Patio Awning Pull Strap," "RV Window Awning Pull Strap," and others (Compl. ¶¶5, 17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as "awning pull straps" for recreational vehicles that are sold to wholesale distributors, dealers, and end-users through trade shows and the Defendant's website (Compl. ¶¶2, 17, 21, 23). The complaint alleges that the accused products are a "commercial success" (Compl. ¶24). However, the complaint does not provide any specific technical description of the accused products' construction, materials, or mechanism of operation beyond identifying them by name and general function.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Coil n' Wrap Awning Pull Straps infringe upon the '189 patent" (Compl. ¶18) but does not provide a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping the features of the accused products to the elements of any asserted claim. The infringement theory must be inferred from the general allegation that Defendants' awning pull straps embody the patented invention. A central issue for the court will be to determine, through discovery, whether the accused products in fact contain the specific structures recited in the patent's claims, such as the two-layer construction, permanently mated pockets, and a removable connector with a stem and heads.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The primary point of contention will be factual: do the accused "Coil n' Wrap Awning Pull Straps" actually possess the structure defined in the patent's independent claims? Specifically, are they constructed from two permanently mated layers forming a plurality of pockets, and are they designed to be used with a separate, removable connector as claimed? The complaint's lack of specificity makes this a threshold evidentiary question.
  • Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over whether the method used to join the layers in the accused product qualifies as "permanently mated" as required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "connecting means" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term, recited in means-plus-function format, is critical to defining the physical link between the strap and the roller-tube. The infringement analysis for this element will depend on whether the structure in the accused product that performs the connecting function is the same as, or equivalent to, the structure disclosed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself, "connecting means removably mountable," describes the function broadly.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses the corresponding structure as "a rigid member for disposal or insertion" which "includes a stem 48 at each end of which a head 49 of a larger dimension than stem 48 is secured" (’189 Patent, col. 4:27-33; Fig. 3). Prosecution history and case law on means-plus-function claiming may confine the term's scope to this specific rod-like structure and its structural equivalents.

• The Term: "permanently mated" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines how the two layers of the strap are joined to form the pockets. If the accused product uses a method of joining that is deemed not "permanent" (e.g., certain types of stitching or temporary fasteners), it may not infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the durability and construction method are central to the invention's purported improvement over the prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which could support an interpretation that includes any durable, non-temporary joining method like sewing, gluing, or thermal bonding.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "best mode" section of the specification discloses that the "technique of permanently fixing together the two layers of material... is carried out by machinery manufactured by Branson Ultrasonics Corporation... which an ultra-sonic welding of mated areas 42 takes place" (’189 Patent, col. 6:7-12). A party could argue this disclosure narrows the term's meaning to methods like ultrasonic welding or similarly permanent bonding techniques.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement, asserting that Defendants sell the accused straps to "end-users and wholesale distributors" (Compl. ¶¶5, 35). The complaint alleges knowledge based on Defendants' prior role as the exclusive distributor of Plaintiff's patented product, during which they were allegedly aware of the pending patent application (Compl. ¶¶13, 14). Continued sales after receiving a cease and desist letter are also alleged as a basis for knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶¶26-27).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent rights, stemming from the prior distributorship agreement and awareness of the patent application, and alleged post-suit knowledge from the cease and desist letter sent in February 2008 (Compl. ¶¶14, 26, 36). The complaint alleges that Defendants' continued infringement despite this knowledge was deliberate (Compl. ¶27).

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

This dispute appears to center on a former distributor allegedly copying a product after the business relationship ended. The resolution of the case will likely depend on the answers to three key questions:

1. A fundamental evidentiary question: Does the "Coil n' Wrap Awning Pull Strap" have the specific physical construction required by the '189 patent's claims? The case hinges on whether the accused product is built with two "permanently mated" layers forming multiple "pockets" and uses a "connecting means" as claimed.
2. A question of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "connecting means"? Will its scope be limited to the specific rod-and-head structure disclosed in the patent's specification, and does the accused product employ a structurally equivalent connector?
3. A question of intent: Assuming infringement is found, did the Defendants act willfully? The court will examine the parties' prior business relationship and the Defendants' actions after receiving the cease and desist letter to determine whether the infringement was sufficiently egregious to warrant enhanced damages.