Victaulic Co v. Allied Rubber & Gasket Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Victaulic Company (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Allied Rubber & Gasket Co., Inc., d/b/a ARGCO (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-02049, S.D. Cal., 08/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of California because the defendant, ARGCO, is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Carlsbad, California, which is located within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Push-On" pipe couplings infringe a patent related to pre-assembled, installation-ready couplings, and that this conduct constitutes a breach of a 2022 settlement agreement between the parties.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical grooved pipe couplings designed to be installed without complete disassembly, a feature intended to increase the speed and reliability of joining pipes in construction and industrial settings.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of litigation between the parties. A 2017 lawsuit over a related patent resulted in a settlement where Defendant allegedly admitted infringement. A second lawsuit in 2022, asserting the patent-in-suit, also ended in a settlement where Defendant allegedly admitted the patent was valid and infringed, and agreed not to "make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import" any covered product. Plaintiff alleges this new action arises from Defendant's third instance of infringement and second breach of a settlement agreement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-05-14	’310 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-01 (approx.)	Victaulic alleges it began sending cease-and-desist letters to ARGCO
2017-05-01 (approx.)	Victaulic files first patent infringement lawsuit against ARGCO
2017-08-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,726,310 Issued
2022-09-01 (approx.)	Victaulic files second patent infringement lawsuit against ARGCO, asserting the ’310 Patent
2024-12-19	Victaulic sends letter to ARGCO regarding the ’310 Patent
2025-07-31	Victaulic alleges it learned of new infringing sales by ARGCO
2025-08-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,726,310 - Combination Sealing Member and Pipe Couplings

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,726,310, "Combination Sealing Member and Pipe Couplings," issued August 8, 2017 (the “’310 Patent”). (Compl. ¶28).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the installation of prior art mechanical pipe couplings as a "tedious and time consuming" process that requires a technician to completely disassemble the coupling, remove the seal, lubricate and stretch the seal over the pipe ends, and then reassemble the coupling piece by piece. (’310 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a coupling and sealing member combination that can be supplied in a "preassembled state." (’310 Patent, col. 2:38-42). It consists of coupling segments held in a spaced-apart relationship by a specially designed flexible, resilient ring seal. This configuration creates a sufficient opening for pipe ends to be inserted directly into the pre-assembled coupling without taking it apart, after which fasteners can be tightened to secure the joint. (Compl. ¶11; ’310 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This "Installation-Ready®" approach was designed to save significant labor time and reduce the likelihood of improper assembly on a job site. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’310 Patent. (Compl. ¶48).
• Independent Claim 1 recites, in combination with two grooved pipe elements, a pipe coupling comprising:
  • A plurality of segments connected to surround a central space.
  • A pair of arcuate projections on the segments.
  • An arcuate surface on each projection for engaging the floor of a pipe groove.
  • A channel between the projections on each segment.
  • A seal within the channel, having an outer surface "sized to support said segments in spaced apart relation to provide clearance" sufficient for pipe insertion, and an inner surface to receive the pipes.
  • At least one "adjustably tightenable" connection member to draw the segments together. (’310 Patent, col. 6:1-33).
• The complaint notes that the provided infringement analysis is non-limiting and reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’310 Patent. (Compl. ¶49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are ARGCO’s "Push-On Standard Rigid Couplings," including specifically cited item numbers 7010802 through 7010810, sold alone or in combination with other pipe elements. (Compl. ¶33).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are grooved pipe couplings used to connect pipe elements end-to-end. (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 48). Plaintiff asserts these products are imported from overseas and sold via ARGCO’s website, and that at least one customer has installed them in a U.S. project. (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 51). The core accused functionality is that the couplings are sold and installed "without disassembly," mirroring the function of the patented invention. (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’310 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit B, which was not provided with the complaint document. (Compl. ¶49). In its narrative allegations, the complaint asserts that the features of the ARGCO couplings "fall squarely within the scope of the ’310 Patent’s claims." (Compl. ¶26). The theory of infringement centers on the allegation that the Accused Products possess a "plurality of housing segments," "arcuate projections designed to engage pipe grooves," and an "assembled configuration designed to be placed directly over the pipe elements to be joined without disassembly." (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides an image of an orange, two-segment pipe coupling bearing the "ARGCO" brand, which is identified as an Accused Product available on the defendant's website. (Compl. ¶35). These allegations collectively map to the core elements of claim 1, particularly the "preassembled state" that permits installation without disassembly. (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 48).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the scope of the claim phrase "clearance... sufficient to permit insertion of said pipe elements." The court may need to resolve whether this requires that the coupling, as delivered, allows for immediate insertion, or whether the need to loosen the fasteners before installation would take the product outside the claim's scope.
• Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to show that the accused coupling's "seal... hav[s] an outer surface sized to support said segments in spaced apart relation," as required by the claim? The complaint alleges this functionality (Compl. ¶26), but a factual dispute could emerge over whether the seal itself provides the structural "support" or if that function is performed entirely by the fasteners, with the seal acting merely as a passive gasket.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a seal... having an outer surface sized to support said segments in spaced apart relation" (’310 Patent, col. 6:21-23).
• Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the invention's "installation-ready" character. The case may turn on whether the accused seal performs this active "support" function. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the seal is found to be a mere passive gasket, with the metal segments supported only by the coupling's fasteners, it may not meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the coupling segments as being "supported on the ring outer surface" in their preassembled state, which allows for immediate use. (’310 Patent, col. 4:33-40). This language may support a functional interpretation where any configuration that holds the segments apart for installation meets the "support" requirement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also states that the "sealing member... has sufficient stiffness to maintain the coupling segments in spaced apart relation through shipping and handling during installation." (’310 Patent, col. 4:49-52). This could support a narrower construction requiring the seal itself to possess a particular degree of structural rigidity, a property the accused seal may or may not have.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges ARGCO induces infringement by providing "promotional literature" that advises customers and users on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶53). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Products are a material part of the invention, are "especially made or... adapted for practicing the invention," and have no substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶54).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willfulness based on ARGCO's pre-suit knowledge of the ’310 Patent. This knowledge is alleged to date back to at least September 9, 2022, the filing date of a prior lawsuit involving the same patent. (Compl. ¶38, ¶58). The allegation is further supported by the 2022 Settlement Agreement, in which ARGCO allegedly admitted the ’310 Patent was valid and infringed. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).

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

• A primary issue appears to be one of breach and estoppel: given Defendant’s alleged admissions of validity and infringement in the 2022 Settlement Agreement, and its covenant not to challenge the ’310 Patent, a central question for the court will be whether the current accused products are covered by that agreement and to what extent, if any, the agreement bars Defendant from raising non-infringement or invalidity defenses.
• Should the infringement claim be analyzed on its own merits, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: does the accused coupling's elastomeric seal have the claimed properties to "support" the heavy housing segments in a spaced-apart, installation-ready state, or is that spacing maintained solely by the mechanical fasteners, potentially creating a mismatch with the technical requirements of the asserted claim?
• A third question concerns willfulness and remedies: if infringement and breach of contract are found, what is the impact of the parties' extensive litigation history and prior settlement agreements on the determination of willfulness, enhanced damages, and attorneys' fees?