Swift Distribution LLC v. Pro Stage Gear LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Swift Distribution LLC d/b/a Ultimate Support (Delaware/Colorado)
  • Defendant: Pro Stage Gear, LLC (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Talus Law Group LLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00585, D. Colo., 03/06/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Colorado based on Plaintiff's principal place of business being located there and Defendant's alleged sales of products within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its pedalboard products do not infringe the Defendant's patent, following receipt of a letter from the Defendant alleging infringement.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mounting boards for guitar effects pedals, designed to organize pedals and manage connecting cables for musicians.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was subject to an ex parte reexamination that concluded in 2016, resulting in amended claims. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the patent underwent two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. These IPRs, concluded in 2020 and 2021, resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims, including several of the original and amended independent claims, significantly narrowing the scope of potentially enforceable patent rights.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-09-07	’023 Patent Priority Date
2002-10-01	’023 Patent Issue Date
2016-07-18	’023 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued
2017-01-31	Date of PSG's letter alleging infringement
2017-03-06	Complaint Filing Date
2020-06-05	’023 Patent Inter Partes Review Certificate (K1) Issued
2021-08-23	’023 Patent Inter Partes Review Certificate (K2) Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,459,023 - "Mounting Board for Guitar Effects," issued Oct. 1, 2002

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problems musicians face when using multiple guitar effects pedals, which traditionally rest on the floor. This arrangement leads to pedals being kicked or moved, accidental disconnection of cables, and difficulty in reconfiguring the setup, especially on a dimly lit stage (’023 Patent, col. 1:41-55). The prior art solution of mounting pedals on a simple wooden board was deemed restrictive, as it made rerouting cables for new effects difficult (’023 Patent, col. 1:56-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a structured pedalboard built on a frame, typically made of metal tubing members (’023 Patent, col. 4:25-30). This frame creates an "effect mounting surface" comprising multiple spaced-apart rails or elements. The gaps between these elements form "cable connection openings" that allow cables to pass from the pedals on top to a protected routing and storage area underneath the board (’023 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-24). This design aims to secure the pedals while concealing and organizing the cables, facilitating easier setup and transport.
• Technical Importance: The design addressed a practical need for a durable, professional, and easily reconfigurable system for organizing the growing number of effects pedals used by performing musicians.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any valid and enforceable claim" of the patent, but does not specify which claims were asserted by the Defendant (Compl. ¶ 10). Post-grant proceedings have cancelled many original claims, including claims 1-4. The analysis below focuses on a surviving independent claim.

• Independent Claim 9 (survived IPR):
  • a support structure;
  • at least two top surface elements connected to the support structure, including leg extensions projecting from the rigid support structure;
  • such that the top surface elements define edges of a first cable connection opening;
  • a third top surface element connected to the rigid support structure and including a third leg extension;
  • a fourth top surface element connected to the rigid support structure and including a fourth leg extension;
  • the third and fourth top surface elements defining edges of a second cable connection opening;
  • wherein the top surface elements are aligned to form at least two rows of guitar effects.
• The complaint does not reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The GSP-500 Genesis Series Pedalboard (Compl. ¶ 5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the GSP-500 as a product for mounting guitar effect pedals (Compl. ¶ 5). The complaint attaches drawings of the product as Exhibit 1, which depict a pedalboard constructed with a series of parallel slats supported by a frame, creating open slots between the slats (Compl. Ex. 1). These drawings suggest the GSP-500 is designed to allow users to place pedals on the slats and route cables through the openings, consistent with the general purpose of products in this market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and therefore does not contain a detailed infringement theory or claim chart from the patentee (Defendant PSG). The action was precipitated by a letter from PSG stating that the GSP-500 products "appear to be infringements of the reexamined ‘023 patent" (Compl. ¶ 7). Plaintiff Ultimate Support denies these contentions (Compl. ¶ 8).

Because the complaint does not articulate the patentee's specific infringement theory, a claim chart mapping patent elements to accused product features cannot be constructed. The core of the dispute will be whether the features of the GSP-500 Pedalboard, as shown in drawings in the complaint (Compl. Ex. 1), satisfy the limitations of the surviving claims of the ’023 patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Structural Questions: A central question will be whether the physical construction of the GSP-500 Pedalboard meets the specific structural limitations of the claims. For example, regarding claim 9, does the GSP-500's frame and slat design constitute a "support structure" with "top surface elements" that include "leg extensions projecting from the rigid support structure"?
• Scope Questions: The court may need to determine if the GSP-500's slatted surface, which creates a series of parallel openings, corresponds to the claimed "first cable connection opening" and "second cable connection opening." The interpretation of what constitutes a distinct "opening" as defined by specific "top surface elements" will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "cable connection opening"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in nearly every surviving claim and is fundamental to the patent's purpose of cable management. Its construction will determine what type of board structure infringes. The dispute may turn on whether the term requires a single, large, defined opening or if it can read on a series of smaller slots, such as those that appear to be present in the accused GSP-500 product (Compl. Ex. 1).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the openings as allowing a cable to pass from an adapter on the guitar effect "through the effect mounting surface into a cable routing and storage area" (’023 Patent, col. 2:15-19). This functional description could support an interpretation covering any gap sufficient to perform this function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 9 requires the opening to be defined by the "edges" of specific "top surface elements" that have "leg extensions." Figure 7 depicts the openings (14, 16) as distinct spaces formed between specific cross members (34). This could support an interpretation requiring a structure that mirrors the specific embodiments shown, rather than any generic slot or gap.

The Term: "top surface elements including leg extensions"

• Context and Importance: This language from claim 9 defines the specific components that form the mounting surface and the cable openings. Practitioners may focus on this term because the GSP-500's construction with simple parallel slats (Compl. Ex. 1) may not be seen as having "leg extensions projecting from the rigid support structure" in the manner described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "leg extension" is not explicitly defined, which could allow it to be construed broadly as any portion of a top element that helps create the structure of the opening.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifically illustrates the "leg extension" (40) as a distinct part of a "b-shaped cross member" (34) that projects downward and inward to form the edge of the opening (’023 Patent, Fig. 9; col. 4:3-6). An argument could be made that the term is limited to this specific disclosed structure or a close equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment, does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions, heavily influenced by the patent's extensive post-grant review history.

1. A question of claim construction: Can the structural terms of the surviving claims, such as "top surface elements including leg extensions" and "cable connection opening", be construed broadly enough to read on the accused product's design? The patent's specification and figures, which show a particular "b-shaped" member construction, may be used to argue for a narrow scope that the accused product does not meet.
2. An evidentiary question of infringement: Assuming a claim construction is established, does the physical structure of the GSP-500 Pedalboard, with its parallel slat design, embody the specific combination of a "support structure," distinct "top surface elements," and defined "openings" as required by the surviving independent claims like claim 9? The visual evidence provided in the complaint (Compl. Ex. 1) will be central to this factual determination.