Hildebrand v. Wilmar Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: David L. Hildebrand (Colorado)
  • Defendant: Wilmar Corporation, aka Performance Tool (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-02821, D. Colo., 11/22/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is engaged in commercial activities in the District of Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s tool products infringe a patent related to a device for removing damaged threaded fasteners, such as stripped nuts or bolts.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the field of mechanical hand tools, specifically specialized sockets designed to remove fasteners that can no longer be gripped by standard tools.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties were involved in a prior patent infringement lawsuit in 2009 concerning the same patent-in-suit, which was resolved via a confidential settlement agreement. The current complaint alleges both infringement of the patent and violation of the prior settlement agreement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1995-09-20	U.S. Patent No. 5,737,981 Priority Date
1998-04-14	U.S. Patent No. 5,737,981 Issued
2007-01-01	Period begins in which Plaintiff alleges awareness of infringement
2009-02-01	Prior infringement complaint filed against Defendant (approx. date)
2017-11-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,737,981 - "Removal Device for Threaded Connecting Devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,737,981 (“Removal Device for Threaded Connecting Devices”), issued April 14, 1998 (’981 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the common problem of removing a threaded fastener, like a nut or bolt, after its head has been worn down or "stripped," preventing a standard wrench or socket from getting a secure grip ('981 Patent, col. 1:19-35). Prior art tools for this purpose are described as having "limited in their effectiveness" ('981 Patent, col. 1:56-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a tool, typically in the form of a socket, with a tapered internal opening. This internal surface contains threads that are oriented in the opposite direction of the fastener to be removed (e.g., left-hand threads to remove a standard right-hand threaded nut). When the device is placed over a damaged fastener and rotated in the "unscrew" direction, the internal threads are designed to bite into the fastener's outer surface, providing the necessary grip to achieve removal ('981 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:16-27). The tapered design allows a single tool to engage fasteners of various sizes ('981 Patent, col. 3:28-35).
• Technical Importance: The patented design purports to provide a "simple and effective" device for removing damaged threaded fasteners, a persistent issue in automotive and mechanical repair ('981 Patent, col. 1:59-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’981 Patent are asserted. The broadest independent claim is Claim 1.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A body with a first end and a second end.
  • An opening at the first end that extends partway toward the second end.
  • The opening has an internal surface threaded in a direction opposite to the fastener it is intended to remove.
  • The opening is tapered, narrowing from the first end inward.
  • The second end includes an opening "designed for engagement with conventional connecting elements used in a removal tool" (e.g., a square drive for a ratchet).
  • Rotation of the body causes its internal threads to engage and rotate the fastener for removal.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "a product labeled under the name of Performace [sic] Tools" and "additional products to they're [sic] product line" (Compl. p. 2, p. 3). No specific product models or stock-keeping units (SKUs) are identified.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "Knock-Offs" that "duplicated Plaintiffs patented product" (Compl. p. 2). It provides no technical details regarding the functionality, construction, or operation of the accused products. The complaint alleges Defendant imports and distributes the accused products (Compl. p. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement. It alleges infringement of the ’981 patent in a conclusory manner, without providing a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping the elements of any asserted claim to the features of an accused product (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint provides no basis for identifying specific claim construction disputes, an analysis of Claim 1 of the ’981 Patent suggests the following terms may be central to the case.

• The Term: "threaded connecting device"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the universe of objects the patented tool is designed to remove. Its construction will determine whether infringement is limited to the removal of standard nuts and bolts or extends to other items like studs, stripped screw heads, or other uniquely threaded fasteners.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term broadly to "refer to devices having a portion which must be rotated to facilitate attachment," including examples such as conventional nuts, bolts, and externally threaded studs ('981 Patent, col. 2:63–col. 3:7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section primarily frames the problem in the context of a "nut that for some reason cannot be removed," which could be argued to limit the term's scope to nut-like objects with external surfaces for gripping ('981 Patent, col. 1:19-24).

• The Term: "opening designed for engagement with conventional connecting elements"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the interface between the patented device and the tool used to apply torque (e.g., a ratchet or wrench). The scope of "conventional connecting elements" will determine whether the claim covers only standard drive types or a wider array of engagement mechanisms.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting that "different connecting elements may be secured to the removal tool" and that "a variety of projection shapes and sizes could be used" ('981 Patent, col. 4:59-62, col. 4:8-10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments disclose only a "hexagonal shaped projection" and a "square opening," which a defendant might argue limits the term to these common, explicitly described socket drive types ('981 Patent, col. 3:65–col. 4:4).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful and intentional (Compl. ¶11). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’981 Patent, arising from a prior infringement lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant in 2009 that resulted in a settlement agreement (Compl. p. 2, ¶11).

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

• A threshold procedural question will be whether the complaint's conclusory allegations of infringement, which lack any specific facts mapping claim limitations to accused product features, can survive a motion to dismiss under the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal.
• Should the case proceed, a central factual question will be one of direct comparison: does any accused "Performance Tool" product incorporate each element of an asserted claim of the '981 patent, particularly the tapered internal bore with reversed threading designed to grip and remove a damaged fastener?
• Given the history of a prior lawsuit and settlement, a key issue for damages will be willfulness: do the facts surrounding the alleged breach of the 2009 settlement agreement and subsequent sales support a finding of willful infringement, potentially leading to enhanced damages?