DCT
1:18-cv-00589
Andersen Mfg Inc v. Wyers Products Group Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Andersen Manufacturing Inc. (Idaho)
- Defendant: Wyers Products Group, Inc. (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP; Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Chartered
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00589, USDC Colorado, 04/14/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Idaho because Defendant maintains a continuous and substantial presence in the district, sells the accused products to consumers and retailers there, and places products into the stream of commerce knowing they would be sold in Idaho.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s manufacturing process for aluminum adjustable trailer hitches infringes a patent related to methods for making such components.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for manufacturing aluminum trailer hitch components, such as drop bars, using an extrusion process to create products that are allegedly stronger, lighter, and more resistant to rust than traditional steel counterparts.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship between the parties, wherein Defendant acted as a manufacturer and vendor of components for Plaintiff. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the sole patent-in-suit was the subject of an ex parte reexamination, which concluded on April 11, 2018, with the cancellation of all claims of the patent, including the asserted claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-11-27 | ’099 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-06-21 | ’099 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-04-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2016-09-12 | ’099 Patent Reexamination Requested |
| 2018-04-11 | ’099 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued (All Claims Cancelled) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,908,099 - Systems and Methods for Providing Aluminum Hitch Components, issued June 21, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses shortcomings of traditional steel trailer hitches, which are prone to rust. This rust can be aesthetically undesirable and can cause the hitch to fuse to the hitch adapter, preventing its removal ('099 Patent, col. 1:41-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes manufacturing hitch components, specifically drop bars, from an aluminum alloy using a method centered on an extrusion process. A billet of aluminum is forced through a shaped die to create a long profile, which is then cut into individual drop bars and machined to add holes and rounded edges ('099 Patent, col. 2:1-17; Fig. 1-2). This method produces a component that is described as stronger than steel, lighter, and not prone to rust or fusing ('099 Patent, col. 2:14-17).
- Technical Importance: The use of high-strength aluminum alloys and extrusion offered a way to create hitch components with the necessary strength for towing while avoiding the corrosion and weight issues associated with steel ('099 Patent, col. 4:28-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 ('099 Patent, col. 8:10-24; Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11 are:
- extruding billet aluminum through a die to form a profile in a shape of an extended and stepped drop bar;
- cutting a plurality of parallel cuts through the extended and stepped drop bar profile to provide a plurality of drop bars;
- machining near a proximal end of a first stepped drop bar to configure a receiving portion that is configured to receive a ball for coupling thereto, wherein the first drop bar is one of the plurality of drop bars; and
- machining near a distal end of the first stepped drop bar to configure the first stepped drop bar to be selectively coupled to a vehicle for use in towing.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses the manufacturing method used by Defendant to create "stepped drop bars" which are components of its aluminum adjustable hitch systems (Compl. ¶16). Specific product lines identified as including these components are the “TRZ4ALRP,” “TRZ8AL,” “RAZOR 6 Aluminum Adjustable Hitch,” “RAZOR 8 Aluminum Adjustable Hitch,” “TRZ6ALRP,” “TRZ12AL,” “TRZ8ALRP,” and “6" and 12" Premium Aluminum Adjustable Hitches” (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentality is a multi-step manufacturing process. Based on the allegations, this process begins with extruding aluminum to create a shaped profile, followed by cutting the profile into individual parts (drop bars), and then machining these parts to allow for the attachment of a trailer ball and connection to a vehicle (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges these actions are for the purpose of making and selling aluminum adjustable hitch systems (Compl. ¶15-16).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint alleges infringement of method claim 11 based on Defendant's manufacturing process for its stepped drop bars. The allegations are made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶16).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| extruding billet aluminum through a die to form a profile in a shape of an extended and stepped drop bar; | Defendant manufactures its stepped drop bars by... extruding billet aluminum through a die to form a profile in the shape of an extended and stepped drop bar... | ¶16 | col. 8:12-14 |
| cutting a plurality of parallel cuts through the extended and stepped drop bar profile to provide a plurality of drop bars; | ...cutting a plurality of parallel cuts through the extended and stepped drop bar profile to provide a plurality of drop bars... | ¶16 | col. 8:15-17 |
| machining near a proximal end of a first stepped drop bar to configure a receiving portion that is configured to receive a ball for coupling thereto, wherein the first drop bar is one of the plurality of drop bars; and | ...machining near the proximal end of a first stepped drop bar to configure a receiving portion that is configured to receive a ball for coupling thereto... | ¶16 | col. 8:18-21 |
| machining near a distal end of the first stepped drop bar to configure the first stepped drop bar to be selectively coupled to a vehicle for use in towing. | ...machining near the distal end of the first stepped drop bar to configure the first stepped drop bar to be selectively coupled to a vehicle for use in towing. | ¶16 | col. 8:22-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Viability of the Claim: The primary legal question is the effect of the post-filing cancellation of all claims of the '099 patent during ex parte reexamination. The cancellation of the asserted claim may render the entire infringement action moot.
- Factual Questions: A core factual dispute, should the case proceed, will be whether Defendant’s manufacturing process, which is alleged on "information and belief," actually includes every step recited in claim 11. Discovery would be required to substantiate the complaint's recitation of Defendant's specific manufacturing steps (Compl. ¶16).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "stepped drop bar"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the physical object being created by the claimed method. The shape of the "stepped drop bar" is what the initial "extruding" step is meant to produce. The definition of this term is therefore critical to determining whether the accused manufacturing process infringes, as it dictates the required outcome of the first two steps of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple embodiments and states the invention is not limited to specific sizes, suggesting a broader scope. For example, after mentioning a "three-inches thick" embodiment, the patent states "those skilled in the art will appreciate that embodiments of the present invention embrace drop bars that are more than three-inches thick or that are less than three-inches thick" ('099 Patent, col. 4:62-67).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited to the shapes explicitly shown in the patent's figures, such as the L-shaped component with a specific stepped profile depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5 ('099 Patent, Fig. 3, 5). The claim itself links the term to both a proximal end for receiving a ball and a distal end for coupling to a vehicle, which could be argued to impart structural limitations ('099 Patent, col. 8:18-24).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on Defendant's own acts of manufacturing, which constitute direct infringement of the asserted method claim (Compl. ¶16).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful, deliberate, and intentional (Compl. ¶17). This allegation is based on alleged "knowledge of the ‘099 patent" arising from a "prior relationship with Andersen in which Defendant was a manufacturer and vendor of components for Andersen’s drop bar hitch systems" (Compl. ¶9, 17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the provided documents, the litigation appears to center on two overarching questions, one procedural and one factual:
A central procedural and substantive question is the legal effect of the post-filing cancellation of all claims of the '099 Patent. The court will need to determine if Plaintiff's cause of action for infringement can survive the invalidation of the asserted patent rights.
Should the case overcome the hurdle of claim cancellation, a key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant's manufacturing process, alleged on "information and belief," meets every limitation of the asserted method claim, particularly the specific sequence of "extruding," "cutting," and "machining" a "stepped drop bar."