DCT
3:21-cv-00947
Winthrop Tackle LLC v. Carbon Fishing LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Winthrop Tackle, LLC (Connecticut)
- Defendant: Carbon Fishing, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cantor Colburn LLP
- Case Identification: 3:21-cv-00947, D. Conn., 07/09/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Connecticut because Defendant offers for sale and sells products to customers in the state, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Carbon Fishing Adjustable Butt" product infringes a patent related to an adjustable butt for a sport fishing rod.
- Technical Context: The technology involves mechanical assemblies for deep-sea fishing rod butts that allow an angler to adjust the angle of the rod butt between a straight and a bent configuration to gain a mechanical advantage when fighting a fish.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on January 19, 2021, Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of a published patent application, which later issued as the patent-in-suit. This notice may be relevant to claims for pre-issuance royalties and post-issuance willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-01-01 | Plaintiff's "Adjusta-Butt" product first introduced (approx.) |
| 2016-01-01 | Defendant began manufacturing fishing rod components (approx.) |
| 2019-05-03 | '500 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-11-05 | '500 Patent's underlying application published |
| 2021-01-15 | Defendant announced launch of accused adjustable butt |
| 2021-01-19 | Plaintiff sent notice of published application to Defendant |
| 2021-07-06 | '500 Patent Issued |
| 2021-07-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,051,500 - “Adjustable Butt and Reel Seat for a Fishing Rod”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,051,500, issued July 6, 2021 (’500 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of conventional fishing rod butts, which are typically static and have either a straight or a bent shape (’500 Patent, col. 1:21-29). Straight rods are noted as desirable when a fish is moving away, while bent rods are preferred when a fish is circling, but traditional designs do not permit easy conversion between these configurations (Compl. ¶12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fishing rod butt with two elongate members connected by a hinge, allowing the butt to pivot between a straight (linear) and an angled (curvilinear) shape (’500 Patent, col. 4:59-62). A locking pin mechanism engages an "angle positioning arm" to secure the two members at a specific, desired angle, providing the user with an adjustable mechanical advantage (’500 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-15).
- Technical Importance: The design allows an angler to dynamically adjust the rod’s configuration to match a fish’s movements, which can help distribute forces and enable the angler to apply increased pressure on the fish (’500 Patent, col. 1:25-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies Claim 1 as representative and alleges infringement of at least Claim 21 (Compl. ¶¶21, 46).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- a locking pin;
- a first elongate member with an opening on its bottom surface defined by a "continuous wall circumscribing the opening";
- a second elongate member with an "arcuate shaped angle positioning arm" that extends away from it and is configured to "slidingly engage" the opening in the first member; the arm has at least one opening to engage the locking pin to fix the members in a linear or curvilinear shape; and
- a hinge that couples the first and second members.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Carbon adjustable butt," also referred to as the "Carbon Fishing Adjustable bent butts" (Compl. ¶¶6, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is an adjustable fishing rod butt designed to be converted between straight and bent configurations (Compl. ¶¶25-26). It is allegedly constructed from "aircraft grade T-6 aluminum and Titanium components" (Compl. p. 6). The complaint states that the product is advertised and sold through social media, including a Facebook profile, where it is promoted as a durable, high-performance product that will "not break" (Compl. ¶¶18, 30, 41).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'500 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a locking pin | The accused butt is alleged to have a locking pin. A photograph of the purported pin is provided as Figure A. | ¶23, Fig. A | col. 6:14-15 |
| a first elongate member comprising an opening in a bottom surface thereof, wherein the opening in the bottom surface is defined by a continuous wall circumscribing the opening | The accused butt allegedly includes a first elongate member with an opening on its bottom surface. Figure B purports to show this member and the opening, which is allegedly circumscribed by a continuous wall. | ¶24, Fig. B | col. 5:61-63 |
| a second elongate member comprising an adjustable reel seat portion on an upper surface, and an arcuate shaped angle positioning arm externally extending away from the second elongate member and configured to slidingly engage the opening in the bottom surface of the first elongate member... | The accused butt is alleged to possess a second elongate member with an arcuate shaped arm that extends and engages the opening in the first member. Figure C is offered as a depiction of this component. | ¶25, Fig. C | col. 7:54-62 |
| a hinge coupling the first elongate member to the second elongate member | The accused butt allegedly has a hinge that couples the first and second elongate members. Figure D purports to show this hinge mechanism. | ¶26, Fig. D | col. 4:59-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations and supporting photographs suggest a structural similarity between the patented invention and the accused product. A central question may be whether the components of the accused butt fall within the scope of the claim terms as construed by the court.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question for the court will be whether the accused product's internal mechanism functions as claimed. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's arm "slidingly engage[s]" the opening in the first member in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings? Further, does the opening in the accused product's first member possess a "continuous wall circumscribing the opening," as required by the claim?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "arcuate shaped angle positioning arm"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's locking mechanism. The shape and function of this component are critical for infringement, and its construction will determine how closely the accused product's corresponding part must resemble the embodiment described in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the arm’s function as defining a "desired fixed angle" for the butt, suggesting the term could encompass any curved lever that performs this positioning function (’500 Patent, col. 6:39-42).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates this element as a specific, crescent-shaped component (element 110 in Fig. 7). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to a structure closely matching this depicted embodiment.
The Term: "continuous wall circumscribing the opening"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific structural characteristic of the opening in the first elongate member. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product features an identical or equivalent structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself suggests the primary requirement is an unbroken boundary that defines the opening, which serves to guide the positioning arm (’500 Patent, col. 6:5-6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification shows this feature as the edge of a recessed portion (recess 74) machined into the member's body (’500 Patent, col. 6:1-3, Fig. 3). A party could argue that "wall" implies a feature with a specific vertical dimension or profile, not merely the edge of a slot.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted intellectual property as of January 19, 2021, when it received a notice letter regarding the published patent application that would become the ’500 Patent (Compl. ¶27). The complaint further alleges that Defendant continued to sell the accused product after receiving this notice, which may support a claim for willful infringement post-issuance of the patent (Compl. ¶28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court interpret structural terms such as "arcuate shaped angle positioning arm" and "continuous wall circumscribing the opening"? The case may turn on whether these terms are given a broader, functional meaning or are construed more narrowly in light of the specific embodiments shown in the patent's figures.
- A second central issue will be a factual question of infringement: Assuming the court's claim construction, does the "Carbon adjustable butt" actually contain each element of the asserted claims? The outcome will depend on evidence from discovery detailing the precise mechanical structure and operation of the accused product's hinge and locking system.
- A final key question relates to willfulness and damages: Did Defendant’s alleged continuation of sales after receiving a 154(d) notice regarding the published application give rise to pre-issuance royalties or constitute willful infringement after the patent issued? This analysis will likely involve a comparison of the claims in the published application to those in the issued ’500 Patent.