DCT

8:18-cv-00617

Pierce Mfg Inc v. E One Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00617, M.D. Fla., 06/05/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant E-ONE because its principal place of business is within the district. Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant REV Group based on its consent to jurisdiction and waiver of venue objections by voluntarily joining the action.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Metro 100 Quint fire apparatus infringes two patents related to designing a "quint" configuration fire truck with an extended-reach aerial ladder on a single rear axle.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns fire apparatus engineering, specifically enabling the performance characteristics of larger, dual-rear-axle aerial trucks (e.g., long ladder reach) in a more maneuverable and cost-effective single-rear-axle vehicle.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant E-One with pre-suit notice of infringement of the first patent-in-suit in June 2017. The complaint also notes that this action follows an original complaint filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which allegedly put both defendants on notice of infringement of both patents-in-suit as of February 2018.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-11-24 Priority Date for ’536 and ’915 Patents
2015-01-01 Pierce introduces Ascendant Single Axle Quint (approx.)
2017-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,597,536 Issues
2017-04-24 Defendants introduce Accused Product at FDIC trade show
2017-06-13 Pierce sends pre-suit notice letter to E-One re: ’536 Patent
2017-11-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,814,915 Issues
2018-02-23 Original complaint filed, providing notice of infringement
2018-06-05 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,597,536, "Quint Configuration Fire Apparatus," issued March 21, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with traditional "quint" (five-function) fire trucks, which required a second rear axle to support the weight necessary for long aerial ladder reach. This dual-axle configuration made the vehicles "more heavy, difficult to maneuver, and expensive to manufacture" (’536 Patent, col. 1:26-31; Compl. ¶29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a quint fire apparatus built on a single rear axle that can still achieve significant ladder reach (e.g., ≥90 ft horizontal, ≥95 ft vertical) and support a high tip load (≥750 lbs). It achieves this stability by strategically positioning the center of gravity of the vehicle's heavy components—such as the chassis, body, pump, and water tank—to "counterbalance a moment generated by the tip load" when the ladder is extended (’536 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-13).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for the production of a fire apparatus with the performance of a larger truck but the improved maneuverability and lower cost of a single-axle vehicle (Compl. ¶29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20 (’536 Patent, col. 14:21-51, col. 16:20-51; Compl. ¶65).
  • Claim 1 recites the core elements of the apparatus, including a chassis, a single front axle, and a single rear axle, with an extensible ladder assembly. Its key limitations require:
    • A horizontal ladder reach of at least 90 feet and a vertical height of at least 95 feet.
    • A ladder tip load capacity of at least 750 pounds.
    • A water tank configured to contain at least 500 gallons.
    • The center of gravity of at least one major component (chassis, body assembly, pump, water tank) is "positioned to counterbalance a moment generated by the tip load."
  • Claim 20 is similar to Claim 1 but is broader in scope, as it recites the same apparatus, performance metrics, and counterbalancing feature but does not include the limitation requiring a water tank of at least 500 gallons.

U.S. Patent No. 9,814,915, "Quint Configuration Fire Apparatus," issued November 14, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent, which is a continuation in the same family as the ’536 Patent, addresses the identical problem of conventional dual-rear-axle quint trucks being heavy, costly, and difficult to maneuver (’915 Patent, col. 1:26-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as in the ’536 Patent. The apparatus uses a single rear axle and achieves stability for a long-reach ladder through the specific placement of the centers of gravity of its major components to create a counterbalancing moment (’915 Patent, Abstract). The specification details how a "torque box" component can be used to couple the ladder's turntable to the vehicle's frame, which is part of the overall structural design enabling this performance (’915 Patent, col. 6:54-61).
  • Technical Importance: The innovation provides a lighter, more agile, and less expensive alternative to traditional long-reach aerial fire trucks (Compl. ¶29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20 (’915 Patent, col. 14:21-51, col. 16:20-44; Compl. ¶87).
  • The language of asserted independent claims 1 and 20 of the ’915 Patent is identical to the language of the corresponding independent claims 1 and 20 of the ’536 Patent described above.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the "Metro 100 Quint" fire apparatus, manufactured and sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶34).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Metro 100 Quint is a quint configuration fire apparatus featuring a long-reach aerial ladder on a single axle (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 36). Defendants allegedly introduced the product at an industry trade show in April 2017 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants market the Metro 100 Quint by highlighting the very features central to the patents, such as its long-reach capability on a single axle (Compl. ¶36). Promotional materials are cited as touting the product's "100-foot ladder" and "tight maneuverability" (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56).
  • A screenshot of a promotional tweet shows the Metro 100 Quint at a trade show with a sign advertising an "11 FEET JACK SPREAD, FULLY DEPLOYED WITH NO RESTRICTIONS ON AERIAL EXTENSION" (Compl. ¶42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 88). Based on the narrative allegations, the infringement case appears to be built on a theory of reverse engineering of function: because the accused Metro 100 Quint is a single-axle quint apparatus that allegedly achieves the same high-performance metrics claimed in the patents, it must necessarily practice the patented solution of using component weight for counterbalancing.

The complaint alleges that the Metro 100 Quint literally meets every element of the asserted claims of both the ’536 and ’915 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 87). For each patent, the infringement argument is that the accused product is a quint apparatus with a single rear axle, an extensible ladder, and other required components (chassis, pump, etc.). Crucially, the complaint alleges that the accused product meets the claimed performance thresholds (e.g., ≥95 ft vertical reach, ≥750 lb tip load) and, in doing so, must have its components "positioned to counterbalance" the ladder, thereby infringing the core functional limitation of the claims (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 65). Plaintiff also pleads infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as an alternative (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 87). A screenshot from a Facebook post showing the accused "Sarasota County Metro 100 Quint" is presented as evidence of an infringing product (Compl. ¶56).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A central factual dispute will likely be how the Metro 100 Quint achieves its stability. Does it rely on the specific counterbalancing from the center of gravity of the claimed components (chassis, body, pump, tank), or does it use an alternative technical approach not covered by the claims, such as a novel outrigger design, advanced lightweight materials in the ladder, or a different structural frame? The complaint's allegations regarding the product's "11 FEET JACK SPREAD" may become relevant to this inquiry (Compl. ¶42).
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the interpretation of the phrase "positioned to counterbalance a moment." The key question for the court will be whether this limitation requires proof of an intentional design choice—that the components were placed for the purpose of counterbalancing—or if it is satisfied simply if the apparatus, as built, inherently produces a counterbalancing effect.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"positioned to counterbalance a moment generated by the tip load" (Claim 1 of both patents)

Context and Importance

This functional language is the technological core of the asserted claims and distinguishes the invention from the prior art described in the patents. The construction of this term will likely be determinative of infringement, as it defines the specific mechanism for achieving stability that an accused product must practice.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain language "are positioned" simply describes the resulting state of the apparatus, not the designer's intent. The Abstract states the components "are positioned to counterbalance," which could be read as describing a functional result rather than a required purpose. This interpretation would favor finding infringement if the accused product achieves the effect, regardless of how.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the problem solved by the invention (enabling a single-axle truck to do the work of a dual-axle one), the term implies a specific, deliberate design choice. The patent’s Summary section frames this positioning as the solution that "counterbalance[s] a moment," suggesting it is an active design element, not an incidental property (’536 Patent, col. 2:10-13). This interpretation may require the plaintiff to provide evidence of the defendant's specific design methodology.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against both defendants. The allegations are based on Defendants’ active marketing, promotion, and sale of the Metro 100 Quint through advertisements, trade shows, social media, and product specifications, which allegedly encourage and instruct customers to use the product in its infringing configuration (Compl. ¶¶ 39-46, 68, 77, 89, 98).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge.

  • Knowledge of the ’536 Patent is alleged as of June 13, 2017, based on a notice letter sent from Pierce to E-One, with knowledge imputed to REV Group through a shared general counsel (Compl. ¶¶ 58-60, 79).
  • Knowledge of both the ’536 and ’915 Patents is alleged as of February 2018, upon service of an earlier complaint filed in a different district (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 91, 100).
  • Willfulness is based on the allegation that Defendants continued to make, use, and sell the accused product despite having knowledge of the patents and the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 83, 92, 101).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical causality: Does the accused Metro 100 Quint achieve its advertised performance and stability through the specific counterbalancing mechanism recited in the claims, or does it do so via an alternative, non-infringing engineering method? Proving that the accused product's stability is caused by the positioning of the claimed components will be a critical hurdle for the plaintiff.
  • The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: Will the claim term "positioned to counterbalance" be interpreted as a broad, result-oriented functional description, or as a narrower limitation requiring evidence that the counterbalancing was a specific and intended design choice? The court’s construction of this central phrase could either significantly expand or contract the scope of the patents.