DCT

3:23-cv-24645

Rack Abilities LLC v. Ez 4x4 LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-24645, N.D. Fla., 10/19/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on alleged acts of infringement committed within the district and a forum selection clause in a patent license agreement previously executed between the parties.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that following the termination of a patent license agreement, Defendants continued to sell a "knock-off" version of a patented rolling cart for vehicle doors, thereby infringing the patent and engaging in trademark infringement.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, collapsible racks designed for the storage and transport of removable vehicle doors, a product category with a market among owners of sport utility vehicles like Jeeps.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties previously operated under a patent license agreement, which Plaintiff Rack Abilities terminated on December 9, 2022, due to Defendants' alleged material breaches, including failure to pay appropriate royalties and maintain required insurance coverage. A primary issue in the case, addressed in the first count for declaratory judgment, is whether this termination was lawful and effective, which would determine if Defendants' subsequent sales constitute patent infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-04-25 Earliest Priority Date for ’947 Patent
2021-04-16 Plaintiff first offers device for sale at "Jeep Beach" event
2021-07-14 Patent License Agreement effective date
2022-09-30 Plaintiff sends demand letter with intent to terminate license
2022-12-09 Plaintiff declares license agreement terminated
2023-05-23 U.S. Patent 11,654,947 issues
2023-10-19 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,654,947 - “Versatile article support device,” issued May 23, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of storing bulky, heavy, and easily damaged removable doors from sport utility vehicles. It notes that simply laying them on the ground can damage their finish and that prior storage devices are often single-purpose and not easily stored or transported themselves (’947 Patent, col. 1:25-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a collapsible rolling rack designed to securely hold vehicle doors. It consists of a central frame with upward-extending vertical rails, to which one or two outer frames are pivotally attached. These outer frames can be folded up against the vertical rails for compact storage (as illustrated in Figure 7) or pivoted down to an unfolded, horizontal position to create a stable, wheeled platform for holding doors (’947 Patent, col. 2:9-25). The vertical rails are equipped with receivers that engage the hinge pins on the vehicle doors to hold them securely (’947 Patent, col. 4:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a lightweight, multi-purpose, and collapsible device, addressing the need for a storage solution that is itself easy to store and transport when not in use (’947 Patent, col. 2:3-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
    • A central frame with a pair of horizontal center rails and a pair of vertical rails extending upwardly.
    • A first outer frame with a pair of outer rails, pivotally attached to the center frame via first pins, allowing rotation between a folded and an unfolded position.
    • The ability for the first outer frame to be locked into the unfolded position via a pair of second pins.
    • A first and a second hinge pin receiver, attached to one of the vertical rails at different heights, with aligned openings to receive the hinge pins of a vehicle door.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the phrasing "at least independent claim one" suggests that possibility (Compl. ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as the "E-Z 4x4 'Folding Rolling Door Cart'" and the "EZ Folding Door Cart" (Compl. ¶¶18, 66).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is described as a "rolling door cart" that comprises a "rack having rails for holding and moving removable doors" (Compl. ¶68). The complaint alleges it is a "knock-off" and "Chinese copy" of the inventor's product, which Defendants allegedly obtained by purchasing an original unit and sending it to China for reproduction (Compl. ¶¶25, 26, 38).
  • The complaint includes a screenshot from the Defendants' promotional banner, which shows a device that can be folded for storage and unfolded for use, consistent with the patent's teachings (Compl. p. 7). Another image, a safety decal proposed by the Plaintiff, illustrates how doors are mounted onto the cart's vertical structure (Compl. p. 16, Fig. 4).
  • The product is sold to after-market consumers, including through Amazon.com, and is allegedly promoted using a trade name, "EZ Folding Door Cart," that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff's registered trademark "EZ DOOR CART" (Compl. ¶¶18, 39, 40). A screenshot from the defendant's website eztrunk.net shows the accused product holding vehicle doors in a manner that appears consistent with the patent's figures (Compl. p. 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’947 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A rack comprising The accused "rolling door cart" is a rack with rails for holding and moving removable doors. ¶68 col. 2:9-10
A center frame having a pair of coextensive horizontally disposed center rails each having a first upper surface and an opposing first lower surface, the center frame also having a pair of vertical rails, each vertical rail extending upwardly from a respective one center rail The accused rolling door cart has a center frame with a pair of coextensive horizontally disposed center rails and a pair of vertical rails extending upwardly. ¶68 col. 5:51-56
a first outer frame having a pair of coextensive first outer rails...with the first outer frame pivoting with respect to the center frame about the pair of first pins such that the first outer frame is capable of rotating between a first unfolded position wherein the first outer rails and the center rails are aligned on first parallel longitudinal axes and a first folded position wherein the first outer rails each abut one of the vertical rails and such that the first outer frame is locked into the first unfolded position via a pair of second pins that each pass through a respective one of the first outer rail and through a respective one center rail; The accused cart has a pivoting first outer frame with coextensive rails attached to the center frame via pins, allowing rotation between a folded and an unfolded position, and locks into the unfolded position with a pair of second pins. ¶68 col. 5:57-6:10
a first of hinge pin receiver having a first vertically disposed opening, the first hinge pine receiver attached to one of the vertical rails; The accused cart possesses a vertically disposed hinge pin receiver opening, attached to one of the vertical rails. ¶68 col. 6:11-14
and a second of hinge pin receiver having a second opening, the second hinge pin receiver attached to the same vertical rail...such that the first opening of the first hinge pin receiver and the second opening of the second hinge pin receiver align with one another so that a first axis passes longitudinally through the aligned first opening and the second opening... The accused cart has a second hinge pin receiver attached to the same vertical rail below the first, with openings that align to create an axis parallel to the vertical rail for securing a door. ¶68 col. 6:15-23

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges literal infringement, suggesting a direct mapping of the product to the claims (Compl. ¶69). A potential point of contention, however, could be the scope of the term "locked into the first unfolded position." The defense may argue that the accused product's pin-and-hole system does not constitute a "lock" in the sense required by the patent, although the claim language itself defines the locking mechanism as being "via a pair of second pins."
  • Technical Questions: The primary factual question for infringement appears to be whether the accused product, alleged to be a direct copy, contains every element of Claim 1. The complaint's claim chart presents a one-to-one mapping (Compl. ¶68). The court's analysis will depend on an examination of the actual accused product to verify these allegations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "hinge pin receiver"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the critical component that interfaces with the vehicle door. Its construction is central to whether the accused cart performs the patented function of securely holding a door. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the accused product is a copy, making any subtle structural differences in this key component a potential non-infringement argument.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term by its function and structure: it has a "first vertically disposed opening" and is "attached to one of the vertical rails" (’947 Patent, col. 6:11-14). Plaintiff may argue this requires no more than a component with an opening that can receive a door pin.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the receiver is a "body member" attached via a "U-bolt 40" (’947 Patent, col. 4:1-4). A defendant may argue that this disclosed embodiment limits the scope of the term to structures similar to the U-bolt configuration.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Defendants "caused to be infringed at least independent claim one" (Compl. ¶66). The factual basis for this appears to be the sale of the "Folding Rolling Door Cart" to end-users with instructions or inherent design features that encourage use in the patented manner, thereby inducing infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "intentional[], fraudulent[], and without lawful justification" (Compl. ¶71). The basis for this allegation is the parties' prior licensing relationship, which establishes clear knowledge of the patent family (Compl. ¶32). The complaint further alleges that Defendants purchased Plaintiff's product, sent it to China to be copied, and continued selling the resulting "knock-off" products even after the license was terminated (Compl. ¶¶25, 50).

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

  • A core issue will be one of contractual standing: was the Patent License Agreement lawfully terminated by Plaintiff for material breach? The answer to this question, which is the subject of the declaratory judgment count, is dispositive; if the license remains in effect, there can be no infringement.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement and copying: assuming the license was terminated, does the accused "EZ Folding Rolling Door Cart" contain every element of the asserted patent claims? Given the allegations of direct copying, the case may turn on a straightforward factual comparison of the accused product to the claim language, with limited need for complex claim construction.
  • Finally, the resolution of the case will likely involve the question of willfulness and damages: given the parties' prior business relationship and the detailed allegations of intentional copying and continued sales after termination, a central issue for damages will be whether Defendants' conduct rises to the level of willful infringement, which could expose them to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. §285.