DCT
0:21-cv-60935
Golden v. Neptune Boat Lifts Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: William Golden and Golden Manufacturing, Inc. (GMI) (Florida)
- Defendant: Neptune Boat Lifts, Inc., Randall Whitesides, and James E. Harrison (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lott & Fischer, PL; Merchant & Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 0:21-cv-60935, S.D. Fla., 04/30/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the corporate defendant being incorporated in the district and the individual defendants being domiciled in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s boat lifts, which incorporate specific cable winder assemblies, infringe a patent related to a cable tie-off device.
- Technical Context: The technology pertains to mechanical systems for boat lifts, specifically the apparatus used to securely attach a lifting cable to a rotating winder spool.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant Neptune with written notice of the patent-in-suit as early as January 2011 and again in November 2019. It also alleges that after the 2019 notice, Neptune sold substantially all of its assets to a third party, ShoreMaster, LLC, in November 2020. These allegations are central to the claims of willful and induced infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-07 | '241 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-04-13 | '241 Patent Issue Date |
| 2007-06-01 | Alleged start of R. Whitesides' role as CEO of Neptune |
| 2011-01-21 | Alleged first written notice of infringement to Neptune |
| 2019-11-25 | Alleged second written notice of infringement to Neptune |
| 2020-11-23 | Alleged date of Neptune's asset transfer to ShoreMaster |
| 2021-04-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,719,241 - "Cable Tie-Off Device for Cable Lifts," issued April 13, 2004
The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes conventional methods for securing a lifting cable to a winder spool using a cable clamp as potentially "time-consuming and labor intensive," noting that the motor often has to be removed prior to installation (’241 Patent, col. 1:15-19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a cable tie-off device, described as an elongated member like a bolt, designed to pass through a pair of registered holes in the winder spool. The end of the lifting cable is inserted through a separate hole in the tie-off device itself, located just under the device's head. When the device is inserted into the spool and secured with a fastener, the cable's end is clamped between the head of the device and the outer surface of the spool, simplifying the attachment process (’241 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-29).
- Technical Importance: The described solution offers a method for securing lift cables that is designed to be more efficient than prior art methods that required more complex assembly or disassembly (’241 Patent, col. 1:15-19).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
- Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- A rotatable spool with an outer surface for winding a cable.
- The spool has a pair of holes at one end that are in registration with one another.
- A removable "cable tie-off device" engaged within the spool holes, which comprises a head, shank, and end portion.
- This device has its own hole through the shank "immediately subjacent said head portion" to receive the cable end.
- The configuration is such that the cable end is "tightly maintained between said head portion and said outer surface of said spool."
- A "means for securing said device to said spool."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this remains a possibility as the case proceeds.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "boat lifts" manufactured, used, sold, and/or offered for sale by Neptune that "include Plaintiffs' cable winder invention" (Compl. ¶25).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused boat lifts incorporate cable winder assemblies featuring a specific mechanism for securing the lift cable to the spool (Compl. ¶3, ¶25). A photograph provided in the complaint shows a grooved cable winder spool with a bolt-like device passing through it, which appears to anchor the end of a steel cable (Compl. ¶25.a). Plaintiff GMI is described as a "market-leading designer" of boat lifts, and Defendant Neptune is identified as a "direct competitor" (Compl. ¶1, ¶3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'241 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a rotatable spool having an outer surface configured to wind and deploy a cable secured thereto | The accused boat lift includes a cable winder assembly with a grooved, rotatable spool. A photograph depicts this assembly. | ¶25.a | col. 1:56-59 |
| b. said spool further having at one end a pair of holes communicating through said outer surface, and wherein said holes are in registration with one another | The accused spool has a pair of holes through which a securing device passes. A photograph depicts the holes. | ¶25.c | col. 2:16-19 |
| c. a cable tie-off device removably engaged within each of said spool holes, said device comprising, in a series, a head portion, an elongated shank portion, and an end portion... having a hole... immediately subjacent said head portion... to receive a proximal end of said cable... such that... said cable is tightly maintained between said head portion and said outer surface of said spool | The accused assembly uses a bolt-like device inserted through the spool holes. The complaint alleges this device receives the cable end and secures it between the bolt head and the spool. A photo shows the device engaged with the spool and cable. | ¶25.d | col. 2:25-29 |
| d. a means for securing said device to said spool | The accused assembly uses a fastener, depicted as a nut, to secure the tie-off device to the spool. A photograph shows a nut threaded onto the end of the device. | ¶25.e | col. 2:23-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The final limitation of claim 1, "a means for securing said device to said spool," is drafted in means-plus-function format. Its scope will be limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification—a "nut," "cap," or "clamp"—and their legal equivalents (’241 Patent, col. 2:23-24, col. 2:40-41). A central question will be whether the fastener on the accused device is the same as or equivalent to these disclosed structures.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused device operates as claimed. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that the proximal end of the cable is "tightly maintained between said head portion and said outer surface of said spool," as required by claim 1. The complaint's photographs, such as the one at paragraph 25.d, appear to show the alleged configuration, but the degree of tightness and the precise mechanism of maintenance will be subject to discovery and expert analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "means for securing said device to said spool"
Context and Importance: This term is drafted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 (pre-AIA), making its construction a two-step process of identifying the claimed function and the corresponding structure in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is not determined by its plain meaning but is strictly limited to the patent's disclosure and its equivalents, which is a common area of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might point to the patent's listing of multiple fastener types, suggesting the inventor did not intend to limit the invention to a single structure. The patent discloses "a nut," "a cap or clamp," indicating some flexibility (’241 Patent, col. 2:23-24, col. 2:40-41).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly identifies the "preferred fastener" as a "complementarily threaded nut (i.e. a hex nut or wing nut)" and separately mentions "a cap or clamp" (’241 Patent, col.2:35-41). A party could argue that the scope of equivalents should be narrowly construed around these specific examples.
The Term: "immediately subjacent said head portion"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the required location of the cable-receiving hole on the tie-off device. Whether the accused device's hole is in this position is a direct question of infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a numerical or dimensional definition of "immediately," which could support an argument that the term simply means "below and near" the head portion, as opposed to a specific distance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly Figure 5, depict the hole (15) positioned directly against the underside of the head portion (11), with no significant intervening space on the shank (12) (’241 Patent, Fig. 5). This visual evidence may support a construction requiring the hole to be as close to the head as structurally possible.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against individual defendants Whitesides and Harrison (Compl. Counts II & III). The allegations are based on their purported knowledge of the ’241 patent since at least 2011 and their alleged roles in "knowingly incorporat[ing]" the infringing assemblies into Neptune's products and having "encouraged and/or ordered Neptune employees" to do so (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33, 40-41).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged against all defendants. The claim is predicated on alleged actual knowledge of the ’241 patent stemming from written notices sent in January 2011 and again in November 2019, followed by continued alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28, 37, 45).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction, particularly the scope of the means-plus-function term "means for securing said device." The outcome will depend on how the court identifies the corresponding structure in the specification and the range of legal equivalents.
- A central evidentiary question will concern willfulness and individual liability. The case will likely turn on factual proof of the individual defendants' knowledge of the patent, dating back to 2011, and their specific actions in directing the accused conduct, which Plaintiff alleges supports claims for both induced and willful infringement.
- The case also presents a question of corporate succession and liability. The complaint's allegation that Neptune sold its assets to a third party after receiving notice of infringement raises the question of whether Plaintiffs can recover damages from the named defendants, particularly if the asset sale was structured to avoid such liabilities.