DCT
0:25-cv-61501
Metzger v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Metzfab Industries, LLC (Arizona) and Brandon Metzger (Arizona)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (various foreign jurisdictions, primarily the People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 0:25-cv-61501, S.D. Fla., 07/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district, and alternatively that Defendants have committed acts of infringement and conduct business in the district by selling and shipping accused products to consumers in Florida via online marketplaces.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous foreign e-commerce store operators are infringing two patents related to automotive dipstick adapter assemblies by selling unauthorized imitation products to consumers in the United States.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical assemblies that allow for the replacement of a vehicle's dipstick adapter without requiring the costly and labor-intensive removal of the engine's oil pan.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative patent challenges. The case follows a common structure for actions against numerous online sellers, where the specific identities of the defendants are listed on a Schedule A that the plaintiff intends to file under seal.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-12-14 | Earliest Priority Date for ’259 and ’272 Patents |
| 2016-03-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,285,259 Issues |
| 2017-06-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,671,272 Issues |
| 2025-07-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,671,272 - Dipstick Adapter Assembly (Issued June 6, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that factory-installed dipstick adapters in vehicle oil pans are often poorly designed. When a gasket or locknut fails, a portion of the adapter can fall into the oil pan, necessitating the removal of the pan—and often the entire engine—to retrieve the part and perform the repair, a "very time-consuming and expensive process" (US 9,671,272 B1, col. 1:39-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a replacement dipstick adapter assembly designed to be installed entirely from outside the oil pan. It consists of a "front fixture" that remains outside the pan and a "backing plate" (clamping means) that is inserted through the hole to the inside. Two fasteners are then used to clamp the backing plate and front fixture together, compressing gaskets to seal the assembly against the oil pan wall without requiring internal access (US 9,671,272 B1, Abstract; col. 2:50-68). The installation sequence is depicted in Figures 4A-4E.
- Technical Importance: This design obviates the need to remove the oil pan for a common repair, saving considerable time and expense for mechanics and vehicle owners (US 9,671,272 B1, col. 2:35-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An assembly comprising: an oil pan, a front fixture, and clamping means coupled to the front fixture.
- A first fastener coupling the front fixture to the clamping means, where the fastener is "fixed to the clamping means with a bond to prevent rotation."
- A second fastener applied to the front fixture to move the clamping means.
- The clamping means is moveable through the hole from a "free condition" (outside the pan) to an "applied condition" (inside the pan).
- In the applied condition, the front fixture encircles and seals the hole against the outer surface of the oil pan.
U.S. Patent No. 9,285,259 - Dipstick Adapter Assembly (Issued March 15, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As the parent patent to the '272 patent, the '259 patent addresses the identical technical problem: the significant cost and effort required to replace a failed factory dipstick adapter that has dropped a component into an engine's oil pan (US 9,285,259 B1, col. 1:26-32).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is the same multi-part assembly installable from outside the oil pan. A key aspect highlighted in this patent is the specific geometry of the "clamping means" (backing plate), which is shaped to be inserted through the circular hole in one orientation and then rotated to bridge the hole internally before being clamped (US 9,285,259 B1, Abstract; col. 6:6-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An assembly comprising: an oil pan, a front fixture larger than the hole, and clamping means coupled to the front fixture.
- The clamping means has a "length which is larger than the hole and a width, transverse to the length, which is a smaller than the hole."
- The clamping means is moveable through the hole to arrange the assembly between a free condition and an applied condition.
- In the applied condition, the front fixture encircles and seals the hole against the outer surface of the oil pan.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "Dipstick Adapter Repair Kit" products sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts on platforms such as eBay.com (Compl. ¶¶3, 45). The complaint provides exemplary images of kits advertised as compatible with Ford Powerstroke engines (Compl. p. 10-11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiffs' genuine products (Compl. ¶4). The provided images show multi-component kits comprising a main adapter body (front fixture), a backing plate (clamping means), two screws (fasteners), and O-rings (gaskets) (Compl. p. 10, 12). This visual evidence suggests the accused products are designed to function in the same manner as the patented invention: to be installed from outside the oil pan by passing the backing plate through the dipstick hole and clamping it to the main body. The complaint alleges these products directly compete with Plaintiffs' goods (Compl. ¶22). One exemplary image shows the product advertised as a "Dipstick Adapter Repair Kit," reinforcing its intended use (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’272 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An assembly comprising: an oil pan having an inner surface, an outer surface, and a hole... | The accused kits are advertised for use with specific vehicle models, such as Ford trucks, which contain oil pans with dipstick holes. | ¶45; p. 10 | col. 1:15-18 |
| a front fixture; | The accused product includes a main adapter body that remains on the exterior of the oil pan. | ¶45; p. 10 | col. 2:50-51 |
| clamping means coupled to the front fixture; | The accused product includes a backing plate that is coupled to the front fixture via fasteners. | ¶45; p. 10 | col. 4:50-54 |
| a first fastener coupling the front fixture to the clamping means, the first fastener fixed to the clamping means with a bond to prevent rotation of the clamping means... | The complaint alleges this element is met, but the provided images show only conventional fasteners without explicitly showing a "bond" like a tack weld. | ¶45; p. 12 | col. 6:10-14 |
| a second fastener applied to the front fixture for application to the clamping means to move the clamping means... | The accused product includes a second fastener used to tighten the assembly. An image displays "Stainless Steel Screws." | ¶45; p. 12 | col. 6:39-42 |
| wherein in the applied condition of the assembly, the front fixture encircles the hole in direct contact against the outer surface of the oil pan and is sealed around the hole. | The front fixture of the accused product has a circular base and is supplied with O-rings, indicating it is designed to encircle and seal the hole. | ¶45; p. 12 | col. 8:15-19 |
’259 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An assembly comprising: an oil pan... a hole... | The accused kits are intended for installation in the oil pans of specific vehicles. | ¶45; p. 11 | col. 1:15-18 |
| a front fixture larger than the hole; | The main body of the accused product is shown to have a diameter greater than the hole it is intended to cover. | ¶45; p. 11 | col. 8:43-44 |
| clamping means... having a length which is larger than the hole and a width, transverse to the length, which is a smaller than the hole; | The accused product's backing plate is depicted as an oblong bar, consistent with a shape designed to be inserted through a smaller hole and then rotated. | ¶45; p. 11 | col. 6:9-14 |
| the clamping means is moveable through the hole to arrange the assembly between a free condition... and an applied condition... | The structure of the accused product suggests an installation method where the backing plate is passed through the hole. | ¶45; p. 11 | col. 6:15-24 |
| wherein in the applied condition... the front fixture encircles the hole in direct contact against the outer surface of the oil pan and is sealed around the hole. | The accused front fixture is circular and used with O-rings to create a seal around the oil pan hole. | ¶45; p. 12 | col. 8:52-56 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the infringement analysis of the ’272 Patent will be whether the accused products meet the "bond" limitation. The complaint provides no specific evidence of a bond (e.g., a tack weld) that fixes one fastener to the backing plate. The infringement case for this claim may depend on evidence of such a bond or a successful argument for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
- Technical Questions: For the ’259 Patent, the analysis will focus on the dimensions of the accused "clamping means." What evidence does the complaint provide that the backing plate's length is greater than the target hole's diameter while its width is smaller? While the product's shape suggests this is the case, it remains a point for factual proof.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bond" (’272 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is a key distinguishing feature of Claim 1 of the ’272 Patent. The absence of a "bond" in the accused products could present a significant challenge to a claim of literal infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to add a specific structural requirement beyond merely using two fasteners.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "bond" without further qualification, which a plaintiff may argue encompasses any means of fixing the fastener to prevent rotation, whether chemical, mechanical, or thermal.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of the bond as a "small weld 100" ('272 Patent, col. 6:10-14). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the scope of "bond" to a permanent or semi-permanent connection like a weld, as opposed to a temporary or frictional connection.
The Term: "clamping means" (’259 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the invention, as its specific dimensional characteristics (length > hole > width) are what enable the novel installation method. The dispute will center on what structures satisfy this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is functional, and a plaintiff may argue it should be construed to cover any structure that performs the claimed function of clamping from inside the oil pan and possesses the required dimensional properties.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "clamping means" as a specific structure: a "backing plate" (11) with an oblong body and arcuate ends ('259 Patent, col. 4:50-54; Figs. 3A-3E). A defendant could argue that the scope of the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment and its structural equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶53). While the primary theory appears to be direct infringement by making, using, and selling the complete assembly, an image of an accused product listing notes that "Instructions Included" (Compl. p. 12). This could form the basis for an inducement claim, as Plaintiffs may allege Defendants provide instructions that direct end-users to perform the infringing act of installing the assembly.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully used" the patents (Compl. ¶¶44, 55). The complaint does not plead specific facts indicating that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural proof: for the ’272 patent, can the Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused products, sold by a diffuse network of online sellers, contain the specific "bond" required to fix the first fastener to the clamping means, or will it need to rely on the doctrine of equivalents?
- A second key question will be one of dimensional correspondence: for the ’259 patent, does the "clamping means" of the accused products meet the critical dimensional limitations of having a "length which is larger than the hole and a width... which is a smaller than the hole," an evidentiary question that must be proven for each infringing device.
- Finally, the case presents a significant procedural and enforcement challenge: beyond the technical patent questions, a central issue will be the practical difficulty of litigating against numerous, anonymous, and foreign-based e-commerce entities, and ultimately enforcing any judgment that may be obtained.