DCT

1:17-cv-21509

Raptor LLC v. Odebrecht Construction Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-21509, S.D. Fla., 07/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is predicated on the location of the allegedly infringing activities, specifically an FDOT highway construction project in Miami-Dade County.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s industrial equipment and processes used for slip-forming concrete structures infringe patents related to concrete construction technology. There is a significant discrepancy in the provided documents, as the complaint notice describes a construction technology dispute, while the furnished patent (U.S. 9,956,075) is directed to a medical device for heart valve replacement.
  • Technical Context: The technology at the center of the dispute involves methods and systems for slip-forming concrete, a process used for continuous, large-scale fabrication of structures like highway barriers and bridge elements.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint submitted pursuant to a court order, which suggests the initial complaint was found deficient. The plaintiff asserts that the amended complaint rectifies these deficiencies by including claim charts and explicitly pleading infringement under both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. The complaint was filed before the issue date of the provided '075 patent, indicating a likely document error or that the complaint originally asserted a parent or different patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-12-23 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 9,956,075
2013 Plaintiff allegedly developed its equipment design/protocol
2017-07-06 First Amended Complaint Filing Date
2018-05-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 9,956,075

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

A meaningful infringement analysis is not possible based on the provided documents. The complaint notice describes a dispute over patents related to concrete construction. However, the only patent document provided, U.S. Patent 9,956,075, pertains to an unrelated field of medical devices. The analysis below describes the patents as presented in the source documents.

U.S. Patent No. 9,956,075 - "Methods and Apparatus for Endovascularly Replacing a Heart Valve"

  • Issued: May 1, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the significant risks of traditional open-heart surgery for replacing diseased heart valves, such as bleeding, infection, and long recovery times. It also notes the drawbacks of early-generation, self-expanding endovascular stents, including a lack of precise placement control (the stent may "jump" upon release) and insufficient radial strength to function as a valve anchor within the heart ('075 Patent, col. 1:19-col. 2:48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for replacing a heart valve through minimally invasive endovascular means. The system includes a replacement valve, an expandable anchor, and a deployment tool. The tool allows a surgeon to actively and controllably expand the anchor using mechanical force (rather than a balloon), assess its function, and reposition it before final, irreversible deployment. This provides greater accuracy and safety compared to simple self-expanding stents ('075 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-61). Figure 1A shows the complete delivery tool, while Figures 3A-3E illustrate the step-by-step process of deploying the replacement valve within a patient's heart ('075 Patent, Fig. 1A; Fig. 3A-3E).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents an advancement in the field of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), aiming to make the procedure more predictable and reliable, thereby offering a safer alternative to open-heart surgery for a wider range of patients ('075 Patent, col. 1:52-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint notice alleges infringement of "system" claims 8-14 ('075 Patent, p. 4). Independent claim 11 is representative of this group.

  • Independent Claim 11:
    • A system, comprising: an outer delivery sheath;
    • a replacement heart valve comprising an expandable anchor member configured to be implantable within a patient; and
    • a deployment tool extending through the outer delivery sheath to the replacement heart valve, the deployment tool comprising an attachment mechanism configured to engage the expandable anchor member and a release actuator configured to releasably secure the expandable anchor member to the attachment mechanism;
    • wherein the release actuator is positioned generally parallel to the attachment mechanism and translation of the release actuator relative to the expandable anchor member permits the expandable anchor member to disengage from the attachment mechanism;
    • wherein the attachment mechanism forms a closed loop around at least a portion of the expandable anchor member when the expandable anchor member is releasably secured to the attachment mechanism.
  • The complaint notice does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

The ‘068 Patent

  • Patent Identification: '068 patent (Title and Issue Date not provided in the complaint notice).
  • Technology Synopsis: Based on the complaint notice, this patent relates to a process and system for slip-forming concrete structures with exposed rebars, compliant with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) standards (Notice, p. 3). The invention allegedly involves a "machine assembly" comprising a "mold + conveyor" and "tunnel mold" elements to sequentially fabricate structures such as road pads and bridge coping (Notice, p. 3).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint notice asserts "Process" claims 1-8 and "system" claims 9-16 (Notice, p. 3).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Defendant's industrial equipment and its method of use for slip-forming concrete on a specific highway project (Notice, p. 2-3).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is not a commercial product but the industrial equipment and process used by Defendant Odebrecht Construction Inc. for slip-forming concrete on an FDOT highway project in Miami-Dade County (Notice, p. 2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The equipment is used to fabricate concrete structures, such as highway barriers, with exposed rebars (Notice, p. 3). Plaintiff alleges that because the equipment is in the Defendant's "exclusive custody and control" and its specifications are not public, its operational features must be "deduced by the 'product' and the environment/use of the 'product'" (Notice, p. 2).
  • The complaint notice alleges that the defendant's process creates a product conforming to the FDOT specification for highway construction. Plaintiff argues this conformity creates a "presumption" that the defendant's underlying equipment and process are "either identical or equivalent to the Raptor process and equipment (which is patented)" (Notice, p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

A meaningful infringement analysis via a claim chart is impossible because the technology described in the complaint notice (concrete construction) is wholly unrelated to the technology claimed in the provided patent document (medical heart valves). The accused concrete-forming equipment cannot be mapped to the claim elements of the '075 medical device patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the theories described in the complaint notice, the central disputes will likely involve the standard of proof and pleading sufficiency.

  • Scope Questions: The case raises the question of whether infringement of a process and system can be plausibly pleaded and ultimately proven by inference. Can the plaintiff establish that the defendant's non-public process meets the claim limitations by relying solely on the characteristics of the final product (the concrete structure) and public project specifications (the FDOT standard)?
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary hurdle will be substantiating the plaintiff's assertion that "Internal components of the mold are presumed to be present... because their presence is inherent to the operation and use of the mold" (Notice, p. 4). The court will have to determine what factual basis is required to support such a presumption of "inherency" for unseen components, particularly at the pleading stage.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The following terms are identified from the description of the technology in the complaint notice. An analysis of intrinsic evidence is not possible, as the correct patent specification has not been provided.

"machine assembly"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to define the core structure of the patented system. The complaint notice itself offers a definition: "machine assembly" = "mold + conveyor" (Notice, p. 3). The dispute will likely center on whether the defendant's equipment constitutes such an "assembly" as claimed, or if its components are separate and function differently.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The provided patent documents do not contain the asserted patent, precluding an analysis of intrinsic evidence.

"tunnel mold"

  • Context and Importance: This appears to be a specific type of mold critical to the claimed invention. The plaintiff alleges that "tunnel mold" elements were visible at the defendant's job site (Notice, p. 3). The construction of this term—what technically distinguishes a "tunnel mold" from a generic mold in this context—will be central to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The provided patent documents do not contain the asserted patent, precluding an analysis of intrinsic evidence.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint notice does not provide sufficient detail for analysis.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint notice does not provide sufficient detail for analysis.
  • The complaint notice explicitly states that the pleadings have been augmented to include allegations of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Notice, p. 2, 4).

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

The resolution of this case, as described in the complaint notice, will likely depend on the court's decisions on three central questions.

  1. A foundational issue is the resolution of documentary inconsistencies: The lawsuit cannot proceed meaningfully until the discrepancy between the subject matter of the complaint (concrete construction) and the provided '075 patent (medical devices), as well as the temporal impossibility of the complaint's filing date relative to the patent's issue date, is resolved.
  2. A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the plaintiff meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying on inferences drawn from a final product (the concrete structure) to establish the characteristics of an unobservable, proprietary process and apparatus?
  3. A key legal question will be one of pleading standards: Does alleging that unseen internal components are "inherent" to a machine's operation, without further factual support, constitute a plausible allegation of infringement sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the Twombly/Iqbal framework?