DCT
1:18-cv-22235
Dockmate Inc v. CBB Asset Management LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dockmate, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: CBB Asset Management, LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ruz & Ruz, PL
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-22235, S.D. Fla., 06/05/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, and the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there through its business activities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its remote boat control system does not infringe, and that the Defendant's patents related to remote vessel control technology are invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns wireless remote control systems that allow a boat operator to maneuver a vessel's engines and thrusters without being at the helm, which is particularly useful for docking and navigating in confined spaces.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on numerous occasions, alleging infringement and threatening to file a lawsuit. A specific telephone conference on May 11, 2018, is cited, where the Defendant's managing member allegedly threatened litigation and claimed to have allocated funds for that purpose, creating the basis for this declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-07-02 | Priority Date for U.S. 6,655,309 & U.S. 6,865,997 Patents |
| 2003-12-02 | U.S. Patent 6655309 Issued |
| 2003-12-16 | Priority Date for U.S. 7,104,212 Patent |
| 2005-03-15 | U.S. Patent 6865997 Issued |
| 2006-09-12 | U.S. Patent 7104212 Issued |
| 2018-05-11 | Alleged Telephone Conference and Threat of Litigation |
| 2018-06-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,655,309 - "Apparatus for Maneuvering Boats," Issued Dec. 2, 2003
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of maneuvering large boats, such as houseboats, which tend to drift off course due to wind and currents. Correcting this drift traditionally requires the operator to be physically at the helm to manipulate the steering and throttles (’309 Patent, col. 1:7-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a remote-controlled system to operate the boat's thrusters. An operator uses a remote radio frequency (RF) transmitter to send signals to a receiver on the boat. This receiver is connected to an electrical switching circuit, which in turn energizes solenoids and relays to control a hydraulic pump that drives the thruster motor, allowing for course correction from anywhere on the boat (’309 Patent, col. 1:28-65, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This technology untethers the operator from the helm, granting them the flexibility to move around the vessel and gain a better vantage point, which is especially valuable during complex maneuvers like docking (’309 Patent, col. 5:17-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 5 (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, among other elements:
- a thruster including a motor
- a source of power for the motor
- an "electric control circuit" connecting the power source to the motor
- a remote RF transmitter and a receiver "electrically connected" to the electric control circuit
- "switching members" in the transmitter that cause the circuit to energize the motor
- a hydraulic pump and solenoid-operated valve as part of the system
- a switching circuit with relays and solenoids responsive to RF signals
- The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding other dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement of all claims (’309 Patent, col. 5:35-col. 6:4; Prayer for Relief ¶A(a)).
U.S. Patent No. 6,865,997 - "Apparatus for Maneuvering Boats," Issued Mar. 15, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the ’309 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: the need for an operator to be at the helm to maneuver a large boat that is prone to drifting (’997 Patent, col. 1:12-28).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is materially identical to that of the ’309 Patent, describing a remote RF transmitter and receiver pair that controls a thruster. The specification details an embodiment with an electric motor fixed to the hull and a propeller on an output shaft, all controlled via a relay circuit responsive to the remote transmitter (’997 Patent, col. 6:4-21).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides for remote maneuvering, enabling an operator to be on deck during docking operations to better manage the process (’997 Patent, col. 5:21-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, among other elements:
- a thruster with an electric motor fixed to the hull
- a propeller on an output shaft
- a source of power for the motor
- an "electric circuit" connecting the power source to the motor
- a remote RF transmitter and receiver "electrically connected" to the control circuit
- "switching members" in the transmitter for sending signals to the receiver to energize the motor
- The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding other dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement of all claims (’997 Patent, col. 5:41-col. 6:31; Prayer for Relief ¶A(a)).
U.S. Patent No. 7,104,212 - "Wireless Remote Controller for Yachts," Issued Sep. 12, 2006
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes a wireless remote control system designed to be easily installed on existing boats equipped with electronic controls. The system's receiver connects "in parallel" with the boat's conventional controls (e.g., levers at the helm). This parallel connection allows the remote system to act "in addition to, but not instead of," the existing controls, avoiding the need for substantial modification of the vessel's original wiring (’212 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-11).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent Claims 1, 8, and 13, and dependent Claim 16 (Compl. ¶25).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the DOCKMATE product does not infringe because it requires a "series" connection, which involves "cutting the wires between the controls and switches/relays," rather than the "parallel connection" mandated by the claims (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "DOCKMATE product" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the DOCKMATE product as a "remote vessel control system which allows the operator to remotely manipulate various functions and controls of a vessel via the DOCKMATE remote control unit" (Compl. ¶14). Plaintiff is the exclusive U.S. distributor (Compl. ¶14). The complaint's non-infringement theories center on the product's specific electrical architecture, alleging that it does not use electrically powered relays for connection, instead employing an "optical connection" to isolate the receiver from the thruster system (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24). It further alleges the product connects in "series" with a vessel's controls, not in "parallel" (Compl. ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’309 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a radio frequency receiver carried on said boat and electrically connected to said electric control circuit; | Plaintiff alleges its product is not electrically connected, as it does not operate via any electrically powered relays. | ¶23 | col. 5:49-51 |
| a switching circuit operatively connected between said relays and said solenoids for selectively energizing said solenoids responsive to radio frequency signals... | Plaintiff alleges its product does not operate via any electrically powered relays, suggesting a different switching mechanism. | ¶23 | col. 6:1-4 |
’997 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an electric circuit connecting said source of power to said motor for selectively energizing said motor... | Plaintiff alleges its product's thruster interface is not electronically connected via relays but uses an optical connection to isolate the receiver. | ¶24 | col. 6:14-18 |
| a radio frequency receiver carried on said boat and electrically connected to said electric control circuit; and | Plaintiff alleges its product is not electronically connected via relays, but rather via an optical connection isolating the receiver from the thruster system. | ¶24 | col. 6:20-22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will concern the scope of the term "electrically connected" as used in the ’309 and ’997 Patents. The question for the court will be whether this term is limited to the direct, relay-based electrical connections described in the specification, or if it can be construed more broadly to read on the "optical connection" that Plaintiff alleges its DOCKMATE product uses.
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises the factual question of how the DOCKMATE product actually operates. Evidence will be required to determine if its use of an "optical connection" and a "series" installation truly creates a technical and legal distinction from the claimed inventions, which describe relay-based circuits ('309 Patent) and parallel integration ('212 Patent).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"electrically connected" (’309 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the non-infringement argument for both the ’309 and ’997 Patents. The Plaintiff’s position is that its product, which allegedly uses an "optical connection," is not "electrically connected" in the manner required by the claims (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24). The case may turn on whether an optical link, which transmits signals using light but is part of a larger electrical system, falls within the patent's definition of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "electrically connected" could be argued to encompass any means of forming an electrical circuit or conveying an electrical signal, which might include opto-isolators used in an "optical connection." The claims do not explicitly forbid such components.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the connection in terms of a specific embodiment using "relays and solenoids" and an "electrical switching circuit" with physical switches and wires, as depicted in Figure 2 (’309 Patent, col. 3:32-35; col. 4:46-51). A defendant could argue this context limits "electrically connected" to the conventional, conductive wire-and-relay architecture disclosed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and does not contain allegations of indirect infringement against the plaintiff. The plaintiff denies contributing to or inducing infringement of any of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 41, 49).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks to preempt any willfulness claim by stating that Plaintiff had no constructive or actual notice or knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to being contacted by the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34, 42-43, 50-51). Further, the complaint alleges that the Defendant’s threats were made in "bad faith," which forms the basis for Plaintiff's request for a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "electrically connected", as used in the ’309 and ’997 patents and described in the context of electromechanical relays, be construed to cover the "optical connection" allegedly used by Plaintiff's product?
- Architectural Mismatch: The dispute over the ’212 patent will likely focus on a fundamental question of system architecture. The court will need to determine if the Plaintiff’s alleged "series" connection, which "cut[s] the wires," is technically and legally distinct from the claimed "parallel" connection designed to supplement, rather than interrupt, a boat’s existing control systems.
- Basis for Declaratory Judgment: An initial question will be whether the alleged threats of litigation were sufficient to create an "actual controversy" between the parties, thereby establishing subject matter jurisdiction for this declaratory judgment action.