DCT

1:19-cv-22760

ILC Dover LP v. Floodbarrier Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-22760, S.D. Fla., 07/03/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant having its principal place of business within the Southern District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s flexible flood barrier products infringe three patents related to deployable flood mitigation systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns deployable, flexible barriers for flood control, a market that has seen increased demand for innovative solutions following major flooding events.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of its patent rights on August 16, 2018, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim regarding any post-notice infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-10-08 ’423 Patent Priority Date
2014-09-18 ’314 Patent Priority Date
2015-03-31 ’316 Patent Priority Date
2016-04-05 ’423 Patent Issued
2016-09-27 ’314 Patent Issued
2016-09-27 ’316 Patent Issued
2018-08-16 Plaintiff sends notice of infringement to Defendant
2019-07-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,453,316 - “EXTENDIBLE FLEXIBLE FLOOD BARRIER,” issued Sep. 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks with conventional flood mitigation systems, such as being labor-intensive, time-consuming to deploy, requiring significant infrastructure modification, or having high installation costs (’316 Patent, col. 1:38-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a flexible flood barrier system stored at its point of use in a container integral with an anchor post. To deploy, the flexible wall is extended from the container to a receiver post on the opposite side of an opening. A key feature is a "ground skirt," an extension of the wall that lies horizontally on the ground, designed to be sealed by water weight, ballast, or clamping bars to prevent leakage (’316 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-56). This design aims to provide a rapidly deployable system with minimal permanent impact on the surrounding infrastructure.
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a system that combines point-of-use storage with rapid deployment, addressing the logistical and cost challenges associated with traditional rigid barriers or systems stored off-site (’316 Patent, col. 3:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, and 18 (Compl. ¶36).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • An extendible flexible flood barrier comprising a flexible wall with membrane and textile components, attached to a vertical anchor post.
    • A storage container integral with the anchor post that holds the flexible wall when stowed.
    • A receiver post to which the flexible wall is attached when extended.
    • A ground skirt, comprising an extension of the flexible wall, that lays horizontally on the ground when the wall is deployed vertically.

U.S. Patent No. 9,303,423 - “DEPLOYABLE FLEXIBLE FLOOD MITIGATION DEVICE,” issued Apr. 5, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the need for flood mitigation devices that overcome the limitations of rigid systems, which often require significant infrastructure modifications, considerable storage space, and frequent maintenance (’423 Patent, col. 1:36-47).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a flexible flood-gate system that deploys within a rigid perimeter structure containing a guide rail and track. The core innovation is an "integral edge sealing section" (referred to in the specification as a "deadman") along the edges of the flexible door. This sealing section is larger than the track's opening and is designed to deform under hydrostatic pressure, creating a broad, tight seal within the track and preventing the door from being pulled out (’423 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-26). The door can be stowed compactly by rolling or folding, potentially onto a spool (’423 Patent, col. 2:10-15).
  • Technical Importance: The "deadman" sealing mechanism allows a lightweight, flexible material to create a secure, self-tensioning seal capable of withstanding significant hydrostatic pressure, reducing the need for complex and heavy clamping mechanisms (’423 Patent, col. 2:19-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 8, 11, 13, 15-20, 22, and 23 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • A deployable flood-gate with a flexible door (textile/membrane).
    • A rigid perimeter structure with a guide rail for deployment.
    • A track within the perimeter structure to support loading and sealing, with an opening for the door member.
    • An integral edge sealing section on the door, located inside the track, that is larger than the track's opening, deformable, and presents a broader sealing area than the door member itself, preventing it from being pulled out.
    • A storage container with deployment and retraction mechanisms.

U.S. Patent No. 9,453,314 - “DEPLOYABLE FLEXIBLE FLOOD MITIGATION WALL,” issued Sep. 27, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a flexible flood wall system designed for large-scale perimeter protection where the wall and its rigid support posts are stored below ground in a covered trench (’314 Patent, Abstract). To deploy, the trench cover is removed, the posts are raised and set in receivers, and the flexible fabric wall is lifted from the trench and attached to the posts, creating a barrier (’314 Patent, col. 2:30-45).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 26, as well as numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses FloodBarrier's "Flexible Flood Membrane Systems" sold to the Port Authority, alleging they meet product requirements that necessitate the claimed features of a deployable wall with posts and a storage/deployment system (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant's "Flexible Flood Membrane Systems" (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are described as deployable flood barriers made from a "lightweight ultra-strong fiber woven... and coated to ensure a long-term waterproof material" (Compl. ¶31). The system is deployed as a flexible wall attached at its ends to "vertically extending anchor and receiving posts" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint alleges the system includes an extension, or "skirt," that is secured by an anchor (Compl. ¶33). A photograph from the Defendant's website, included as an exhibit, shows the accused membrane system deployed as a flexible wall between two vertical posts (Compl. ¶36; Compl. Ex. 4, p. 3). The complaint situates the products in the context of sales to customers like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for flood mitigation efforts (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’316 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a flexible wall comprising at least one membrane component and at least one textile component, said flexible wall being attached to a vertical anchor post with a mounting plate The accused product is a flexible membrane made of a coated woven textile, shown in a photograph attached to vertical posts with mounting plates (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 3). ¶¶31, 32, 36 col. 5:16-19
a storage container that is integral with the anchor post and holds the flexible wall when stowed The complaint alleges the existence of a storage container based on the defendant’s website offering "vertical, side and overhead deployment systems," though it notes a container is not depicted in the provided photograph. ¶¶34, 36 col. 5:21-23
a receiver post that the flexible wall is attached to with a mounting plate when extended The accused system is described as having a membrane attached to "vertically extending anchor and receiving posts." ¶32 col. 5:24-26
a ground skirt, said ground skirt comprising an extension of the flexible wall, the ground skirt lays horizontally on the ground when the flexible wall is deployed in a vertical orientation A photograph allegedly depicts a "ground skirt (the lower portion of the vertical wall) also anchored horizontally with respect to the vertically positioned wall." ¶36 col. 5:27-32

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "integral with the anchor post" for the storage container will be a key issue, especially since the complaint acknowledges the container is not shown in the provided visual evidence.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question is whether the accused product's "skirt" functions as the claimed "ground skirt" that "lays horizontally on the ground" to create a seal in the manner described by the patent. The complaint alleges it is "anchored horizontally," which raises the question of whether its structure and sealing function match the claim.
      The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement theory for the ’423 Patent, stating that it "is unaware of any publicly available information... that would enable it to confirm the infringement but expects to be able to obtain such evidence in discovery" (Compl. ¶48). The allegations are made on "information and belief" that systems sold to the Port Authority meet requirements necessitating the claimed features (Compl. ¶48). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint's allegations for the ’423 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention (’423 Patent):

    • Evidentiary Questions: The central issue for the ’423 patent is evidentiary. The complaint does not identify a specific product feature corresponding to the core "integral edge sealing section" or "deadman" that operates inside a guide rail track. The viability of this infringement claim will depend entirely on whether discovery reveals that the accused systems incorporate such a mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’316 Patent: "ground skirt"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’316 patent’s sealing mechanism. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product's "skirt" (Compl. ¶36) meets the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "ground skirt."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that it is an "extension of the flexible wall" that "lays horizontally on the ground" (’316 Patent, col. 5:27-32). The specification further describes it as an extension that "lies horizontally on the ground and has integral seals that are compressed by water weight and ballast or clamping bars to seal against the ground" (’316 Patent, col. 2:48-53). This functional language could support a broad reading.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict the ground skirt (105) as a continuous piece of the wall fabric that is folded at the bottom to lie on the ground (’316 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant might argue this suggests a more specific structure than any flap or extension attached to the bottom of the wall.

Term from the ’423 Patent: "integral edge sealing section"

  • Context and Importance: This term, described as a "deadman" in the specification, defines the core inventive concept of the ’423 patent. Infringement is contingent on finding this specific sealing structure in the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint currently provides no direct evidence of its presence in the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the term functionally as being "of a size larger than the opening, such that the integral edge sealing section cannot be pulled out of the track" and being "deformable" to create a seal (’423 Patent, col. 5:29-37). Plaintiff may argue this covers any structure that performs this function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment comprising an "inner core 110," a "membrane door webbing 114," and a "membrane door membrane 115" that wrap the core (’423 Patent, col. 4:34-40; Fig. 4). A defendant could argue the term should be limited to this disclosed multi-component, wrapped-core construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three asserted patents. The inducement claims are based on allegations that FloodBarrier provides its products to contractors along with "instructions, drawings, guidelines and other information" that actively encourage infringing installation and use (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 52, 64). The contributory infringement claims allege that the provided "membrane components and deployment systems" are especially made for an infringing purpose and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 56, 68).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful, based on its alleged continued infringement after receiving written notice of the asserted patents on August 16, 2018 (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29; p. 15, ¶D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical correspondence and evidentiary support: For the ’316 patent, can the accused product’s "skirt" be shown to meet the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "ground skirt"? More critically, for the ’423 and ’314 patents, where the complaint relies on "information and belief," will discovery produce the necessary evidence to map accused product features to key claim limitations, such as the ’423 patent's "integral edge sealing section"?
  • A second issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely involve disputes over the proper construction of key terms. Can the term "integral edge sealing section" from the ’423 patent be broadly construed to cover any sealing mechanism that functions as claimed, or is it limited to the specific wrapped-core structure disclosed in the patent's embodiments?
  • Finally, a key question for damages will be willfulness: Given the complaint’s specific allegation of a pre-suit notice letter sent nearly a year before the suit was filed, the court will have to determine whether any infringement following that notice was sufficiently egregious to be considered willful, which could expose the defendant to the risk of enhanced damages.