DCT
1:20-cv-20889
Golden v. Faro Boat Lifts Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: William Golden (Florida); Golden Manufacturing, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Faro Boat Lifts, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lott & Fischer, PL; Merchant & Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-20889, S.D. Fla., 02/28/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant being incorporated in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s boat lifts, which include cable winder assemblies, infringe a patent for a specific cable tie-off device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical components for boat lifts, specifically the mechanism used to anchor a lifting cable to a rotating winder spool.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant gained actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit on February 16, 2019, at the Miami Boat Show, which forms the basis for a willfulness allegation. The patent term was extended by one day.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-07 | ’241 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-04-13 | ’241 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-02-16 | Alleged Date of Defendant's Actual Knowledge |
| 2020-02-28 | 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"
- Patent Identification: 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 describes conventional methods for securing a cable to a winder spool in a boat lift as "time-consuming and labor intensive," sometimes requiring the drive motor to be removed to access the spool for cable installation (’241 Patent, col. 1:18-21). Prior art methods involved threading the cable through the spool and using a separate clamp to act as a stop, a potentially cumbersome process (’241 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "novel cable-tie off device," typically a bolt, that is designed to simplify this process (’241 Patent, col. 1:24-27). The device is an elongated member with a head, a shank, and an end portion. A hole is located in the shank just below the head. To install, the proximal end of the lifting cable is inserted through this hole in the device. The entire device is then inserted through a pair of aligned holes in the winder spool and secured on the other side with a fastener. This arrangement tightly secures the cable end between the device's head and the outer surface of the spool (’241 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-30).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a method for anchoring a cable to a spool that is potentially faster and requires less disassembly than prior art clamp-based methods (’241 Patent, col. 1:18-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’241 Patent, col. 3:14-33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A rotatable spool with an outer surface for winding a cable.
- A pair of registered holes at one end of the spool.
- A removable "cable tie-off device" engaged within the spool holes, which itself has a head, shank, end portion, and a hole through its shank for receiving the cable end.
- The configuration is such that the cable end is maintained between the device's head portion and the spool's outer surface.
- A "means for securing said device to said spool."
- The complaint asserts "at least exemplary claim 1," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant Faro Boat Lifts, Inc.'s boat lifts that include a "cable winder invention" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are boat lifts that employ a cable winder assembly to raise and lower watercraft (Compl. ¶11.a). The complaint includes a photograph of an accused product bearing the "FARO BOAT LIFT" brand. This image shows the overall structure of the lift's winder assembly (Compl. p. 3). The complaint alleges these products are made, used, sold, and offered for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'241 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rotatable spool having an outer surface configured to wind and deploy a cable secured thereto; | Defendant's product includes a grooved, rotatable spool that winds and deploys a cable. A photograph provided in the complaint shows this feature. | ¶11.b; p. 3 | col. 2:56-60 |
| 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 aligned holes at one end. A photograph depicts a bolt passing through the spool, implying the existence of such holes. | ¶11.c; p. 4 | col. 2:16-20 |
| 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, said device further having a hole communicating through said shank portion immediately subjacent said head portion... | The accused product uses a bolt-like device that passes through the spool holes to secure the cable. A photograph shows this device engaged with the spool. | ¶11.d; p. 4 | col. 2:11-15 |
| ...said device hole configured to receive a proximal end of said cable...such that when said device is engaged...said proximal end of said cable is tightly maintained between said head portion and said outer surface of said spool; and; | The complaint alleges the accused device's configuration secures the cable between the head of the device and the spool surface. | ¶11.d | col. 2:25-30 |
| a means for securing said device to said spool. | The accused product allegedly uses a fastener to secure the tie-off device to the spool. A photograph shows what appears to be a nut on the end of the bolt-like device. | ¶11.e; p. 4 | col. 3:32-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may involve the "means for securing" limitation. As a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), its scope is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification (e.g., a "nut," "cap," or "clamp") and their equivalents. The analysis will question whether the specific fastener used in the accused product is structurally equivalent to those disclosed structures (’241 Patent, col. 2:35-41).
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused "cable tie-off device" meets every structural requirement of claim 1, particularly the precise location and function of the cable-receiving hole "immediately subjacent said head portion"? The photographs in the complaint are suggestive but may lack the detail to resolve this question definitively (’241 Patent, col. 3:24-25).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "means for securing said device to said spool"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a means-plus-function limitation. Infringement of this element requires showing that the accused product uses a structure identical or equivalent to the specific structures disclosed in the patent that correspond to the recited function of "securing."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple examples of corresponding structures, including a "nut," "cap," or "clamp," which may suggest the inventor did not intend to limit the invention to a single type of fastener (’241 Patent, col. 2:35-41).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment and figures consistently depict a "complementarily threaded nut" (14) as the fastener for a threaded bolt (’241 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 2:4-6). A defendant could argue that the scope of equivalents should be construed narrowly around this preferred embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had "actual knowledge of the '241 patent at least as early as February 16, 2019, when they were so informed at the Miami Boat Show" (Compl. ¶13). The willfulness claim is based on the allegation that Defendant continued to "make, use, sell and offer for sale infringing boat lifts" after receiving this pre-suit notice (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: Does the fastener used in the accused Faro boat lift perform the function of "securing said device to said spool" using a structure that is equivalent to the "nut," "cap," or "clamp" disclosed in the '241 patent specification, as required for means-plus-function claims?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiffs produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused "cable tie-off device" possesses every specific structural detail recited in Claim 1, including the precise configuration and placement of the cable-receiving hole relative to the device's head?