DCT

1:23-cv-24931

David's Dozer V Loc System Inc v. Deere & Co

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-24931, S.D. Fla., 03/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because each Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of Florida, and acts of infringement allegedly occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 333G SmartGrade Compact Track Loader, when operating in its "Dozer Mode," infringes a patent directed to a method for stabilizing a dozer blade on a skid steer vehicle for automated grading applications.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to automated, GPS-guided grade control systems for compact construction equipment, a field where precision and operational efficiency are significant market drivers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff provided notice of infringement to Defendants via letters on October 9, 2020, to which Defendant Deere & Company’s counsel responded on December 1, 2020, denying infringement. The complaint also notes that the patent-in-suit was cited during the prosecution of several of Defendant Deere & Company’s own patents, which may be used to suggest pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-08-04 '300 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2018-12-07 Defendant Deere & Company filed patent applications for related technology
2020-01-14 '300 Patent Issued
2020 Accused 333G SmartGrade product introduced
2020-10-09 Plaintiff sent cease and desist letter to Defendant
2020-12-01 Defendant responded to Plaintiff's letter
2024-03-15 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,533,300 - "Automatic Grader Stabilizer"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,533,300, "Automatic Grader Stabilizer," issued January 14, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior automatic grading systems for skid steer vehicles, where adjusting the grade height required lifting and lowering the vehicle’s entire heavy main arm. This process allegedly uses significant power, slows down operations, and reduces the precision of the grade. (’300 Patent, col. 6:28-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method to improve grading accuracy by stabilizing the vehicle's main arm. The method involves resting the main arm on a physical stop at its lowest position and restricting the hydraulic that would normally lift the arm. (’300 Patent, col. 8:5-9, 57-61). With the main arm fixed, the height of the dozer blade is controlled exclusively by adjusting the blade’s pitch axis, allowing for finer, more responsive adjustments driven by a GPS-based automatic grade control system. (’300 Patent, col. 8:21-26).
  • Technical Importance: This method purports to adapt versatile skid steer vehicles for high-precision, GPS-automated grading tasks without needing an external laser mast, thereby improving stability and control. (’300 Patent, col. 7:13-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. (Compl. ¶34).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • Providing a skid steer vehicle with a main arm coupled to a dozer blade assembly.
    • Providing a stop on the vehicle that defines a lower limit for the main arm's movement.
    • Positioning the main arm against the stop.
    • Preventing the main arm from providing lifting force by "restricting the ability of a hydraulic that lifts the main arm."
    • Connecting an automatic grade control system to a different hydraulic that controls the dozer blade's pitch axis to adjust its height relative to the ground.
  • The complaint suggests the right to assert additional claims is reserved. (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Product Identification: The John Deere 333G SmartGrade™ Compact Track Loader (“333G”) and the John Deere SmartGrade six-way dozer blade attachment (“SG96”), collectively referred to as the "Infringing Instrumentalities." (Compl. ¶34). The infringement allegations center on the vehicle's operation in "Dozer Mode." (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The 333G is described as the "first CTL to feature fully integrated 3D-grade-control technology." (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges that when the operator engages "Dozer Mode," the vehicle's software and hydraulics restrict the boom arm, keeping it "down on the frame of the machine, the stops." (Compl. ¶22).
  • According to a quoted interview with a John Deere product marketing manager, this mode is designed to provide rigidity for accurate grading. Instead of lifting the boom, operator inputs control the elevation of the dozer blade itself. (Compl. ¶¶22-23). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's own testing confirmed that when in Dozer Mode, the hydraulics controlling the boom arm are restricted. (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Claim Chart Summary: The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,533,300. The following table summarizes the allegations for independent claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative.

10,533,300 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a skid steer vehicle having a main arm with a front side operably coupled to a dozer blade assembly; The accused instrumentality is the John Deere 333G, a compact track loader (a type of skid steer vehicle), used with the SG96 dozer blade attachment. ¶34 col. 8:51-53
providing a stop connected to the skid steer vehicle upon which a point of the main arm rests thereby defining a lower limit of movement of the main arm; Defendant's marketing manager is quoted stating that in Dozer Mode, the system "keeps the dozer blade down on the frame of the machine" and "keeps the boom on the stops." ¶¶22-23 col. 8:53-56
positioning the point of the main arm against the stop; The complaint alleges that in Dozer Mode, the boom arm is kept on its stops to provide rigidity for grading, a point allegedly confirmed by Plaintiff's testing. ¶¶22, 28 col. 8:57-58
preventing the ability of the main arm from providing any lifting force by restricting the ability of a hydraulic that lifts the main arm; Plaintiff's testing allegedly confirmed that "the hydraulics controlling the boom arm are indeed restricted." The marketing manager is quoted saying the system can "pulse hydraulics to keep that down." ¶¶23, 28 col. 8:58-61
operably connecting the automatic grade control system to a hydraulic that controls a pitch axis of movement of the dozer blade to affect a height of the dozer blade relative to a ground surface. The 333G features an integrated 3D-grade-control system that, in Dozer Mode, controls the elevation of the dozer blade rather than lifting the boom linkage. ¶¶21-22 col. 8:61-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary point of contention appears to be the meaning of "restricting the ability of a hydraulic that lifts the main arm." A letter from Defendant’s counsel allegedly denies that their products "pulse hydraulics" and suggests that even if they did, this would not constitute "restricting the ability" as required by the claim. (Compl. ¶26). This raises the question of whether the claim requires a complete hydraulic isolation (e.g., a closed valve) or if it can be met by a software-driven command to hold the arm down.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the precise mechanism of the accused "Dozer Mode." The complaint presents conflicting evidence: a marketing manager stating the system can "pulse hydraulics to keep [the boom] down" versus a letter from company counsel denying this function. (Compl. ¶¶23, 26). Evidence detailing how the 333G's control system actually operates the lift arm hydraulics in Dozer Mode will be central to resolving the infringement question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "restricting the ability of a hydraulic that lifts the main arm"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is central to the infringement dispute. Defendant's pre-suit denial of infringement appears to hinge on a narrow interpretation of this phrase, contrasting with Plaintiff's allegations based on marketing statements and product testing. (Compl. ¶¶23, 26, 28). The outcome of the case could depend on whether the accused product's software-driven "Dozer Mode" falls within the scope of this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the goal as "neuter[ing] the ability of the main arm to move up under power." (’300 Patent, col. 8:17-18). It also describes achieving this by "closing valve 50 or by the other hydraulic limiting means," which may suggest the specific mechanism is less important than the functional result of preventing the arm from lifting. (’300 Patent, col. 7:18-20).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific embodiments that achieve the restriction through positive hydraulic disconnection, such as "operating a valve to hydraulically isolate...the hydraulic lift actuator" or "disconnecting and capping off the hydraulic control for the main arm." (’300 Patent, col. 9:1-4; col. 8:39-43). A party could argue these examples define the scope of "restricting the ability" to mean a physical isolation of the hydraulic circuit, not merely a control signal that commands it to hold position.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants Deere & Company and JDCFC induce infringement by providing customers with marketing, promotional materials, manuals, and video instructions that encourage use of the 333G in the allegedly infringing "Dozer Mode." (Compl. ¶40). The complaint further alleges contributory infringement against Defendant JDCFC, stating that the "Dozer Mode" feature is a material component especially adapted for infringement and lacks a substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶45).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ alleged knowledge of the ’300 Patent. This knowledge is asserted to arise from pre-suit notice letters sent in 2020 and from the fact that the ’300 Patent was cited during the patent prosecution of several of Deere’s own patents. (Compl. ¶¶19, 40; Prayer for Relief ¶E).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define "restricting the ability of a hydraulic"? Does the term require a passive, physical isolation of the hydraulic circuit, as shown in some patent embodiments, or can it be satisfied by an active, software-driven control system that commands the hydraulic to hold the boom down against its stops, as is allegedly performed by the accused "Dozer Mode"?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what factual evidence will emerge regarding the precise function of the John Deere "Dozer Mode"? The case may turn on resolving the apparent contradiction between the company's marketing statements, which describe actively keeping the boom down, and its legal position denying that the system "restricts the ability" of the hydraulics.
  • A key strategic question relates to the alternative pleading of a Lanham Act claim for false advertising. The complaint argues that either the "Dozer Mode" infringes the patent, or Deere's advertising of that mode's functionality is false. (Compl. ¶54). The viability and interplay of this alternative theory alongside the patent infringement claim will be a significant aspect of the litigation.