DCT
2:25-cv-14047
Gem Products LLC v. Rupp Marine Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: GEM Products, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Rupp Marine, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A.; Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-14047, S.D. Fla., 05/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fishing outrigger pulley systems and related accessories infringe four patents related to line management systems for fishing outriggers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that use multiple pulleys or guides on a fishing boat's outrigger pole to manage several fishing lines simultaneously, aiming to prevent line tangling and reduce friction during deployment and use.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prolonged history between the parties, beginning with communications in 2015 between the inventor and Defendant regarding the earliest patent. Notably, Defendant filed a Request for ex Parte Reexamination of the ’632 Patent in September 2015, which concluded with the USPTO issuing a Reexamination Certificate in August 2016. The complaint alleges further communications regarding infringement in 2017 and 2024, putting Defendant’s knowledge of the patents at issue.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-03-18 | Priority Date for ’632, ’778, ’226, and ’566 Patents |
| 2014-02-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,656,632 Issues |
| 2015-01-01 | Alleged communications between inventor and Defendant re: ’632 Patent |
| 2015-09-23 | Defendant files Request for ex Parte Reexamination of ’632 Patent |
| 2016-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,392,778 Issues |
| 2016-08-23 | ’632 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issues |
| 2017-08-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,717,226 Issues |
| 2017-11-01 | Alleged communications between inventor and Defendant re: ’632, ’778, and ’226 Patents |
| 2023-02-28 | U.S. Patent No. 11,589,566 Issues |
| 2024-09-01 | Alleged communications between Plaintiff and Defendant re: all four patents-in-suit |
| 2025-05-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,656,632 - “Outrigger Line Management System”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how conventional outrigger systems guide multiple fishing lines (cords) through simple eyehooks. This design causes the lines to "bunch together," get "tightly intertwined," and create significant friction, making it difficult for an angler to manage individual lines without physical exertion and causing premature wear on the lines (’632 Patent, col. 1:15-30, Fig. 7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "cord management unit" containing multiple, "transversely offset" pulleys or grooves within a single housing that attaches to the outrigger pole. Each line runs through its own pulley, which keeps the lines separated, allows them to move independently, and reduces friction, thereby preventing entanglement and enabling smooth operation (’632 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-34, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the efficient management of a greater number of fishing lines from a single vessel, increasing fishing effectiveness while reducing the operational complexity and equipment wear associated with prior art multi-line trolling systems (’632 Patent, col. 5:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14-17. The primary focus is on independent claim 1, which was amended during reexamination.
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (as reexamined):
- An outrigger structure.
- A plurality of outrigger cords.
- A plurality of cord management units longitudinally spaced along the outrigger, with each unit including a housing secured by a fastener against displacement.
- Each cord management unit defining and maintaining a plurality of transversely offset cord passages that guide the cords.
- A plurality of retention devices, each coupled to an outrigger cord, for advancing a fishing line.
- The complaint explicitly alleges infringement of dependent claims, including claim 6 concerning a specific clamp member (’632 Patent, Reexam Cert. col. 1:15-50; Compl. ¶68).
U.S. Patent No. 9,392,778 - “Outrigger Line Management System”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application leading to the ’632 Patent, the ’778 Patent addresses the same technical problem of line tangling and friction in conventional outrigger systems (’778 Patent, col. 1:10-30).
- The Patented Solution: The ’778 Patent claims the method of managing outrigger lines using a system similar to that described in the ’632 Patent. The claimed method involves establishing cord management positions along the outrigger, defining offset cord passages at those positions to guide the lines independently, and arranging the positions such that the number of lines managed may decrease at points further from the boat (’778 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:54-67).
- Technical Importance: By claiming the method of use, the patent covers the act of rigging and operating an outrigger with this line management approach, distinct from the apparatus itself (’778 Patent, col. 11:54-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-20. The primary focus is on independent claim 1.
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
- A method of managing outrigger cords for a surface vessel.
- Establishing a plurality of cord management positions spaced along the outrigger.
- Defining at each position a plurality of transversely offset cord passages to guide the cords.
- Arranging the positions to guide a progressively decreasing number of cords at positions further along the outrigger.
- Establishing a plurality of retention devices coupled to the cords.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (’778 Patent, col. 11:54-12:22; Compl. ¶3).
U.S. Patent No. 9,717,226 - “Outrigger Line Management System”
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’778 Patent application, the ’226 Patent relates to the same core technology of using cord management units with offset passages to prevent line entanglement on fishing outriggers (’226 Patent, Abstract). It further refines the claims for the apparatus, specifying structural details of the cord management units, including the housing and rotatable pulley members (’226 Patent, col. 12:1-20).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-18 and 20, with independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 17 being method claims and independent claim 7 being an apparatus claim (Compl. ¶5).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Accused Pulleys" and "Accused Outriggers with Pulleys" embody the claimed line management system when installed and used by customers according to Defendant’s instructions (Compl. ¶33, ¶104-105).
U.S. Patent No. 11,589,566 - “Outrigger Line Management System”
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the application that led to the ’226 Patent and covers similar technological ground (’566 Patent, Abstract). The claims are directed to an apparatus comprising an outrigger cord management system, focusing on the combination of the housing, a releasable fastening portion, and a rotatable portion with multiple cord passages (’566 Patent, col. 12:1-50).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17, with independent claims 1, 9, and 14 being apparatus claims (Compl. ¶7).
- Accused Features: The infringement allegations for the ’566 Patent are directed to the same "Accused Pulleys" and "Accused Outriggers with Pulleys" as for the other asserted patents (Compl. ¶33, ¶124-125).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies two main categories of accused products:
- "Accused Pulleys" and "Accused Clamp Pulleys": These are standalone pulley cluster components, such as the "Double Pulley Cluster (CA-0145)" and "Triple Pulley (CA-0146)," which are allegedly sold to be installed on outriggers (Compl. ¶33).
- "Accused Outriggers with Pulleys": These are complete outrigger systems, such as the "Top Gun Series" and "RuppRigger Series," that are sold with the allegedly infringing pulley clusters already included (Compl. ¶33).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused pulley clusters are specifically designed and marketed to replace traditional, single-point "eyebolts" on fishing outriggers (Compl. ¶38, ¶39). An image from Defendant's catalog states, "Rupp pulley clusters, eliminate eye-bolt and halyard line chafing by adding a roller pulley in place of each outrigger eyebolt" (Compl. ¶39).
- Defendant allegedly provides customers with "Rigging Instructions" and "Outrigger Rigging Diagrams" that instruct them how to install and use the Accused Products with multiple halyard lines, which Plaintiff claims results in direct infringement by the end-user (Compl. ¶41, ¶43). The complaint includes a rigging diagram from the Defendant that shows how to run multiple lines through the pulley systems (Compl. ¶45).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’632 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 as reexamined) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of cord management units longitudinally spaced one from the other along the outrigger structure... | The complaint presents images showing Defendant's pulley clusters ("Pulley assemblies") mounted at various points along an outrigger pole. | ¶79 | col. 4:60-63 |
| each of said cord management units including a housing secured by at least one fastener against displacement relative to the outrigger structure... | The Accused Pulleys and Clamp Pulleys allegedly consist of a housing containing multiple pulleys that is clamped or otherwise fastened to the outrigger pole. | ¶33, ¶79 | col. 8:56-65 |
| each of said cord management units defining and maintaining a plurality of transversely offset cord passages... | Each accused pulley cluster contains multiple individual pulleys (rollers) on a shared axle, creating separate, offset paths for each halyard line. | ¶39, ¶79 | col. 4:30-34 |
| a plurality of retention devices, each of said retention devices coupled to one of said outrigger cords... | The complaint provides annotated images from Defendant's videos showing "retention devices on halyard lines," such as clips used to attach the fishing line. | ¶79, ¶21 (top image) | col. 6:35-43 |
’778 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| establishing a plurality of cord management positions longitudinally spaced one from the other along...the outrigger structure... | Defendant’s rigging diagrams and instructional videos allegedly instruct users to place pulley clusters at multiple, spaced-apart locations along the outrigger pole. | ¶45, ¶79 | col. 11:56-59 |
| defining at each of said cord management positions a plurality of cord passages transversely offset one from the other... | End-users, following Defendant’s instructions, install the Accused Pulleys, which contain multiple offset pulleys that create separate passages for each line. | ¶39, ¶41 | col. 12:1-4 |
| arranging said cord management positions along a portion of the outrigger structure with consecutive...positions...guiding a progressively decreasing number of outrigger cords... | Defendant’s rigging instructions allegedly direct users to rig the outrigger such that outer lines terminate at inner pulley clusters, resulting in fewer lines being managed by the outermost clusters. | ¶45, ¶47 | col. 4:1-9 |
| establishing a plurality of retention devices...to define a retention point for advancing a line... | The rigging diagrams and common fishing practices encouraged by Defendant allegedly require users to attach retention clips to the halyard lines run through the Accused Pulleys. | ¶45, ¶79 | col. 12:15-19 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Reexamined claim 1 of the ’632 Patent requires a "plurality of cord management units longitudinally spaced one from the other." A central question will be whether a single accused "pulley cluster" product, which contains multiple pulleys, can be considered one "cord management unit" under the patent's definition. If so, infringement would require evidence that end-users install multiple, separate clusters spaced apart on the outrigger. The complaint's visual evidence appears to show this configuration (Compl. ¶79), but the defense may argue that selling a single cluster does not meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on the actions of third-party end-users who assemble and use the accused components. A key evidentiary question for the indirect infringement claims will be the extent to which Defendant's instructions and diagrams direct users to perform every step of the asserted method claims or assemble the full apparatus claimed. For example, what evidence shows that Defendant instructs users to arrange the pulleys to manage a "progressively decreasing number of outrigger cords" as required by claim 1 of the ’778 Patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"cord management unit"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine what constitutes a single infringing component. If a single accused pulley cluster is found to be one "cord management unit," then Plaintiff must prove that Defendant induces the use of a "plurality" of these separate clusters in a spaced-apart arrangement to prove infringement of claims like '632 reexamined claim 1.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a "cord management unit 30 defines a plurality of transversely offset cord passages 304" (’632 Patent, col. 7:30-33). This language could suggest that any single device with multiple offset passages, such as an accused pulley cluster, constitutes a "cord management unit."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict each "cord management unit" (e.g., 30a, 30b, 30c) as a distinct, separate assembly installed at different locations along the outrigger pole (’632 Patent, Fig. 2). The specification describes these units as being "longitudinally spaced one from the other" (’632 Patent, col. 5:34-36), which may support an interpretation that a "unit" is a discrete housing, not just an individual pulley within a larger cluster.
"a plurality of cord management units"
- Context and Importance: This limitation, present in key apparatus claims, is directly tied to the definition of a single "unit." Practitioners may focus on whether the term "plurality" requires two or more physically separate and distinct housings, each containing pulleys, or if it could be satisfied by a single housing that contains a "plurality" of pulley sub-assemblies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not appear to advance an argument that pulleys within one housing constitute a plurality of units. Instead, it relies on visual evidence of multiple, separate pulley clusters installed on the same outrigger (Compl. ¶79).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "four cord management units 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d" arranged along the outrigger, strongly implying that the "plurality" refers to multiple, distinct devices installed at different points (’632 Patent, col. 8:1-3, Fig. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint is founded on claims of induced and contributory infringement. It alleges Defendant knowingly induces infringement by providing "Accused Pulleys" and "Accused Outriggers with Pulleys" along with marketing materials, "Rigging Instructions," and "Outrigger Rigging Diagrams" that allegedly instruct end-users on how to assemble and operate them in a manner that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶41, ¶72). The complaint further alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Products are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶150, ¶153).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged long-standing knowledge of the patents. It asserts that the original inventor communicated with Defendant about the ’632 Patent as early as 2015 and that Defendant itself initiated an ex parte reexamination of that patent in September 2015, demonstrating actual knowledge (Compl. ¶52-55). Further knowledge of the other patents is alleged based on communications in 2017 and 2024 (Compl. ¶57, ¶59).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a plurality of cord management units," which the patent specification illustrates as multiple, physically separate devices spaced along an outrigger pole, be met by Defendant's sale of individual "pulley cluster" products combined with instructions that allegedly encourage users to install them in such a configuration?
- A second key question will be one of evidentiary proof for inducement: assuming the court adopts a construction favorable to the Plaintiff, what level of detail in Defendant's instructional materials (e.g., rigging diagrams, videos) is sufficient to prove that Defendant specifically intended for customers to perform every element of the asserted apparatus and method claims, including nuanced steps like arranging pulleys for a "progressively decreasing number" of lines?
- Finally, the case will present a significant question of damages and willfulness, given the complaint’s detailed allegations of Defendant’s early and continued knowledge of the patents, including its own initiation of a patent reexamination proceeding years before the suit was filed.