DCT

1:18-cv-05082

Sidel Inc v. ACMI USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-05082, N.D. Ga., 11/02/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant ACMI USA, Inc. has its principal place of business in the district, and the alleged acts of infringement form a substantial part of the events giving rise to the complaint.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conveyor system products, specifically its low-pressure accumulation tables used in bottling and packaging lines, infringe a patent related to dynamic accumulation technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the need to manage and buffer the flow of containers on high-speed industrial production lines, a critical function for preventing bottlenecks and product damage in the food, beverage, and packaging industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Gebo has successfully asserted the patent-in-suit against other infringers. It also details extensive pre-suit correspondence beginning in October 2010 between counsel for Plaintiff's affiliate and Defendant regarding an allegedly infringed European counterpart patent, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-01-25 '005 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2001-01-02 '005 Patent Issue Date
2010-10-29 Plaintiff's affiliate sends notice letter to Defendant
2018-11-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,168,005 - Low Pressure Dynamic Accumulation Table

  • Issued: Jan. 2, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In high-speed production lines, such as for bottling, different machines may operate at varying speeds or require temporary stops for maintenance. This necessitates a way to accumulate products without causing jams or damage from excessive back-pressure, a drawback of certain prior art systems (’005 Patent, col. 1:10-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an accumulation table that uses a specific arrangement of conveyors to create a low-pressure buffer zone. The system features at least one "feed conveyor" operating at a set speed, which runs alongside and alternates with at least two "accumulation conveyors." These accumulation conveyors operate at a slower, variable speed. This configuration allows products to move off the faster feed conveyor and accumulate gently on the slower-moving surfaces, preventing a high-pressure pile-up. The rate at which products exit the table is controlled by adjusting the speed of the accumulation conveyors (’005 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a first-in, first-out (FIFO) accumulation method that minimizes physical pressure on containers, which is critical for handling delicate items like PET bottles or thin-walled cans that could otherwise be crushed or damaged in a high-pressure system (’005 Patent, col. 4:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 6, 7, and 8 (’005 Patent, Compl. ¶18).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A low pressure accumulation table for accumulating products, comprising a frame with an inlet and an outlet.
    • At least one feed conveyor to move products at a predetermined feed conveying speed.
    • At least two accumulation conveyors.
    • The accumulation conveyors having a variable accumulation conveying speed that is slower than the feed speed.
    • The feed and accumulation conveyors are mounted side-by-side so that they alternate.
    • The accumulation conveyors, when energized, move products toward the outlet at a rate that is a function of their variable speed.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant ACMI’s conveyor system products, specifically including "low pressure accumulation tables," referred to generally as the "Accused Products" or "ACMI Systems" (Compl. ¶13, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products function as accumulation tables for products like bottles in customers' bottling facilities (Compl. ¶24, ¶30).
  • Technically, the Accused Products are alleged to include an accumulation table on a frame with an entrance and exit, a feed conveyor, and at least two accumulation conveyors (Compl. ¶¶30-35).
  • The complaint asserts that the accumulation conveyors are driven by motors "capable of moving the accumulation conveyors at variable speeds slower than the speed feed conveyors" and that the feed conveyor "alternate[s] with the accumulation conveyors" (Compl. ¶35, Exh. B ¶18; Compl. ¶36, Exh. B ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'005 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A low pressure accumulation table for accumulating products; said accumulation table comprising: The ACMI Systems include an "accumulation table" for accumulating products. ¶30 col. 1:44-47
a frame having a first end, a second end and two opposite lateral sides; The accumulation table is "supported on a frame." ¶31 col. 2:44-46
an inlet provided at said first end of said frame; The systems include an "entrance at one end for bottles to enter." ¶32 col. 2:47
an outlet provided at said second end of said frame; The systems include an "outlet at the other end for bottles to exit." ¶33 col. 2:47
at least one feed conveyor so mounted to said frame as to convey products from said first end towards said second end of said frame; said at least one feed conveyor having a predetermined feed conveying speed; The systems include a "feed conveyor that conveys products from the entrance towards the exit." ¶34 col. 2:55-58
at least two accumulation conveyors mounted to said frame; ... said at least two accumulation conveyors defining an accumulation surface; The systems include two accumulation conveyors mounted next to the feed conveyor at about the same surface. ¶35, ¶36 col. 2:58-61
said at least two accumulation conveyors having a variable accumulation conveying speed that is slower than said predetermined feed conveying speed; The accumulation conveyors are "driven by motors that are capable of moving the accumulation conveyors at variable speeds slower than the speed feed conveyors." ¶35 col. 2:61-64
wherein (a) said at least one feed conveyor and said at least two accumulation conveyors are so mounted side by side that said at least one feed conveyor alternate with said at least two accumulation conveyors; On the ACMI Systems, the feed conveyor "alternate[s] with the accumulation conveyors." ¶36 col. 3:1-5
and (b) said at least two accumulation conveyors, when energized, convey the products from said accumulation surface towards said outlet at a rate which is a function of the variable accumulation conveying speed of said at least two accumulation conveyors. The systems convey "products from the entrance of the accumulation table to the exit at a speed that varies with the speed of the accumulation conveyors." ¶37 col. 4:55-59

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The pre-suit correspondence referenced in the complaint suggests a primary factual dispute will be whether the accused ACMI systems actually operate with a "variable accumulation conveying speed" (Compl. ¶56, ¶57). Defendant's counsel previously asserted that the machines "did not adjust the speed" and operated at a constant speed or zero. The complaint alleges the machines are "capable" of variable speeds (Compl. ¶35). The core question for the court may be one of operational reality: what is the actual, proven functionality of the accused systems in the field?
  • Scope Questions: This technical dispute raises a related claim construction question regarding the scope of "variable... speed." The court may need to determine if the term requires a continuous range of speeds, or if a system with a limited number of discrete speeds—or even a binary on/off functionality—falls within the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "variable accumulation conveying speed"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central point of contention, as indicated by the pre-suit communications where Defendant's counsel denied that its machines "adjust the speed of the conveyors" (Compl. ¶56). The finding of infringement may depend entirely on the construction of "variable" and the evidence of how the accused systems operate. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the element Defendant appears to have identified as non-infringed years before the suit was filed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that motors are controlled by an "electronic circuit that may independently adjust the ... accumulation conveying speed according to the state of the production line" (’005 Patent, col. 3:10-14). A plaintiff could argue that "adjust" is a broad term and that switching between a non-zero speed and a stopped state (zero speed) is a form of adjustment that creates a "variable" effective output rate, consistent with the patent's goal.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "variable... speed" implies a capacity for multiple, non-zero operating speeds or a continuous range, not merely a single operating speed and an "off" state. The patent's disclosure that the "conveying speed of the accumulation conveyors determine[s] the rate at which the products leave" could be argued to support the need for more than just on/off control to meaningfully "determine the rate" (’005 Patent, col. 4:55-59).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on ACMI providing customers with "manuals, training, and other information" that allegedly encourage infringing use (Compl. ¶24). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Products are "especially made or especially adapted" for an infringing use and are not a staple commodity suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶25).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a separate count for willful infringement, based on alleged knowledge of the patent family since at least October 2010 (Compl. ¶54, ¶59). The allegations are supported by a detailed history of correspondence between counsel for Plaintiff's affiliate and Defendant regarding the European counterpart to the ’005 Patent, which allegedly put Defendant on notice of its infringing activity years before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶55-58).

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

  • A central issue will be one of operational fact: does the evidence show that ACMI’s accused accumulation tables operate at a "variable... speed" as required by the claims, or do they function in a binary manner with a single non-zero speed, as Defendant’s pre-suit correspondence suggests? The outcome may depend on technical evidence regarding the capabilities and actual use of the accused systems.
  • A related and potentially dispositive question will be one of claim construction: what is the proper legal scope of the term "variable accumulation conveying speed"? Whether the term can be construed to read on a system that operates only at a single speed and zero will be a critical legal determination for the court.
  • Finally, if infringement is found, a key question for damages will be willfulness: given the extensive pre-suit notice alleged in the complaint, did ACMI act with objective recklessness by continuing to sell the accused systems, potentially exposing it to a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages?