DCT
1:25-cv-07103
Gordon Sales Inc v. Fry Reglet Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gordon Sales, Inc. d/b/a Gordon Inc. (Louisiana)
- Defendant: Fry Reglet Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jones Walker LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-07103, N.D. Ga., 12/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant Fry Reglet Corporation maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically its principal manufacturing facilities, from which it allegedly commits acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MullionFlex expandable gap filler assembly infringes a patent related to telescoping assemblies for filling gaps between walls in commercial buildings.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the architectural challenge of sealing gaps between interior partition walls and exterior window mullions to provide an aesthetic finish and block sound transmission, while accommodating structural movement.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-01-20 | U.S. Pat. No. 12,442,181 – Earliest Priority Date |
| 2025-10-14 | U.S. Pat. No. 12,442,181 – Issue Date |
| 2025-12-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,442,181 (Telescoping Wall Gap Filler Assembly), issued October 14, 2025 (the “'181 Patent”).
U.S. Patent No. 12,442,181 - Telescoping Wall Gap Filler Assembly
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In modern commercial buildings, gaps often exist between interior partition walls and exterior window frames or mullions. These gaps are aesthetically unpleasing and allow for sound transmission between rooms. The patent notes that because window frames can move due to external forces like wind, any gap-filling solution must be resilient and elastic to accommodate this motion without adding loads to the partition walls (’181 Patent, col. 1:47-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a pre-fabricated assembly with two frame members that slide or telescope relative to one another, creating an interior cavity with a variable volume (’181 Patent, col. 2:3-6). Inside this cavity is a "biasing member," such as expandable foam or compression springs, that constantly pushes the two frame members apart. When installed, this outward force compresses the assembly into the gap, holding it securely between the interior wall and the exterior mullion while sealing against sound transmission (’181 Patent, col. 2:31-38; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides an adjustable, self-securing solution that can fit a range of gap sizes and accommodate structural movement, which may be an alternative to custom-made rigid elements or simple foam wedges (’181 Patent, col. 1:52-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (’181 Patent, Compl. ¶10).
- Claim 1 of the ’181 Patent requires:
- A gap filler assembly for a building structure.
- A first frame member slidingly engaging a second frame member.
- An interior cavity defined by the frame members, having a variable volume.
- A biasing member comprising expandable foam sound insulation material disposed within the cavity.
- The expandable foam has a first end engaging an interior surface of the first frame member and a second end engaging an interior surface of the second frame member.
- The expandable foam is configured to exert a force on the first frame member away from the second frame member to compress the assembly between the walls.
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff may identify additional infringed claims after discovery (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is an expandable gap filler assembly known as “MullionFlex” (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the MullionFlex product is used for filling or covering gaps between interior partition walls and exterior building walls (Compl. ¶1, ¶11). The complaint provides a drawing of the accused product as Exhibit B, which is cited to show the product's constituent parts corresponding to the elements of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶10, ¶12-14). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's specific functionality or market position beyond the infringement allegations.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint alleges that the MullionFlex product directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’181 Patent by including every limitation of the claim (Compl. ¶10). The complaint’s allegations are summarized below, with each allegation citing to a drawing of the accused product provided as Exhibit B.
’181 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A gap filler assembly for filling or covering a gap between an interior partition wall and an exterior wall of a building structure, the gap filler assembly comprising: | The MullionFlex product is alleged to be an expandable gap filler assembly. | ¶1, ¶10 | col. 11:1-3 |
| a first frame member slidingly engaging a second frame member; | The Accused Product allegedly includes a first frame member that slidingly engages a second frame member. | ¶12 | col. 11:4-5 |
| an interior cavity defined by the first and second frame members, wherein the interior cavity has a variable volume; | The Accused Product allegedly includes an interior cavity with a variable volume, defined by its first and second frame members. | ¶13 | col. 11:6-8 |
| a biasing member comprising expandable foam sound insulation material disposed within the interior cavity, wherein the expandable foam sound insulation material has a first end engaging an interior surface of the first frame member, wherein the expandable foam sound insulation material has a second end engaging an interior surface of the second frame member, and wherein the expandable foam sound insulation material is configured to exert a force on the first frame member in a direction away from the second frame member for compressing the first and second frame members between the interior partition wall and the exterior wall. | The Accused Product allegedly includes a biasing member made of expandable foam sound insulation, which is disposed in the cavity and configured to exert an outward force on the frame members. A drawing of the Accused Product is provided as Exhibit B to support this allegation. | ¶14 | col. 11:9-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Functional Questions: A central question may be whether the "expandable foam sound insulation material" in the MullionFlex product is "configured to exert a force" as required by the claim. The dispute may focus on whether the foam acts as an active "biasing member" that generates a predetermined expansive pressure, as described in the patent (’181 Patent, col. 2:23-27), or if it is a passive, compressible filler that primarily provides sound absorption without exerting a significant biasing force.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "slidingly engaging" may be at issue. The parties may dispute the specific type and degree of mechanical interaction required between the frame members to meet this limitation, and whether the accused product's configuration falls within that scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "biasing member comprising expandable foam sound insulation material"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention as recited in Claim 1, distinguishing it from assemblies that might use mechanical springs or passive fillers. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused product's foam meets the functional requirements of being both a "biasing member" and "expandable foam sound insulation." Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a structural element ("biasing member") to a specific material with functional properties ("expandable foam").
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "biasing member" broadly as "any structure, device, or material configured to exert an expansive force on the frame members," which could support including a wide variety of foam materials (’181 Patent, col. 6:61-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the biasing member itself to be the expandable foam. The specification describes this foam as one that "fully recovers from the compressed condition to a different compression state while applying a predetermined pressure" (’181 Patent, col. 2:23-27). This language suggests the foam must possess specific, active expansion and force-exerting properties, not just passive compressibility, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude generic insulation foams.
The Term: "configured to exert a force"
- Context and Importance: This functional language qualifies the "expandable foam" and is critical to determining infringement. The analysis will likely turn on what level of force and what mechanism of action is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself does not specify a magnitude of force, which could allow for any foam that expands to some degree after compression to be considered as "exerting a force."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the purpose of the force is for "compressing the first and second frame members between the interior partition wall and the exterior wall" and to "secure the assembly inside the gap" (’181 Patent, col. 11:18-21; col. 2:35-37). This suggests the force must be sufficient to perform a specific function—holding the entire assembly in place—potentially excluding foams that only exert a de minimis or incidental expansion force.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶19). However, it does not plead specific facts indicating that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’181 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional performance: Does the "expandable foam" used in the accused MullionFlex product perform the active role of a "biasing member" as claimed, exerting a sufficient outward force to secure the assembly, or does it function primarily as a passive sound-dampening filler? The case may depend on evidence regarding the material properties and expansive force generated by the accused foam.
- A key question of claim scope will be whether the term "biasing member comprising expandable foam" requires a single, monolithic component where the foam itself generates the biasing force, or if it can be read more broadly. The answer will likely dictate whether the accused product’s design, as depicted in Exhibit B, falls within the patent's claims.