DCT
1:22-cv-00094
J&M Mfg Co Inc v. Kinze Mfg Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: J&M Mfg Co Inc (Ohio)
- Defendant: Kinze Mfg Inc (Iowa)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Simmons Perrine PLC
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00094, N.D. Iowa, 08/26/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in the state, and therefore "resides" in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s grain carts, particularly the Kinze 1421 model, infringe a patent related to a specialized unloading auger spout designed to completely fill large trailers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-capacity agricultural grain carts used to transfer crops from a harvester to a semi-trailer for transport, where maximizing trailer capacity is economically significant.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details pre-suit communications between the parties, including discussions between managers, an email from Plaintiff to Defendant attaching the patent-in-suit, and a formal cease and desist letter sent by Plaintiff's counsel. These events are cited to support the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-03-20 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,113,598 |
| 2015-08-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,113,598 Issued |
| 2022-01-05 | Plaintiff's manager initiated contact with Defendant's president |
| 2022-01-10 | Plaintiff's manager emailed a copy of the patent to Defendant |
| 2022-01-26 | Defendant's president responded to Plaintiff's email |
| 2022-07-22 | Plaintiff's counsel sent a Cease and Desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-08-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,113,598 - "Grain Cart Having an Inclined Folding Unloading Auger Conveyor with an Askewed Flow Control Spout"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a problem in the agricultural industry where conventional grain cart unloading augers are unable to "completely fill opposite corner portions of the open top rectangular semi-trailer" without manual intervention, leading to inefficient use of transport capacity (’598 Patent, col. 1:40-45, 1:55-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a grain cart with a folding unloading auger that features a specially designed discharge spout. This spout is mounted at an "askewed" angle to the main auger housing and supports a flow control spout that can be tilted on a horizontal axis (’598 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-44). This configuration allows a remote-controlled actuator to pivot the spout, directing the grain stream both downward and laterally, which enables the operator to "fill and top off the semi-trailer including all four corner portions of the trailer" (’598 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a mechanical solution to the problem of incomplete trailer filling, allowing for more efficient and complete loading of grain for transport without requiring manual labor.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts Independent Claim 1 (’598 Patent, col. 4:26-5:4; Compl. ¶30).
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A grain cart with a frame, hitch, and a container.
- An elongated inclined auger unloading conveyor with an upper section that folds.
- The upper section housing includes a discharge spout "projecting laterally at an askewed angle from said housing."
- The discharge spout supports a "flow control spout for tilting movement on a substantially horizontal axis askewed with respect to an axis of said auger."
- The horizontal axis for tilting extends "substantially parallel to a side wall of said container."
- The control spout is movable on this axis in a "vertical plane... perpendicular to said side wall of said container" between a downward and a laterally outward position.
- A "remotely controllable actuator" tilts the spout for the purpose of "uniformly filling and topping off the semi-trader with grain including the filling of all four corner portions."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least, Claim 1," which may suggest a reservation of the right to assert other claims later (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Kinze 1421 Grain Cart" as a representative accused device, and notes the allegations may extend to "possibly other Kinze grain carts" (the "Accused Devices") (Compl. ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Devices are grain carts that Kinze manufactures, sells, and offers for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶32). The complaint includes a photograph of the Kinze 1421 grain cart in operation in a field, attached to a tractor and positioned next to a combine harvester (Compl. ¶33; Figure 1). This image, taken from Kinze's website, is presented to show a representative Accused Device and demonstrate its functions (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical breakdown of the accused product's operation, instead relying on general allegations that the product as a whole infringes the ’598 Patent.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Devices infringe, at a minimum, Claim 1 of the ’598 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶30, ¶34). The complaint does not contain an element-by-element mapping of the accused product's features to the claim limitations. The following chart is constructed based on the language of Claim 1 as recited in the complaint and the general allegation that the Kinze 1421 Grain Cart, as a whole, infringes.
9,113,598 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a grain cart adapted to be pivotally connected to a tow tractor for transferring grain from a field to an elongated rectangular open-top semi-trailer... including a frame... a container... an elongated inclined auger unloading conveyor... said lower section... mounted on said container... said upper section... supported for folding movement... | The complaint alleges the Kinze 1421 Grain Cart and other models are grain carts possessing these foundational components and functionalities. The provided image shows such a cart connected to a tractor. (Compl. Figure 1) | ¶32, ¶33 | col. 4:27-55 |
| said housing of said upper section of said auger conveyor... including a discharge spout projecting laterally at an askewed angle from said housing, | The complaint does not provide specific evidence or description of the accused spout's geometry but alleges the overall device infringes the claim, which requires this feature. | ¶30, ¶32 | col. 4:56-59 |
| said discharge spout supporting a flow control spout for tilting movement on a substantially horizontal axis askewed with respect to an axis of said auger within said upper section, with said horizontal axis extending substantially parallel to a side wall of said container, | The complaint alleges the accused grain cart infringes the claim containing these limitations but does not detail the specific structure of the accused spout's tilting mechanism or its axis relative to the auger and container. | ¶30, ¶32 | col. 4:60-67 |
| said control spout movable on said horizontal axis in a vertical plane spaced forwardly of said front wall of said container and perpendicular to said side wall of said container between a downwardly projecting first position and a laterally outwardly projecting second position, | The complaint does not specify how the accused spout moves but alleges infringement of the claim, which requires this specific range and plane of motion. | ¶30, ¶32 | col. 6:1-6 |
| a remotely controllable actuator connected to tilt said flow control spout... for uniformly filling and topping off the semi-trader with grain including the filling of all four corner portions of the rectangular semi-trailer. | The complaint alleges infringement of this functional limitation but provides no specific facts regarding an actuator on the accused product or evidence of its performance in filling the four corners of a trailer. | ¶30, ¶32 | col. 6:7-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are not detailed on an element-by-element basis. A central issue for discovery will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused Kinze 1421 Grain Cart actually includes a discharge spout and tilting mechanism that meets the specific geometric and relational limitations of Claim 1.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the interpretation of terms like "askewed angle" and "substantially horizontal axis". The parties may dispute the degree of angular deviation required to be "askewed" and the permissible deviation from true horizontal for the tilt axis.
- Technical Questions: A key question is whether the accused product's spout operates in the specific manner claimed. For example, does it tilt on a horizontal axis that is itself "askewed with respect to an axis of said auger" and simultaneously "parallel to a side wall of said container," as the claim requires? Another question is whether the accused product achieves the functional result of "filling of all four corner portions," and whether Plaintiff can provide evidence to support this allegation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "askewed angle"
- Context and Importance: This term appears twice in Claim 1 and is part of the patent's title, indicating its centrality. It defines the orientation of the discharge spout relative to the auger housing and the orientation of the tilting axis relative to the auger axis. The definition of "askewed" will be critical to determining if the geometry of the accused product falls within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with a numerical range in the specification, which might support an argument that any non-perpendicular, non-parallel orientation qualifies as "askewed."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the discharge spout 86 is welded "in a position askewed relative to the axis of the housing 84" and refers to Figure 7, which shows a specific, fixed angular relationship (’598 Patent, col. 3:28-30; Fig. 7). A party could argue that "askewed" should be limited to the geometric configuration shown in the embodiments.
The Term: "uniformly filling and topping off ... including the filling of all four corner portions"
- Context and Importance: This functional language appears in the final limitation of Claim 1, describing the purpose and result of the tilting spout mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because it sets a performance standard. The dispute will likely involve whether this is a strict limitation requiring proof of complete filling in all four corners, or a statement of intended use or capability.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this describes the intended purpose or benefit of the invention, not a structural requirement that must be met in every instance of operation. The claim body recites the structural components first, suggesting the functional language is explanatory.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language is part of a "whereby" or "for" clause connected to the actuator limitation, suggesting it is a required functional outcome of the claimed structure. The background explicitly identifies the failure to fill the corners as the key problem the invention solves, which may support reading this as a definite limitation (’598 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead counts for indirect infringement (induced or contributory infringement). The infringement allegations are directed to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶34).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement "has been willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶38). This allegation is supported by pleading pre-suit knowledge of the ’598 Patent. The complaint states that Plaintiff's engineering manager contacted Defendant's president to discuss the patent in January 2022, sent a copy of the patent via email, and received a response (Compl. ¶23-24). It further alleges that Plaintiff's counsel sent a formal cease and desist letter in July 2022 that went unacknowledged (Compl. ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "askewed," which is not given a precise angular definition in the patent, be construed to read on the specific geometry of the accused Kinze grain cart's unloading system? The resolution of this term's scope will likely be pivotal to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: given the complaint's lack of detailed, element-by-element infringement contentions, a central challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence in discovery demonstrating that the accused product's mechanical structure and operation map onto the specific, multi-part geometric and functional limitations recited in Claim 1.
- The allegation of willfulness appears to be factually well-supported at the pleading stage. The case will likely examine the substance of the pre-suit communications between the parties to determine whether Defendant's alleged conduct following notice rises to the level of "egregious" behavior that might warrant enhanced damages.