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 Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Ohio)
- Defendant: Kinze Manufacturing, Inc. (Iowa)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Simmons Perrine PLC; Susman Godfrey LLP; Markovits, Stock & De Marco, LLC; Rooney IP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00094, N.D. Iowa, 02/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in the district, and therefore "resides" there. The complaint further alleges that a substantial part of the infringing activities occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Harvest Commander" grain carts, which feature a tilting discharge spout, infringe a patent related to a specialized unloading auger designed to more efficiently fill semi-trailers.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of evenly distributing grain from a large mobile cart into a transport trailer, a crucial step in large-scale harvesting operations where efficiency directly impacts profitability.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details significant pre-suit communications, alleging that Plaintiff notified Defendant's president of the patent in January 2022. It is alleged that Defendant reviewed the patent but denied infringement only as to its single-auger carts, remaining silent on the dual-auger models. A subsequent cease-and-desist letter allegedly went unanswered, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-03-20 | '598 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-08-25 | '598 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-01-01 | Kinze allegedly planned to show infringing carts at a trade show (approx. date) |
| 2022-01-05 | J&M Engineering Manager first contacted Kinze's President |
| 2022-01-10 | J&M sent a copy of the '598 Patent to Kinze's President |
| 2022-01-26 | Kinze's President responded to J&M, denying infringement for single-auger carts |
| 2022-07-22 | J&M's counsel sent a Cease and Desist letter to Kinze |
| 2022-08-26 | J&M filed the original lawsuit |
| 2023-08-01 | Kinze allegedly launched the newly designed Model 1051 single-auger grain cart (approx. date) |
| 2024-02-16 | Complaint Filing Date (Second Amended Complaint) |
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
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,113,598, Grain Cart Having an Inclined Folding Unloading Auger Conveyor with an Askewed Flow Control Spout, issued August 25, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that conventional grain cart augers discharge grain in a way that does not completely fill the opposite corner portions of a rectangular semi-trailer. This inefficiency requires manual labor with a shovel or other tool to evenly distribute the grain, or else the trailer is transported without being filled to its full capacity ('598 Patent, col. 1:41-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a grain cart with a unique unloading system. An upper section of the auger conveyor folds out and includes an "askewed discharge spout." This spout supports a "flow control spout" that can be tilted by a remote actuator on a horizontal axis. This tilting motion allows the operator to direct the stream of grain laterally across the width of the semi-trailer, ensuring that all four corner portions can be filled and "topped off" without manual intervention ('598 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-15).
- Technical Importance: This solution provides a mechanical means to solve a practical and persistent inefficiency in grain handling, allowing for faster, more complete loading of transport trailers directly in the field ('598 Patent, col. 4:10-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶34).
- Independent Claim 1 of the '598 Patent recites:
- A grain cart with a frame, hitch, and container.
- An elongated inclined auger unloading conveyor with a lower section to receive grain and a foldable upper section.
- The improvement wherein the upper section's housing has a discharge spout projecting laterally at an "askewed angle."
- The discharge spout supports a "flow control spout" for tilting on a "substantially horizontal axis" that is itself "askewed" relative to the auger's axis but "substantially parallel" to the container's side wall.
- The control spout is movable in a vertical plane between a downward and a laterally outward position.
- A remotely controllable actuator tilts the flow control spout to uniformly fill all four corners of a semi-trailer.
- The complaint asserts infringement of all claims (claims 1-3) (Compl. ¶34; Compl. Ex. 8, p. 1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Kinze's "Harvest Commander Grain Carts" that incorporate a "patented tip spout," including specific models like the 1051, 1121, 1321, 1421, 1521, and 1721 (Compl. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused grain carts are large agricultural implements designed to receive grain from a combine and transfer it to a transport truck (Compl. ¶35, p. 8).
- The complaint alleges these carts feature a "NEW tip spout with smoother flow and improved alignment for more precise unloading of grain" (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 4). The complaint provides a photograph from a trade show poster illustrating this "Precision Unloading Spout with Improved Alignment" (Compl. Ex. 3).
- The functionality is alleged to include a joystick-controlled tip spout that delivers "smooth grain flow and precision unloading" (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 7). The complaint alleges that this spout infringes by enabling the same tilting, directional grain flow claimed in the '598 Patent.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint provides annotated photographs to map elements of the accused Kinze 1421 and 1051 grain carts to the limitations of claim 1.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...said housing of said upper section of said auger conveyor in said discharge position... including a discharge spout projecting laterally at an askewed angle from said housing, | The Kinze grain cart includes a discharge spout that projects laterally from the auger housing at what is alleged to be an askewed angle. A photograph shows the spout (O) extending from the auger housing (N) (Compl. ¶35, p. 12). | ¶35 | col. 4:50-53 |
| 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... with said horizontal axis extending substantially parallel to a side wall of said container, | The accused discharge spout supports a tilting flow control spout. A photograph depicts the flow control spout (P) mounted on the discharge spout (O), with its horizontal tilt axis alleged to be parallel to the container side wall (Compl. ¶35, p. 13). | ¶35 | col. 4:54-61 |
| said control spout movable on said horizontal axis in a vertical plane... between a downwardly projecting first position and a laterally outwardly projecting second position, | The accused flow control spout is alleged to be movable in a vertical plane between a downward and an outward position. An annotated image with red arrows illustrates this range of motion on the accused cart (Compl. ¶35, p. 14). | ¶35 | col. 4:61-65 |
| a remotely controllable actuator connected to tilt said flow control spout between said first and second positions... for uniformly filling and topping off the semi-trailer... | The accused cart includes a remotely controllable actuator for the spout. A close-up photograph identifies the alleged actuator (Q) connected to the flow control spout (P) (Compl. ¶35, p. 14). | ¶35 | col. 5:1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of several relational and geometric terms. A central question will be how the court defines "askewed angle." Does the angle of the Kinze spout relative to its auger housing fall within the scope of this term as defined by the patent? Similarly, disputes may arise over whether the tilt axis of the Kinze spout is "substantially parallel" to the container side wall and whether its plane of movement is "perpendicular" to that wall, as required by the claims.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused spout's movement achieves the functional result of "uniformly filling and topping off... all four corner portions of the rectangular semi-trailer"? While the complaint alleges the structural elements are present, the functional outcome is a required limitation that will need to be proven.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "askewed angle"
Context and Importance: This term is used to define the orientation of the discharge spout relative to the auger housing and is a central feature of the "improvement" claimed by the patent. The interpretation of "askewed" will be critical to determining literal infringement, as it defines the fundamental geometry of the inventive spout.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a precise numerical range for the angle, instead describing it functionally. This may support an interpretation that covers any non-perpendicular, non-parallel angle that achieves the claimed function. The patent states the discharge spout is welded to the housing "in a position askewed relative to the axis of the housing 84" ('598 Patent, col. 3:28-30).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 7 of the patent provides a perspective view of the "skewed position of the discharge portion" ('598 Patent, col. 2:42-45), which could be used to argue for a more specific geometric configuration consistent with the illustrated embodiment.
The Term: "substantially parallel"
Context and Importance: This term defines the orientation of the flow control spout's horizontal tilt axis relative to the side wall of the grain cart's container. Whether the corresponding axis on the Kinze carts is "substantially parallel" will be a key factual and legal issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because even a small deviation from parallel could be argued to place the accused device outside the literal scope of the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the modifier "substantially" implies that exact parallelism is not required. A party could argue that any orientation close enough to parallel to achieve the spout's side-to-side grain-directing function meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly links this parallel orientation to the spout's movement "within a vertical plane perpendicular to the left side wall" ('598 Patent, col. 2:11-13). A defendant could argue that these geometric constraints, read together, require a very close adherence to parallel to achieve the claimed perpendicular plane of motion. The patent identifies the axis as "horizontal axis A... which extends substantially parallel to the left side wall 42" ('598 Patent, col. 3:34-37).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Kinze had actual knowledge of the '598 Patent and its infringement at least as early as January 2022, nearly two years before the Second Amended Complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 41). The allegations are supported by specific factual claims, including an email from J&M's engineering manager to Kinze's president attaching the patent (Compl. Ex. 4) and a subsequent cease-and-desist letter from J&M's counsel (Compl. Ex. 6). The complaint alleges Kinze's response was evasive and that it continued to offer infringing products, including launching a new infringing model after the lawsuit was filed, which may support a claim of willful infringement both pre- and post-suit (Compl. ¶¶24, 27, 41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "askewed angle," which is not defined with numerical precision in the patent, be construed to read on the specific geometry of the Kinze "tip spout"? The outcome of the Markman hearing on this and other geometric terms like "substantially parallel" will likely be dispositive for literal infringement.
- A second key question will be one of evidentiary proof: assuming a favorable claim construction, can J&M prove through technical evidence that the accused Kinze products meet every structural and functional limitation of the claims? This will involve moving beyond annotated marketing photos to demonstrate, for example, that the spout's movement occurs in the specific planes required by the claims and achieves the functional result of filling all four corners of a trailer.
- Finally, a central question for damages will be willfulness: do the detailed pre-suit communications, including Kinze's alleged failure to respond to allegations regarding its dual-auger carts and its continued sales post-suit, rise to the level of egregious conduct required for a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?