DCT

2:24-cv-01023

David's Dozer V Loc System Inc v. Deere & Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-24931, S.D. Fla., 03/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants each maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, and acts of infringement are alleged to have occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' John Deere 333G SmartGrade Compact Track Loader, when operating in its "Dozer Mode," infringes a patent directed to a method of stabilizing a vehicle's boom arm to enable precise, GPS-assisted earth grading.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit involves technology for automated grade control in construction equipment, which uses GPS and hydraulic systems to allow machinery to grade surfaces to precise specifications with minimal operator intervention.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the inventor, Mr. Armas, demonstrated the patented technology to a third party on a John Deere vehicle in August 2018. Approximately four months later, Defendant Deere & Company filed its own patent applications for similar technology, which cited the patent-in-suit during their prosecution. Plaintiff alleges it sent notice of infringement to Defendants in October 2020, to which Defendants' counsel responded with a denial of infringement. The complaint also includes a count to have Mr. Armas added as a co-inventor on several of Defendants' patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-08-04 '300 Patent Application Filing Date / Priority Date
2018-08-01* Inventor allegedly demonstrates technology on a Deere CTL (*approximate date)
2018-12-07 Defendant Deere & Co. files its own related patent applications
2020-01-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,533,300 Issued
2020-01-01* Accused 333G SmartGrade CTL introduced by Defendant JDCFC (*approximate date)
2020-10-09 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendants
2020-12-01 Defendant Deere & Co. counsel responds, denying infringement
2023-01-01* Plaintiff purchases an accused 333G product for testing (*approximate date)
2024-03-29 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,533,300 - "Automatic Grader Stabilizer," Issued January 14, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of prior art automatic grading systems used with skid steer vehicles. These systems traditionally used the vehicle's large, heavy main lift arm to make fine adjustments to the dozer blade's height. This process was inefficient, consumed significant power, was slow, and reduced the precision of the final grade due to the large mass being moved (ʼ300 Patent, col. 1:28-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to improve grading accuracy by fundamentally changing how adjustments are made. Instead of using the main lift arm, the method involves securing the arm in a fixed, lowered position where it rests on a mechanical stop on the vehicle's frame. The hydraulics that lift the main arm are then restricted or disabled. With the arm stabilized, all fine-grade height adjustments are performed by a separate hydraulic system that controls only the pitch (forward/backward tilt) of the much lighter dozer blade attachment. This allows for faster, more precise, and more stable control, guided by a GPS-based system (ʼ300 Patent, col. 7:20-35, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a versatile, general-purpose vehicle like a skid steer to perform a high-precision task previously associated with larger, specialized grading equipment, improving the accuracy and efficiency of automated grading operations (ʼ300 Patent, col. 2:17-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key steps:
    • Providing a skid steer vehicle with a main arm coupled to a dozer blade assembly.
    • Providing a stop on the vehicle on which a point of the main arm rests, defining a lower limit of movement.
    • Positioning the main arm against the stop.
    • Preventing the main arm from providing any lifting force by "restricting the ability of a hydraulic that lifts the main arm."
    • Operably connecting an automatic grade control system to a different hydraulic that controls the dozer blade's "pitch axis of movement" to adjust the blade's height.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶34, fn on Exhibit 2).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the John Deere 333G SmartGrade™ Compact Track Loader ("333G") and the John Deere SmartGrade six-way dozer blade attachment ("SG96"), particularly when operating in the vehicle's "Dozer Mode" (Compl. ¶20, 34).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that "Dozer Mode" is a prominent, operator-selectable feature on the 333G that enables integrated 3D-grade-control (Compl. ¶21). When this mode is active, the complaint alleges the hydraulics controlling the main boom arm are restricted to keep the arm stationary in a lowered position (Compl. ¶20). According to a quoted interview with a Deere product marketing manager, this is done to "keep our boom down on the stops" to achieve "rigidity" for a "nice smooth grade" (Compl. ¶23). With the boom stabilized, the integrated GPS system then automatically controls the dozer blade's height and angle to precisely match a digital terrain model (Compl. ¶20).
  • The complaint positions the 333G as the "first CTL to feature fully integrated 3D-grade-control technology," suggesting its Dozer Mode is a key feature for its market position (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit (Exhibit 2) that was not provided. The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

'300 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a skid steer vehicle having a main arm with a front side operably coupled to a dozer blade assembly; The accused John Deere 333G is a Compact Track Loader (a type of skid steer vehicle) used with the SG96 dozer blade attachment. ¶34 col. 7:50-53
providing a stop connected to the skid steer vehicle upon which a point of the main arm rests thereby defining a lower limit of movement of the main arm; The complaint quotes a Deere manager stating that in Dozer Mode, the system is designed to "keep our boom down on the stops" of the machine's frame. ¶22, 23 col. 8:5-8
positioning the point of the main arm against the stop; The complaint alleges that when Dozer Mode is engaged, the boom arm is lowered and rests on the vehicle's stops to create a "very rigid" platform. ¶23 col. 8:15-17
preventing the ability of the main arm from providing any lifting force by restricting the ability of a hydraulic that lifts the main arm; The complaint alleges that when in Dozer Mode, the hydraulics for the main arm are restricted. It cites its own testing, which allegedly confirmed that "no voltage measured in the boom arm hydraulics" when a lift command was given, indicating the hydraulics were restricted. ¶22, 28 col. 8:17-20
operably connecting the automatic grade control system to a hydraulic that controls a pitch axis of movement of the dozer blade to affect a height of the dozer blade relative to a ground surface. The complaint alleges that in Dozer Mode, the 333G's integrated GPS system automatically controls the dozer blade's elevation. The quoted Deere manager states that pulling back on the joystick "instead of lifting the linkage, you're actually creating the elevation of the bucket or the dozer blade." This suggests control has been shifted from the main arm lift to the attachment's hydraulics. ¶20, 22 col. 8:20-28
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute appears to be the meaning of "restricting the ability of a hydraulic." Defendant's counsel, in a 2020 letter, denied infringement on the basis that its products do not perform this step as required by the claim (Compl. ¶26). The case may turn on whether the accused product's software-based control in Dozer Mode meets the legal standard for "restricting the ability," or if the term requires a more complete physical or electrical isolation.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what precisely occurs within the 333G's hydraulic system when Dozer Mode is active. Plaintiff alleges its testing shows a voltage lockout (Compl. ¶28), while Defendant's marketing describes it as "puls[ing] hydraulics to keep that down" (Compl. ¶23). Resolving whether the system completely restricts the main lift hydraulic's ability to provide lifting force, or merely counteracts it with downward pressure, will be critical for the infringement analysis of claim 1. A related question is whether the system's operation constitutes "locking the main arm against the stop" as required by asserted dependent claim 2.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "restricting the ability of a hydraulic that lifts the main arm"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is the crux of the infringement dispute, as evidenced by Defendant’s pre-suit denial of infringement focusing on this very language (Compl. ¶26). The construction of this term will likely determine whether the functionality of the accused "Dozer Mode" falls within the scope of claim 1.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple ways to achieve this result, including operating a valve to "hydraulically isolate" the actuator (ʼ300 Patent, col. 9:1-4), "disconnecting and capping" the hydraulic lines (ʼ300 Patent, col. 6:1-3), or even permanently welding the arm (ʼ300 Patent, col. 6:10-12). A party could argue this variety demonstrates that "restricting" is a broad, functional term not tied to any single implementation. The fact that "hydraulically isolate" is used in a separate, narrower dependent claim (claim 3) may suggest "restricting" in independent claim 1 has a broader meaning.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that "restricting the ability" implies a complete negation of the hydraulic's function, not merely managing it through software or counteracting forces. They could argue that if the hydraulic can still be activated, even if its effect is countered by other actions, its "ability" has not been "restricted" in the sense required by the claim.

  • The Term: "locking the main arm against the stop"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is required by asserted dependent claim 2. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a more secure connection than simply "positioning" the arm against the stop as required by claim 1. The infringement analysis for claim 2 will depend on whether the accused system performs an affirmative "locking" action.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "locking" can be achieved functionally, for example, by applying a constant hydraulic pressure that holds the arm so firmly against the stop that it is, for all practical purposes, locked in place during the grading operation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly illustrates a physical "lock 62" as a "bracket like structure," "pinning system," or "bolting system" used to connect the main arm to the vehicle body (ʼ300 Patent, col. 5:39-62). This suggests "locking" requires a separate mechanical or structural component, not just a hydraulic force.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants Deere & Company and JDCFC induce infringement by actively encouraging customers to use the infringing "Dozer Mode" through marketing, manuals, and video instructions (Compl. ¶40). Knowledge is alleged based on the '300 Patent being cited during the prosecution of Defendants' own patents (Compl. ¶19) and on direct notice via cease-and-desist letters beginning in 2020 (Compl. ¶40). Contributory infringement is alleged against JDCFC on the basis that the "Dozer Mode" is a material component especially adapted for infringement with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶45).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge from Defendants' citation of the '300 Patent during their own patent prosecution (Compl. ¶19), and both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge from the notice letters sent in 2020 and subsequent continued sales of the accused products (Compl. ¶25, 40).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "restricting the ability of a hydraulic," be construed to read on the accused "Dozer Mode," which the complaint alleges works via a software-managed voltage lockout but which Defendants' marketing describes as "pulsing hydraulics"? The court's interpretation of this phrase may be dispositive.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: beyond the claim construction, the case will require a factual determination of how the 333G's Dozer Mode actually operates. Does it merely apply downward hydraulic pressure to counteract lift, or does it implement a true restriction or isolation of the lift hydraulic as claimed? Furthermore, does this operation constitute the affirmative "locking" step required by dependent claim 2, or is there a fundamental mismatch between a hydraulic hold-down and the mechanical lock described in the patent?