DCT

5:20-cv-04007

Guntert & Zimmerman Construction Division Inc v. GOMACO Corp Status Report Due Every 90

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:20-cv-04007, N.D. Iowa, 02/26/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Gomaco Corp. being an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business located within the Northern District of Iowa.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of concrete slipform paving machines infringes five patents related to automated systems for adjusting the position and orientation of the machines' crawler tracks.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses control systems for large-scale concrete paving machines, where the ability to efficiently maneuver and reconfigure the machine's crawler track "legs" is critical for productivity on complex construction projects like highways and airports.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant, a direct competitor, was aware of Plaintiff's patented technology, having cited patents from the asserted patent family during the prosecution of its own patent applications. The provided patent documents also include Inter Partes Review (IPR) certificates indicating that, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,029,749; 10,196,101; 9,708,020; and 9,908,571 were cancelled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-03-26 Earliest Patent Priority Date for all five patents-in-suit
c. 2011 Plaintiff alleges it began marketing "SmartLeg" technology
c. 2015 Defendant allegedly introduced its accused GP3 product
c. 2016 Defendant allegedly advertised its GP3 product with "Smart Leg Positioning"
2017-07-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,708,020 Issues
2018-03-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,908,571 Issues
2018-07-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,029,749 Issues
2018-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 10,053,167 Issues
2019-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,196,101 Issues
2020-02-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,029,749 - "AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTING SWING LEGS FOR MOUNTING AND ALIGNING AND REORIENTING CRAWLERS"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional concrete paving machines that required operators to perform a time-consuming and costly manual process to reconfigure the machine's crawler tracks. This was necessary to navigate around job-site obstacles or to narrow the machine for legal transport on public roads, and often involved mechanically adjusting turnbuckles and repositioning mounting brackets, leading to significant unproductive downtime (’749 Patent, col. 3:47-4:30; col. 4:50-5:11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an automated system that uses two angular position transducers per "swing leg" assembly. One transducer measures the angle of the swing leg relative to the machine's frame, while the other measures the orientation of the crawler track relative to the swing leg's vertical jacking column. An onboard computer processes the signals from both transducers to automatically command a power drive (e.g., a slew gear) to rotate the crawler track, thereby maintaining its desired orientation (such as straight-ahead) regardless of how the swing leg is positioned (’749 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:12-28). Figure 5 illustrates the processor (82) receiving inputs from the transducers (70, 78) and controlling the power drive (80) (’749 Patent, Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This automated feedback loop system was designed to eliminate the manual mechanical adjustments previously required, allowing for rapid reconfiguration of the paving machine "on the fly" and significantly reducing costly downtime (’749 Patent, col. 5:47-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’749 Patent (Compl. ¶64). Independent claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A swing leg assembly comprising a swing leg, a crawler track, and an upright jacking column.
    • A first angular position transducer between the jacking column and crawler track to signal the crawler track’s orientation relative to the column.
    • A second angular position transducer between the swing leg and the machine’s module frame to signal the swing leg’s angle relative to the frame.
    • A power drive to rotate the crawler track relative to the jacking column.
    • A processor that receives signals from both transducers and activates the power drive to maintain the crawler track's orientation in response to pivotal motions of the swing leg.

U.S. Patent No. 10,196,101 - "AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTING SWING LEGS FOR MOUNTING AND ALIGNING AND REORIENTING CRAWLERS"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’749 Patent: the inefficiency and cost associated with manually repositioning the crawler tracks on slipform pavers (’101 Patent, col. 1:56-2:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’101 Patent claims a complete paving machine that incorporates the same core technology as the ’749 Patent. The solution is an automated system using a combination of angular position transducers, a processor, and a power drive on each swing leg assembly to maintain the orientation of the crawler tracks automatically as the legs are repositioned (’101 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:5-24:14). The patent claims a paving machine comprising "two or more" such automated swing leg assemblies (’101 Patent, col. 24:1-2).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating this automated adjustment system into a paving machine with multiple legs, the invention allows for coordinated, rapid reconfiguration of the entire machine, enhancing operational flexibility and reducing downtime (’101 Patent, col. 5:47-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-19 of the ’101 Patent (Compl. ¶77). Independent claim 1 recites a paving machine comprising:
    • A module frame.
    • Two or more swing leg assemblies, each containing the elements of a swing leg, crawler track, jacking column, first and second angular position transducers, and a power drive unit, as described for the ’749 Patent.
    • A processor that receives signals from the transducers on each assembly and emits control signals to instruct the respective power drives.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,908,571

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,908,571, titled “ADJUSTABLE BOLSTER SWING LEGS FOR SLIPFORM PAVING MACHINES,” issued March 6, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of manually reorienting crawler tracks on slipform pavers (’571 Patent, col. 3:47-4:30). It discloses a paving machine with forward and aft bolsters where at least one swing leg is connected via a power drive that can rotate the attached crawler track in response to changes in the swing leg's angle, automating the reorientation process (’571 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶91).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products that contain a forward bolster, an aft bolster, two crawler tracks attached to the forward bolster, and a swing leg assembly with a power drive to rotate the crawler track (Compl. ¶95).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,708,020

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,708,020, titled “ADJUSTABLE BOLSTER SWING LEGS FOR REORIENTING CRAWLERS FOR SLIPFORM PAVING MACHINES,” issued July 18, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the inefficiency of manually reconfiguring paver crawler tracks (’020 Patent, col. 3:47-4:30). It describes a paving machine with at least two forward and two aft bolsters, where each bolster has a swing leg, jacking column, crawler track, and an associated power drive to translate rotational movements between the jacking columns and crawler tracks (’020 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶103).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products having at least four swing legs, jacking columns, and crawler tracks, with power drives to translate rotational movements between them (Compl. ¶107).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,053,167

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,053,167, titled “ADJUSTABLE BOLSTER SWING LEGS FOR SLIPFORM PAVING MACHINES,” issued August 21, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses manual crawler repositioning (’167 Patent, col. 3:47-4:30). It describes a three-legged paving machine configuration with forward, aft, and side crawler tracks, where forward and side swing legs are equipped with power drives to automate rotational adjustments relative to their jacking columns (’167 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶116).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products that contain a center module with forward, aft, and side crawler tracks, and forward and side swing legs with associated power drives (Compl. ¶120).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Gomaco’s GP3, GP4, GP-2400, Commander III (three and four track), 3300, Xtreme GT-3600, and Xtreme Commander IIIx product lines (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are concrete slipform pavers that are alleged to incorporate "Smart Leg Positioning" and/or "Smart Track / Extreme Steering" technology (Compl. ¶67). The complaint alleges these systems use "rotary-sensored slew drives" on both the pivot arms (swing legs) and the crawler tracks (Compl. ¶29). These sensors are alleged to provide feedback on the angle of rotation and track position to a "G+ control" system, which in turn automatically controls steering to maintain "straight-ahead track positioning" (Compl. ¶¶30, 70). The image provided in the complaint for Gomaco's GP3 product identifies "Smart Pivot Arms" featuring "rotary-sensored slew drives" (Compl. p. 9). The complaint positions the accused products as direct competitors to Plaintiff's products, alleging they were introduced to win back market share that Defendant had lost to Plaintiff’s patented technology (Compl. ¶49, ¶55).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,029,749 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a swing leg configured to mechanically couple with a surface of a module frame Defendant's products contain "swing legs" or "pivot arms" connected to the paver frame. The complaint provides a labeled diagram of the GP4 product's swing leg (Compl. ¶69, p. 24). ¶68 col. 9:22-23
a crawler track Defendant's products contain crawler tracks connected to the base of each upright leg (Compl. ¶29). ¶68 col. 8:55
an upright jacking column secured to the swing leg, having a rotary connection... Defendant's products have "upright jacking columns" with an "upright-axial rotary connection to the crawler track" (Compl. ¶68). ¶68 col. 11:34-36
a first angular position transducer between the jacking column and the crawler track, configured to emit a first signal... The "rotary-sensored slew drives" on the crawler tracks provide the "G+ controls with exact track location and position" (Compl. ¶70). ¶68; ¶70 col. 11:56-60
a second angular position transducer between the swing leg and the module frame, configured to emit a second signal... The "rotary-sensored slew drives" on the pivot arms "provide the G+ controls with information on the angle of rotation" (Compl. ¶70). ¶68; ¶70 col. 12:7-11
a power drive between the jacking column and the crawler track... The "rotary-sensored slew drives" accomplish "track steering and rotation" (Compl. ¶70). ¶68; ¶70 col. 11:34-35
a processor operable to receive the first and second signals and configured to emit a control signal... to maintain an orientation of the crawler track... The "G+ system automatically control[s] the direction and speed of each individual track" by using sensor data to "maintain the tracks in the straight-ahead line for steering" (Compl. ¶70). ¶68; ¶70 col. 12:31-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that a single component, the "rotary-sensored slew drive," embodies the limitations for both the "power drive" and the "transducer." This raises the question of whether a single accused component can satisfy two distinct claim elements.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the processor to act in response to changes in the first signal (from the crawler track transducer) that are caused by pivotal motions of the swing leg. A technical question is whether this causal chain accurately describes the operation of the accused system. It may be that pivotal motions of the swing leg cause changes in the second signal (from the swing leg transducer), which then prompts the processor to adjust the crawler track, thereby changing the first signal.

10,196,101 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A paving machine comprising: a module frame; Defendant's products, such as the GP4, are paving machines with a central frame or module (Compl. ¶¶31, 81). ¶81 col. 8:47-49
two or more swing leg assemblies... The complaint alleges Defendant's GP4 product contains "two or more swing leg assemblies" and provides a visual identifying them (Compl. ¶83, p. 28). ¶81; ¶83 col. 24:1-2
each assembly comprising [elements as in '749 patent claim 1] For each of the multiple assemblies, the infringement allegations are identical to those for the ’749 Patent, as described above, relying on the "rotary-sensored slew drives" and "G+ controls" (Compl. ¶¶81, 84). ¶81; ¶84 col. 24:3-23
a processor operable to receive the first and second signals from each swing leg assembly... The "G+ controls" allegedly receive sensor information from each of the multiple assemblies to coordinate their orientation (Compl. ¶84). ¶81 col. 24:24-33
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • The points of contention for the individual assembly elements are the same as those identified for the ’749 Patent. The primary additional question for the ’101 Patent will be whether the accused products contain "two or more" assemblies that each meet all limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "transducer"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to infringement, as the complaint maps it to Defendant's "rotary-sensored slew drives" (Compl. ¶70). The dispute may focus on whether an integrated sensor within a drive motor assembly constitutes a "transducer" as a distinct element from the "power drive." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent figures appear to depict the transducer and power drive as structurally separate components, potentially supporting a narrower construction (’749 Patent, Fig. 5).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the terms "transducer or sensor" interchangeably, suggesting the term should be given its broad, ordinary meaning of a device that converts one form of energy or signal to another (’749 Patent, col. 11:56-57).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 of the patent depicts the "WORM DRIVE" (80) and the "angular position transducer" (78) as separate, labeled parts of the assembly, which could support an argument that the claims require structurally distinct components for the "power drive" and "transducer" elements.

The Term: "processor operable to... maintain an orientation... in response to changes of the first signal caused by pivotal motions of the swing leg" (’749 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This functional language defines the core logic of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused "G+ controls" perform this precise sequence of operations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the causal relationship it describes appears technically ambiguous and may not align with the system's actual operation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the overall feedback loop's function: when the swing leg's angle changes (measured by transducer 78), the computer (82) calculates the necessary adjustment for the crawler track and signals the worm gear drive (60) to make the correction (’749 Patent, col. 12:31-55). This suggests a broad functional interpretation focused on the outcome of maintaining orientation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific causal chain where pivotal motions of the swing leg cause a change in the first signal (from the crawler track transducer), and the processor responds to that change. An alternative reading of the specification suggests the swing leg motion causes a change in the second signal (from the swing leg transducer), which then prompts the processor to act. This potential discrepancy between the claim language and the specification could support a narrow construction that the accused products do not meet.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶43, 62). This allegation is supported by claims that: (1) Defendant cited the asserted patents or their family members during the prosecution of its own patent applications (Compl. ¶¶51-53); (2) Defendant allegedly copied Plaintiff's "SmartLeg" technology and initially used similar branding ("Smart Leg Positioning") (Compl. ¶¶46-48); and (3) the parties are direct competitors in a small market, making awareness of each other's technology probable (Compl. ¶55).

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

  1. Claim Viability: Given that Inter Partes Review certificates attached to the provided patent documents indicate that all asserted claims of four of the five patents-in-suit were cancelled subsequent to the filing of the complaint, a threshold issue for the case will be whether any asserted patent claims remain viable for litigation.
  2. Definitional Scope: A central claim construction question will be whether a single integrated component in the accused products—the "rotary-sensored slew drive"—can satisfy the requirements for both a "power drive" and a "transducer," which are recited as distinct elements in the asserted claims.
  3. Causality and Infringement: A key technical issue will be one of functional operation: does the accused controller's logic map onto the specific causal chain required by claim 1 of the ’749 patent? The question will be whether the accused system maintains crawler orientation "in response to changes of the first signal caused by pivotal motions of the swing leg," or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the claimed sequence of operations.