Columbia River Mining Supplies LLC v. Colter Young Consulting & Design

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Columbia River Mining Supplies, LLC (Washington)
  • Defendant: Colter Young Consulting & Design, Colter Young Consulting LLC, Colter Young, and Jane Doe Young (Idaho)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bycer Law, PLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00672, D. Ariz., 04/29/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants have conducted business in Arizona, made sales to customers in the district through e-commerce and at trade shows, and placed infringing products into the stream of commerce with the intent that they be purchased by consumers in Arizona.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Magic Bit" line of magnetic separators infringes a patent related to a device for separating magnetic from non-magnetic materials in ore mixtures.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to handheld equipment for hobbyist gold and iron prospecting, specifically for separating valuable non-magnetic materials from common magnetic "black sand."
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendants on March 2, 2020. It further alleges that Defendant Colter Young subsequently posted the letter on social media and publicly stated he would not comply with its demands, which may be relevant to the claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-11-03	’550 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2015-01-01	Plaintiff begins commercial use of its marks (approx.)
2016-01-01	Plaintiff begins selling products at Arizona trade shows (approx.)
2016-06-07	’550 Patent Issue Date
2020-03-02	Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendants
2020-04-29	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,358,550 - "Black Sand Magnetic Separator," Issued June 7, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a simple, efficient, and portable device for hobbyist prospectors to separate magnetic particles (like black sand) from non-magnetic precious metals (like gold) in ore mixtures, particularly as large-scale mining has become more restricted ('550 Patent, col. 2:20-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld tool designed to be attached to a standard rotary drill. It consists of a non-magnetic cylindrical housing containing a strong, slidable bipolar magnet attached to a drive shaft. When the drill spins the magnet, it creates a rotating magnetic field that attracts and holds magnetic particles to the outside of the housing. The spinning motion simultaneously uses centrifugal force to cast away the lighter, non-magnetic particles. To release the collected magnetic material, the user manually withdraws the magnet into the handle portion of the housing, which breaks the magnetic attraction at the tool end ('550 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2-3; col. 3:12-4:1).
• Technical Importance: The device provides a mechanical separation method that is portable and does not require liquids or complex machinery, making it suitable for field use by hobbyists ('550 Patent, col. 2:41-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A non-magnetic cylindrical housing with a tool section and a handle section.
  • A non-magnetic radial hilt applied along the housing's outer surface.
  • A handle section grommet.
  • A drive shaft with a tool end, neck, and drill attaching end.
  • A strong cylindrical bipolar magnet attached to the drive shaft's tool end, encased in a slip sleeve, and slidable within the housing.
  • The drill attaching end is secured to a rotary drive, allowing the magnet to rotate and move between the tool and handle sections.
  • The rotating magnet produces a magnetic field to attract and spin magnetic particles, casting away non-magnetic particles.
  • Magnetic particles are released by withdrawing the magnet from the tool end to the handle end.
• The complaint notes that to the extent any limitation is not literally present in the accused device, it is present under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶111).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "Original Magic Bit," the "Magic Bit Mini," and the "Magic Bit Max" (collectively, "Magic Bit" or "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are black sand magnetic separators that compete directly with Plaintiff's "Spin It Off™" product (Compl. ¶28). The functionality is described as creating a "rotating magnetic field" that causes "ferrous particles to stand on end and walk away the pile of concentrates" (Compl. ¶47). The complaint alleges Defendants market these products for ferrous material removal via a website accessible to customers in the district (Compl. ¶¶7, 27). The complaint includes a description of a visual where the Defendants allegedly published a photograph of the Plaintiff's product alongside a statement about converting another tool into a "familiar magnetic separation tool," which may suggest functional and visual similarity (Compl. ¶36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’550 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a non-magnetic cylindrical housing defining an inner longitudinal cylindrical channel, an outer surface, a closed end tool section and a handle section defining an opening to said inner longitudinal channel	The Magic Bit is sold with a clear, non-magnetic plastic housing. The complaint alleges this housing is either literally cylindrical, deformed into a cylindrical shape during operation, or is insubstantially different under the doctrine of equivalents. It is alleged to have the inner channel, outer surface, closed tool end, and open handle end (the "rear" of the housing).	¶¶49-55	col. 3:15-22
a non-magnetic radial hilt applied along said outer surface upon said cylindrical housing	The complaint alleges the Magic Bit includes a "raised portion that transversely circumscribes the outer surface," or is used with and combined with a separate "Rotomag plunger" that includes such a hilt. It further alleges Defendants instruct users on using a hilt.	¶¶59-63	col. 3:17-18
a drive shaft defining a tool end, a cylindrical neck and a drill attaching end	The Magic Bit is alleged to have a drive shaft attached to its magnet, where a portion of the shaft is a cylindrical neck and the drill attaching end is shaped like a hex power drive bit.	¶¶81-84	col. 3:22-24
a strong cylindrical bipolar magnet attaching to said tool end of said drive shaft, said bipolar magnet encased within a friction reducing, non-conductive slip sleeve, said slip sleeve slidably engaged within said inner longitudinal cylindrical channel	The Magic Bit is alleged to have a strong cylindrical bipolar magnet surrounded by a plastic coating (the alleged slip sleeve) that reduces friction and is non-conductive. This assembly allegedly slides within the plastic housing. The complaint cites a photograph allegedly published by Defendants showing Plaintiff's product, which embodies these features, to suggest knowledge and copying.	¶¶86-87, 90-93, 36	col. 3:24-28
said drill attaching end further secured to a rotary drive apparatus delivering rotation to said drive shaft, said bipolar magnet... being movable between said tool section and said handle section	The hex-shaped end of the Magic Bit's drive shaft is allegedly attached to a power drill, which delivers rotation. The magnet is alleged to be movable between the forward tool section and rear handle section of the housing.	¶¶99-101	col. 3:29-37
said rotating bipolar magnet producing a strong alternating and rotating magnetic field around said outer surface of said cylindrical housing, attracting and spinning said magnetic particles... upon said outer surface	When operated by a drill, the Magic Bit is alleged to produce a rotating magnetic field that attracts and spins magnetic particles on the housing's outer surface.	¶¶103-104	col. 3:37-43
said spinning and rotation casting away said non-magnetic particles... said magnetic particles released from said tool end by withdrawal of said bipolar magnet from said tool end into said handle end	The spinning of the Magic Bit is alleged to cast away non-magnetic particles. The complaint alleges that the magnetic particles are released from the tool end of the housing by withdrawing the internal magnet into the rear/handle end of the housing.	¶¶106-108	col. 3:43-4:1

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the term "cylindrical housing." The complaint anticipates a non-infringement argument based on shape by pleading that the accused housing is either deformed into a cylinder during use or is an equivalent (Compl. ¶¶51, 53-54). This raises the question of whether the claim term requires a perfect geometric cylinder or if a functionally similar shape can infringe.
• Technical Questions: The presence of a "non-magnetic radial hilt" appears to be a point of contention. The complaint alleges this element is met through several alternative theories: that the accused product has an integrated "raised portion," that Defendants instruct users to add a hilt, or that a separately sold "Rotomag plunger" provides this function when combined with the Magic Bit (Compl. ¶¶61-64). This raises an evidentiary question of whether any of these configurations meets the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "hilt."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"cylindrical housing"

• Context and Importance: The precise shape of the accused product's housing is a primary focus of the infringement allegations. The complaint’s reliance on both literal infringement (alleging deformation into a cylinder during use) and the doctrine of equivalents suggests that the definition of "cylindrical" will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require a strict geometric cylinder, and the accused product is not one, the infringement case could be significantly weakened.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the device in separating materials via a spinning magnet and centrifugal force, a function that may not strictly depend on a perfect cylinder ('550 Patent, col. 3:41-48). An argument could be made that one of ordinary skill would understand "cylindrical" to mean a generally tube-like shape sufficient to perform this function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "cylindrical" is used consistently throughout the claims and the detailed description ('550 Patent, Claim 1; col. 3:15-16). All figures depicting the housing (e.g., Figs. 1-3) show a clear, geometrically cylindrical shape. This consistent use and depiction could support a narrower construction limited to a true cylinder.

"non-magnetic radial hilt"

• Context and Importance: The hilt serves a specific function: to act as a physical barrier preventing collected magnetic material from sliding from the tool section to the handle section when the magnet is withdrawn ('550 Patent, col. 4:56-60). The complaint's multiple theories for infringement (integrated feature, user-added feature, combination with another product) indicate that whether the accused product actually includes this element is a key dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the hilt functionally as "introducing a barrier" and a "hand grip stop" ('550 Patent, col. 4:36-39). This functional language could support construing the term to cover any radial protrusion that performs this barrier function, regardless of its specific form.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly describes the hilt as a component that "inserts over the outer surface" or is an "integrated component" ('550 Patent, col. 4:40-47), and depicts it as a distinct, flange-like structure (e.g., item 30 in Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring a structure that is more substantial than a simple "raised portion."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendants instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner and how to combine them with other components (like the Rotomag plunger) to form the patented device (Compl. ¶¶62, 66, 72, 109). It alleges contributory infringement by claiming the Magic Bit is a material part of the invention, was specifically designed for this infringing use, and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶111-112).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the ’550 Patent. The complaint specifically pleads pre-suit knowledge stemming from a cease-and-desist letter sent on March 2, 2020 (Compl. ¶31). It further alleges that Defendant Colter Young posted the letter publicly and stated he would not comply, which is presented as evidence of deliberate and willful conduct continuing post-notice (Compl. ¶¶32, 34).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cylindrical housing," which is consistently depicted as a geometric cylinder in the patent, be construed to read on the accused product's housing, which the complaint implicitly suggests may not be perfectly cylindrical? The outcome may depend on whether the court adopts a strict structural definition or a broader functional one, and on the strength of the Plaintiff's doctrine of equivalents argument.
• A second key issue will be one of component assembly and liability: does the accused "Magic Bit," as sold, contain a structure that meets the "non-magnetic radial hilt" limitation? If not, the court will have to consider whether Defendants' instructions or the sale of a separate component (the Rotomag plunger) are sufficient to establish liability for indirect infringement.
• Finally, a central question for damages will be willfulness: The complaint alleges not just pre-suit notice via a cease-and-desist letter but also a public and defiant refusal to cease the allegedly infringing conduct. The evidence presented on this point will be critical in determining whether any potential damages are subject to enhancement.