A.B.I. Safety, LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ABI. Safety, LLC (Idaho)
  • Defendant: Epiroc Ab (Sweden), Epiroc USA, LLC (Delaware), and other related U.S. entities
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Daugharty Law Group
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00250, D. Idaho, 05/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Idaho because Defendants are said to have committed acts of infringement, conducted business, and maintained established places of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s heavy mining equipment, including battery-electric vehicles, infringes a patent related to an automated battery-disconnect safety system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns safety systems for heavy machinery that automatically isolate the battery in response to hazardous conditions, such as fire, to prevent further damage and enhance safety in environments like underground mining.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendants of the patent and its potential infringement on April 18, 2023. After an exchange of correspondence in which Defendants denied infringement, Plaintiff sent a litigation hold letter on May 23, 2023. This history is cited to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,361,553 - "Battery Interrupter"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,361,553, "Battery Interrupter", issued July 23, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to protect engines and electrical systems in heavy machinery from destructive operating conditions (e.g., fire) (’553 Patent, col. 2:25-29). In such events, a connected battery can continue to supply electrical current, "which exacerbates the fire" and may lead to catastrophic failure (’553 Patent, col. 3:17-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses a programmable logic controller (PLC) to monitor a machine's electrical system via sensors that detect hazards like heat, pressure, or fire (’553 Patent, col. 4:8-14). An operator initiates the system with a push button. If a hazard is detected by a sensor, or if the machine's ignition is left off for a predetermined time after startup, the PLC sends a signal to "unlatch" one or more contactors, which physically disconnects and isolates the battery from the rest of the machine's electrical system (’533 Patent, col. 4:20-24). This automated isolation is designed to mitigate damage and conserve battery life (’533 Patent, col. 3:10-14).
• Technical Importance: The system provides an automated protocol for isolating a high-power battery on heavy equipment during a hazardous event or when the machine is inactive, aiming to improve operational safety (’533 Patent, col. 3:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶23). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 and 10.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a "battery interrupter system" with the following essential elements:
  • An electrical motor for a machine
  • At least one battery powering an electrical system
  • A programmable logic controller (PLC)
  • An ignition connected to the PLC
  • A button to initiate the system, connected to the PLC
  • At least one contactor connected to the battery and PLC, where the PLC is configured to send a signal to "latch-in the contactor"
  • A detection sensor connected to the PLC that "identifies operating conditions of the electrical system"
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities generally as "mining and infrastructure equipment," which includes "drill rigs, loaders, mine trucks (including battery electric versions)" (Compl. ¶16, ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Equipment incorporates "battery interrupter systems" (Compl. ¶28). The relevant functionality is described as being "designed to identify heat conditions, pressure conditions and fire conditions" and, upon detection, to cause a "disruption in the electrical system between the battery and the electrical system" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not provide specific model numbers or detailed technical descriptions of the accused systems.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. The following summary is based on the general allegations and the technical descriptions provided in the complaint's "False Advertising" cause of action, which offers the most specific theory of the accused functionality.

'553 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: What is the scope of a "programmable logic controller" (PLC)? The infringement analysis may turn on whether the controller in the Accused Equipment, which the complaint does not specify, meets the technical definition of a PLC as understood in the art, or if it is a more general-purpose electronic control unit (ECU).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the Accused Equipment's safety system, which allegedly "causes a disruption," does so using a "contactor" that "latch[es]-in" as required by the claim? The complaint does not detail the specific mechanism of the alleged power disruption, raising the question of whether it operates in the manner claimed by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "programmable logic controller" (PLC)

• Context and Importance: This term appears in both independent claims. Its construction is critical because Defendants may argue that their equipment uses a different type of controller (e.g., a standard ECU, a microcontroller) that does not qualify as a PLC, a term with a specific meaning in industrial automation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the controller to be programmable and logically control other components, a function that many modern electronic controllers perform. A party might argue that "PLC" should be interpreted functionally to cover any such device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently and exclusively refers to the controller as a "programmable logic controller 110, or PLC" (’553 Patent, col. 3:37-39). The lack of any alternative terms (like ECU or microprocessor) may suggest that the inventor intended to claim this specific type of industrial controller.

• The Term: "contactor"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the switch mechanism that isolates the battery. The infringement question may depend on whether the component used in the Accused Equipment is properly classified as a "contactor" and whether it functions as described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any electrically-controlled, high-power switch that makes or breaks the connection to the battery meets the general definition of a contactor.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifies that the PLC sends a signal to "latch-in the contactor" and later to "unlatch" it (’553 Patent, col. 3:51, col. 4:21). This language could be interpreted to require a specific type of bistable or latching relay, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude more common momentary relays or other types of solid-state switches.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ purported knowledge of the ’553 patent "at least as of March 17, 2023" (Compl. ¶24). This allegation is supported by reference to pre-suit correspondence sent by Plaintiff to Defendants in April and May of 2023, and Defendants’ alleged continued infringement despite this notice (Compl. ¶¶ 18-21, ¶24).

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

• A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "programmable logic controller" (PLC), as used in the patent, be construed to read on the specific type of electronic controller used in the Accused Equipment, or is there a technical distinction that places the accused technology outside the claim's scope?
• A key evidentiary question will concern the mechanism of operation: does the accused system’s method of "caus[ing] a disruption" in the electrical circuit meet the specific claim requirement of using a "contactor" that "latch[es]-in," or does it operate via a different technical principle? The complaint's lack of specificity on this point suggests it will be a focal point of discovery and expert testimony.