DCT
1:18-cv-01328
Morton Buildings Inc v. SWS Innovations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Morton Buildings, Inc. (Illinois)
- Defendant: SWS Innovations, LLC, and Wildwood Ivy, Inc. d/b/a Strong Way Systems (collectively, "Strong Way") (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01328, C.D. Ill., 09/11/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants being headquartered and transacting business within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Strong Way Column" building support product infringes a patent related to a height-adjustable jack piling assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to foundation systems for post-frame buildings, where precise alignment of vertical support columns is critical for structural integrity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit and its alleged infringement via a letter dated August 10, 2018, approximately one month prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-07 | ’713 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-03-18 | ’713 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-08-10 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2018-09-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,343,713, Hinged Support Column, issued March 18, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In post-frame construction, traditional wooden pilings can degrade over time, and pre-set concrete pilings are difficult to align perfectly, complicating the framing process (’713 Patent, col. 1:18-35). Specifically, it can be difficult to align the hinge plates of multiple pre-set lower pilings before hoisting a framed wall into place (’713 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a "jack piling assembly" that allows for height adjustment after the piling is placed in a hole (’713 Patent, col. 2:14-21). The assembly includes a lower bearing plate that rests on the floor of an excavated hole, a piling column, and a jack mechanism. This mechanism, typically a threaded shaft operated from the top of the piling, presses against a push rod extending up from the bearing plate, thereby lifting the entire piling column relative to the stationary bearing plate to achieve a precise, final height (’713 Patent, col. 12:46-62).
- Technical Importance: This design allows builders to easily and precisely adjust the height of individual foundation pilings to ensure they are perfectly aligned before completing the building frame, addressing a key challenge in post-frame construction (’713 Patent, col. 14:40-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶10).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a piling having a longitudinal axis and a passage extending between a top and a bottom;
- a bearing plate at said bottom of said piling;
- a jack mechanism including a push rod extending upwardly from said bearing plate... along said longitudinal axis and into said passage of said piling; and
- said jack mechanism further including an adjustment device including a top plate disposed at said top of said piling and defining a threaded bore... and a threaded shaft threadedly engaging said threaded bore and extending downward into said passage... abutting said push rod to push against said push rod and move said piling longitudinally away from said bearing plate.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Strong Way Column" (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant "makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports" the Strong Way Column (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation or features of the Strong Way Column beyond alleging that it contains the elements recited in claim 1. No specific allegations regarding the product's commercial importance or market positioning are made.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges literal infringement of claim 1 but does not include a claim chart or detailed explanation of how the accused product meets each limitation beyond restating the claim language (Compl. ¶10).
'713 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a piling having a longitudinal axis and a passage extending between a top and a bottom; | The complaint alleges the Strong Way Column is a piling with these features. | ¶10 | col. 12:27-30 |
| a bearing plate at said bottom of said piling; | The complaint alleges the Strong Way Column includes a bearing plate at its bottom. | ¶10 | col. 12:31-32 |
| a jack mechanism including a push rod extending upwardly from said bearing plate at said bottom of said piling along said longitudinal axis and into said passage of said piling; | The complaint alleges the Strong Way Column includes a jack mechanism with a push rod that extends from the bearing plate into the piling's passage. | ¶10 | col. 12:30-34 |
| and said jack mechanism further including an adjustment device including a top plate disposed at said top of said piling and defining a threaded bore extending there-through and aligned with said longitudinal axis and | The complaint alleges the Strong Way Column's jack mechanism includes an adjustment device with a top plate and an aligned, threaded bore. | ¶10 | col. 12:52-54 |
| a threaded shaft threadedly engaging said threaded bore and extending downward into said passage from said top of said piling along said longitudinal axis and | The complaint alleges a threaded shaft engages the threaded bore and extends into the passage. | ¶10 | col. 12:55-58 |
| abutting said push rod to push against said push rod and move said piling longitudinally away from said bearing plate in response to threading said threaded shaft through said threaded bore. | The complaint alleges the threaded shaft abuts and pushes the push rod to move the piling away from the bearing plate. | ¶10 | col. 12:58-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory. A central issue will be whether discovery produces evidence that the Strong Way Column contains a structure that meets every limitation of claim 1. For example, does the accused product have a distinct "piling," "bearing plate," "push rod," and "threaded shaft" that operate in the claimed sequence, or does it achieve height adjustment through a mechanism with different components or a different mode of operation?
- Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the scope of the claim terms. For instance, does the accused product's adjustment mechanism meet the specific structural requirements of a "jack mechanism" as defined in the claim, which requires a "push rod," a "top plate," a "threaded bore," and a "threaded shaft" that "abut[s]" the push rod?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "jack mechanism"
Context and Importance: This term is the central functional element of the invention. Its construction will determine whether alternative height-adjustment systems fall within the scope of the claim. The claim itself defines the term by listing its required sub-components (push rod, adjustment device with top plate, threaded bore, and threaded shaft).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the claim language itself provides the full definition, and any structure containing the recited list of components is a "jack mechanism," regardless of other structural variations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the specific screw-jack embodiment detailed in the specification and drawings (e.g., '713 Patent, Figs. 22-28, col. 12:46-62). An interpretation may require the distinct separation of the "threaded shaft" (551) and the "push rod" (525).
The Term: "abutting said push rod to push against said push rod"
Context and Importance: This functional language defines the specific interaction that causes the piling to move. Infringement requires this direct cause-and-effect relationship. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific mode of force transmission.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that "abutting" simply requires contact sufficient to transmit the pushing force, allowing for variations in the shape or nature of the contact surfaces.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The drawings show the end of the threaded shaft (551) making direct, end-to-end contact with the top of the push rod (525) ('713 Patent, Fig. 26). A party could argue this limits "abutting" to direct axial contact, potentially excluding systems that use intermediary components or transfer force in a different manner.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) (Prayer ¶1). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support the required elements of either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’713 Patent as of an August 10, 2018 notice letter and continued its allegedly infringing activities despite this knowledge, constituting reckless disregard (Compl. ¶13-15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of technical detail, the case will hinge on whether discovery confirms that the Strong Way Column contains every structural element of Claim 1 (e.g., a distinct push rod, bearing plate, and threaded shaft) and that those elements function in the precise manner recited in the claim.
- The dispute will likely focus on a claim construction and functional equivalence question: does the accused product's height-adjustment system meet the specific definition of a "jack mechanism" that "abut[s]" a "push rod" to "push" it, or is there a technical mismatch in components or operation that places the accused product outside the scope of the claim?