Precision Products Inc v. Harper Trucks Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Precision Products, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Harper Trucks, Inc. (Kansas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Duane Morris LLP
• Case Identification: 3:22-cv-03179, C.D. Ill., 10/04/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of Illinois because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, including the manufacture of the accused product, and because Defendant is allegedly subject to personal jurisdiction in the district through its business transactions.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff Precision Products seeks a declaratory judgment that its Model No. 79441 hand truck does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,864,933, which is owned by Defendant Harper Trucks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-functional hand trucks capable of being reconfigured between various operational modes, such as a standard upright hand truck and a horizontal four-wheeled cart.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a cease and desist letter sent by Harper Trucks to a third party, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and a subsequent patent infringement lawsuit filed by Harper against Gleason in the Northern District of Indiana. Precision Products, the plaintiff in this action, states that it, not Gleason, manufactures the accused product, and has filed this suit to resolve the infringement controversy.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-06-02	’933 Patent Priority Date
2020-12-15	’933 Patent Issued
2022-07-14	Harper sends cease & desist letter to Gleason Industrial
2022-07-19	Harper v. Gleason Industrial in N.D. Indiana
2022-10-04	Precision Products files First Amended Complaint in C.D. Illinois

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,864,933 - "Four Position Hand Truck," issued December 15, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while multi-configuration hand trucks exist, there is a need for a hand truck that can be "quickly and easily transformed between various hand truck configurations" to meet the demands of industrial and parcel delivery services where time and space are limited (ʼ933 Patent, col. 1:30-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a hand truck with a sophisticated head assembly that allows the handle to both pivot to different angles and slide to different lengths. The core of the solution is a single, manually operated release mechanism that controls two distinct sets of locking pins: one set for locking the handle's rotation and another for locking its extension (’933 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:25-34). This dual-action lock allows a user to rapidly reconfigure the hand truck between an upright position, an angled position, and a horizontal cart position (’933 Patent, Figs. 3-6).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a unified locking system for controlling two separate degrees of freedom (rotation and extension) in a convertible hand truck, aiming to improve the speed and ease of transformation between its different functional modes (’933 Patent, col. 1:37-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 4, and 9 (Compl. ¶¶ 21-26).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a multi-position hand truck comprising, among other elements:
  • A frame assembly, a handle assembly, and a head assembly.
  • The head assembly includes a "slide locking pin" and a separate "handle rotation locking pin."
  • A "manually operable release mechanism" that can "simultaneously move" both the rotation and slide locking pins.
• Independent Claim 4 recites a multi-position hand truck comprising:
  • A frame portion and a handle portion.
  • A head assembly that includes a "first releasable lock" for selectively locking the rotational position.
  • A "second releasable lock" for selectively locking the extension or retraction of the handle.
  • A "manually actuated mechanism" that is able to unlock both rotation and sliding movement.
• Independent Claim 9 recites a multi-position hand truck comprising:
  • A frame, a handle, and a head assembly.
  • A locking mechanism including a "first lock for locking out the rotation" and a "second lock for locking out the sliding movement."
  • A mechanism that can be manually actuated to "simultaneously release both the first and second locks."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Model No. 79441 hand truck" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint states that Plaintiff Precision Products manufactures and sells the Model No. 79441 hand truck (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides no affirmative technical description of the accused product's features or operation. Instead, its allegations are framed as a denial that the product contains certain features required by the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23, 25). The complaint alleges that Harper's infringement accusation against this product "places a cloud over Precision Products' products and relationships with potential distributors and customers," establishing the basis for the declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶18).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart from a related litigation as Exhibit 3, but the exhibit itself is not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15). The core non-infringement theory is presented in prose.

The central thesis of the non-infringement argument is that the accused Model No. 79441 hand truck is missing an essential element common to all asserted independent claims: a dual-locking mechanism. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the product does not have both a "handle rotation locking pin and a slide locking pin" as required by Claim 1 (Compl. ¶21), both a "first releasable lock and a second releasable lock" as required by Claim 4 (Compl. ¶23), or both a "first lock and a second lock" as required by Claim 9 (Compl. ¶25). This "missing element" argument is asserted for both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, with the complaint alleging there is no equivalent structure in the accused product that performs the claimed functions in the same way (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24, 26). The complaint does not provide any technical details about the locking mechanism that the accused product does possess.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: What is the actual structure and operation of the locking mechanism in the Model No. 79441 hand truck? The resolution of the case will depend on evidence establishing whether the accused product's mechanism can be characterized as having two distinct locks for rotation and sliding, or if it utilizes a different design.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether the claim terms "first lock" and "second lock" (or analogous language) require two structurally separate and distinct components. The patent's specification appears to show two separate pins (92 and 98), but the claim language itself does not explicitly forbid a single, integrated component from satisfying both limitations if it performs both locking functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a first releasable lock and a second releasable lock" (Claim 4); and the parallel terms "a handle rotation locking pin and a slide locking pin" (Claim 1) and "a first lock... and a second lock" (Claim 9).
• Context and Importance: The entirety of Precision Products' stated non-infringement defense rests on the absence of this dual-lock structure (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction—specifically, whether it requires two structurally independent components—will likely be dispositive of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might point out that the claims do not explicitly recite that the two locks must be structurally separate or non-integral. One could argue that as long as two distinct locking functions (one for rotation, one for sliding) are present, the limitation is met, even if accomplished by a single complex part.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides strong support for a narrower reading. The detailed description and Figure 7 explicitly identify two separate physical components: a "rotation lock pin 92" and a "slide lock pin 98" (’933 Patent, col. 5:9-11, Fig. 7). The specification further describes that a "bridge plate 102 connects pins 92 and 98 but not in a rigid manner," reinforcing the concept that they are two distinct items joined by a linkage (’933 Patent, col. 5:15-17). This repeated description of two separate components may be used to argue that the claims require two structurally distinct locks.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to all forms of infringement, including inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶29). It specifically pleads that because there is no underlying direct infringement, there can be no indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).

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

This case appears to center on a focused dispute over a single, critical aspect of the patented technology. The key questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: Do the claims' requirements for a "first lock" and a "second lock" (or analogous pin-based language) necessitate two structurally separate physical components, as depicted and described in the patent's preferred embodiment, or can a single, integrated mechanism that performs both rotation and slide-locking functions satisfy the limitation?

2. A dispositive evidentiary question will be one of technical fact: Based on the court's construction, does the accused Model No. 79441 hand truck's locking mechanism embody two distinct structures that meet the two-lock limitation, or does its design fundamentally differ in a way that avoids infringement?