DCT

1:24-cv-00712

Floyd A Davis III v. Changzhou HAOLING Vehicle Industry Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00712, N.D. Ill., 02/27/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurring in the district, specifically at a Des Plaines, Illinois address allegedly used by the Defendants.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ truck-bed caddy products infringe a patent related to vehicle cargo area accessories.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns accessories for organizing and securing items within the open cargo area of a pickup truck bed, a market segment focused on improving vehicle utility.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that multiple defendants are alter egos of Defendant Haoling, operating as a single integrated system. The complaint also references findings from a prior, separate case in the District of Minnesota involving certain trade names used by the Defendants, though it does not specify the nature or outcome of those findings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-06-13 ’241 Patent Priority Date
2020 Plaintiff's "Davis' 48-inch caddy" introduced
2020-05-12 ’241 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-01 Alleged Infringing Offers first published on the Internet
2024-02-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,647,241 - "Truck caddy"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,647,241, "Truck caddy," issued May 12, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of large, open pickup truck beds for transporting smaller items, which can be displaced during driving. It notes that existing solutions are often either difficult to remove or are not securely fastened to the vehicle ('241 Patent, col. 1:11-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a removable truck-bed caddy designed to sit at the rear of the truck bed. It comprises a body with a bottom, a forward wall, and two sidewalls. This body is held in place by "at least two elongate members" that secure it within the truck bed but also allow it to be pulled rearward onto an open tailgate for easy access to its contents ('241 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:46-56). Figure 6 of the patent illustrates how these elongate members can be attached to both the caddy's sidewall and an existing structure inside the truck bed ('241 Patent, Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a cargo management system that is both securely installed to prevent movement during transit and easily accessible without requiring a user to climb into the truck bed ('241 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, and 20 (Compl. ¶52). Independent claim 1 is detailed as exemplary of the infringement (Compl. ¶53).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • In combination with a pickup truck having a truck bed, a truck-bed caddy comprising:
    • a body member having a bottom wall, a forward wall extending upwardly from the bottom wall across the truck bed, and a pair of sidewalls each connected to the bottom and forward walls; and
    • at least two elongate members movably securing the body member with respect to an interior of the truck in a position rearward of inward truck wheel structures and permitting rearward movement of the secured body member onto an open tailgate.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but lists several dependent claims in its general infringement allegation (Compl. ¶52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is a "truck-bed caddy" marketed as a "Tailgate Bed Cargo Box" (Compl. ¶¶37, 39). It is allegedly sold through various online retailers, including Amazon.com and Walmart.com, under brand names such as HECASA, KUAFU, and KOJEM (Compl. ¶¶40-42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused product is a 48-inch wide cargo box that "pulls out through the opening onto your tailgate like a large utility drawer" (Compl. ¶39). It is installed using "mounting accessories" that include "straps and rubber-coated S-hooks" (Compl. ¶39). The complaint includes a photograph from an online product listing showing the accused caddy, its straps, and its placement in a truck bed. This image depicts the caddy as a molded plastic container with straps attaching its sides to points within the truck bed (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges the product is a "slavish copy" of the Plaintiffs' "LAST BOKS®" product and is sold through the same trade channels (Compl. ¶¶59, 61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’241 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In combination with a pickup truck having a truck bed, a truck-bed caddy comprising: The Infringing Offers describe and show the product as a "truck-bed caddy" for use in a pickup truck. ¶53 col. 5:1
a body member having a bottom wall, a forward wall extending upwardly from the bottom wall across the truck bed, and a pair of sidewalls each connected to the bottom and forward walls; The accused product is alleged to have this body structure, as shown in images from the Infringing Offers. ¶53 col. 5:2-5
at least two elongate members movably securing the body member with respect to an interior of the truck in a position rearward of inward truck wheel structures and permitting rearward movement of the secured body member onto an open tailgate. The accused product is alleged to include elements, such as straps, that secure the body and permit rearward movement, as shown and described in the Infringing Offers. ¶53 col. 5:5-9

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "movably securing." The patent specification describes embodiments where "elastic" members are "stretched between the lower and higher positions, thus pulling the body member toward the floor of the truck bed" ('241 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:57-65). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product's "straps and rubber-coated S-hooks" (Compl. ¶39) perform this function or if the claim term should be construed more broadly to cover any non-fixed attachment that allows for repositioning.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused product's "elongate members" (straps) satisfy the claim limitation of "permitting rearward movement of the secured body member onto an open tailgate." An evidentiary question is whether the accused straps, as they actually function, are part of a system that facilitates this specific movement, or if they merely serve to anchor the caddy in a single position.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "movably securing"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the functional relationship between the caddy and the truck. Its construction will determine whether the accused product's simple strap-based attachment system falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification repeatedly discusses a specific method of securing via tension.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of "movably securing" could be argued to mean any method of attachment that is not permanent and allows for movement, which could encompass the accused straps.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific action: "The elastic length of each of the at least two elongate members is stretched...thus pulling the body member toward the floor of the truck bed" ('241 Patent, col. 1:62-65). Dependent claim 3 explicitly requires an "elastic length." A defendant could argue this context limits "movably securing" in independent claim 1 to a system that provides active, downward tension, rather than just passive anchoring.

The Term: "elongate members"

  • Context and Importance: The identity of this structural element is core to the infringement read. The dispute will likely involve whether the accused "straps" are the "elongate members" contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic, and the accused straps are physically "elongate." The patent discloses that the members may have hooks, consistent with the accused product's "S-hooks" ('241 Patent, col. 2:50-58).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the "at least two elongate members" as being "of a plurality of elongate members with an elastic length" ('241 Patent, Abstract). This phrasing suggests that elasticity is an inherent quality of the "elongate members" as used in the invention, potentially narrowing the term to exclude non-elastic straps.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶52). The factual basis for this claim appears to be Defendants' alleged acts of "making, offering to sell, selling and using" the product, which would necessarily include providing instructions to end-users on how to install and use the caddy in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶51).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the claim that Defendants were "informed of '241 Patent prior to making and marketing the Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶54). This alleges pre-suit knowledge of the patent and of the alleged infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "movably securing" and "elongate members," which are described in the patent's preferred embodiments in the context of an elastic tensioning system, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused product's simpler, non-elastic strap-and-hook anchoring mechanism?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused product's strap system perform the dual functions required by Claim 1 of both "securing" the caddy rearward of the wheel wells and affirmatively "permitting rearward movement...onto an open tailgate," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation as compared to the system claimed in the patent?