DCT
1:25-cv-03963
Sidekick USA LLC v. Van's Enterprises Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sidekick USA, LLC (Illinois)
- Defendant: Van's Enterprisess, Ltd. (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: LEFEVOUR LAW, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03963, N.D. Ill., Filed 04/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as both Plaintiff and Defendant are Illinois corporations with their principal places of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sod positioning machines infringe a patent related to an apparatus for laterally shifting and compressing sod strips to tighten seams.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to mechanized landscaping equipment, specifically attachments for vehicles used in large-scale sod installation, aiming to improve the quality and efficiency of laying turf.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-01-25 | ’199 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2015-05-12 | ’199 Patent Issued |
| 2025-04-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,028,199 - "Sod Positioning Machine"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,028,199, "Sod Positioning Machine", issued May 12, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional methods of closing gaps between adjacent, newly laid sod strips. These methods often involve manual labor or using the traction of a vehicle (like a skid steer) to push the sod sideways. This can damage the un-sodded ground by creating ruts, requiring rework before subsequent sod strips can be laid (’199 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle-mounted apparatus that can push sod strips laterally without requiring the vehicle itself to drive perpendicular to the sod lay direction. It employs a "pushing plate" slidably mounted on a frame, which is extended and retracted by actuators (e.g., hydraulic cylinders) to press one sod strip tightly against another, compressing it to eliminate gaps (’199 Patent, col. 2:32-41; Fig. 2). This allows the vehicle to travel parallel to the sod strips, improving efficiency and preventing damage to the underlying soil bed (’199 Patent, col. 4:25-33).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to mechanize and refine the final positioning of sod, a task that was previously labor-intensive or risked damaging the prepared ground surface, thereby increasing the speed and quality of large-scale turf installation (’199 Patent, col. 1:29-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 8, and 9 (Compl. ¶10).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- A structure for mounting on a vehicle.
- A pushing plate slidably mounted to the structure, with a flat horizontal surface and a vertical pushing surface for abutting a sod strip.
- At least one actuator mounted between the structure and the pushing plate to slide the plate away from the structure.
- The actuator is further operative to force the pushing plate to compress the newly placed sod strip against an adjacent one.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses "one or more infringing sod positioning machines" made and/or used by the Defendant (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are "sod positioning machines" but provides no specific details on their features, operation, or market context beyond the allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused sod positioning machines infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’199 Patent (Compl. ¶10). The specific mapping of accused features to claim elements is not detailed in the complaint. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as can be inferred from the general allegations.
’199 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for positioning sod strips, comprising: a structure for mounting on a vehicle; | The complaint alleges Defendant makes and/or uses sod positioning machines, which are implicitly alleged to include a structure for mounting on a vehicle. | ¶10 | col. 5:50 |
| a pushing plate slidably mounted to the structure, the pushing plate having a flat horizontal surface and a vertical pushing surface arranged to be abuttable to a vertical edge of a newly placed sod strip... | The accused machines are alleged to possess a slidably mounted pushing plate with the claimed surfaces for abutting a sod strip. | ¶10 | col. 5:51-58 |
| at least one actuator operatively mounted between the structure and the pushing plate to slide the pushing plate in a first direction away from the structure to position the newly placed sod strip... | The accused machines are alleged to use at least one actuator to move the pushing plate to position sod. | ¶10 | col. 5:59-63 |
| the actuator further operative to force the pushing plate to compress the newly placed sod strip against the adjacent, previously placed flat sod strip... | The accused machines' actuator is alleged to be operative to compress a newly placed sod strip against an adjacent one. | ¶10 | col. 6:62-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of detail on the accused product raises the question of whether every component of the accused machine maps to the claimed elements. For example, does the accused machine's "pushing plate" possess both the "flat horizontal surface" and "vertical pushing surface" in the specific arrangement required by the claim?
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the actuator in the accused product is merely for positioning or if it is "operative to force the pushing plate to compress the newly placed sod strip," as claimed. Evidence of compression, rather than simple abutment, may be required to prove infringement of this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms based on the accused product's features. However, based on the patent's disclosure, the following term may become a focus of dispute.
- The Term: "pushing plate"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the invention that interacts with the sod. Its construction will define what structures can be considered infringing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification describes it with a specific L-shaped profile, which could be used to argue for a narrower definition than any simple, flat pushing surface.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. A party could argue that any plate-like structure that is pushed against the sod meets the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the pushing plate as having a specific structure: "The plate 170 has a bottom wall 178 and an upturned front wall 180" (’199 Patent, col. 4:59-60). Claim 13 further specifies this structure as being "configured in an upright L-shaped profile" (’199 Patent, col. 6:60-62). A party may argue this more detailed description limits the scope of "pushing plate" throughout the claims.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of contributory and inducement infringement without providing specific supporting facts, such as the sale of a component with instructions for an infringing use or knowledge that a component was especially made for infringement (Compl. ¶10).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead willfulness or allege pre-suit knowledge. The allegation of ongoing infringement after the filing of the suit could potentially support a claim for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶11).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the limited factual allegations in the complaint, the initial phase of the case will likely focus on discovery to establish the precise nature of the accused products. The key questions that emerge are:
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused machines, as actually built and used, perform the specific function of compressing a newly laid sod strip against an adjacent one, as required by the claim, or do they merely push it into place without measurable compression?
- A second key issue will be one of claim scope: Will the term "pushing plate" be construed broadly to cover any surface that pushes sod, or will it be limited by the specification's more detailed description of an "L-shaped" structure with distinct horizontal and vertical walls? The answer will determine whether a wider or narrower range of competing devices infringes the patent.