1:23-cv-00398
Davaus LLC v. S7 IP Holdings LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Davaus, LLC (Indiana)
- Defendant: S7 IP Holdings, LLC (South Dakota); Shawn Gengerke (South Dakota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barrett McNagny LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00398, USDC IN/ND, 03/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Davaus alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Indiana because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in the district, where Davaus has its principal place of business, and because Defendant S7 sent letters accusing infringement into the district.
- Core Dispute: In this declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff Davaus seeks a court declaration that its Kernel Keeper™ product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,961,830, and/or that the patent is invalid or unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical attachments for agricultural combine cornheads, which are designed to reduce the loss of corn kernels during the harvesting process.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint indicates the dispute arose from a series of letters from S7 to Davaus and its distributor, beginning in August 2023, accusing the Kernel Keeper™ product of infringement and demanding cessation of sales. These communications form the basis for the asserted actual controversy required for declaratory judgment jurisdiction.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-12-06 | ’830 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-05-08 | ’830 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-18 | S7 sends first letter alleging infringement to distributor |
| 2023-08-31 | Davaus responds, identifying itself as manufacturer |
| 2023-09-07 | S7 sends letter to Davaus, maintaining infringement of Claim 3 |
| 2024-02-12 | S7 sends email reasserting infringement |
| 2024-03-29 | Davaus files Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,961,830, COMBINE CORNHEAD ROW UNIT FOR REDUCING FIELD YIELD LOSSES, issued May 8, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies economic losses in corn harvesting that occur at the cornhead, where the impact of corn ears on stripper plates and conveyor paddles causes kernels to shake loose and fall to the ground, a phenomenon termed "chatter loss" (’830 Patent, col. 1:53-59). Prior art designs allowed these loose kernels to be lost instead of collected (’830 Patent, col. 1:59-2:6).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes modifications to a cornhead row unit to mitigate this loss. The solution includes adding upward-projecting guard rails to the stripper plates to contain loose kernels, and, centrally, attaching "impact absorbing bumpers" to the gathering chain paddles (’830 Patent, col. 2:16-19). These bumpers cushion the impact of corn ears to reduce initial shelling. The invention further describes attaching brushes or scrapers to the paddles to sweep any remaining loose kernels from the stripper plates into the combine’s collection auger, thereby making them part of the final yield (’830 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:29-39).
- Technical Importance: The described technology aims to directly address a known source of yield loss in mechanized agriculture by providing a system to both prevent kernel loss from impact and actively recover kernels that do become dislodged at the cornhead (’830 Patent, col. 1:60-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint states that Defendant S7 has specifically asserted infringement of Claim 3 (Compl. ¶14).
- Independent Claim 3 requires a combination comprising:
- a) a pair of gathering chains, each surrounding sprockets and having paddles affixed to the chains;
- b) a plurality of cushioning members joined to the paddles to cushion impacts from harvested corn ears; and
- c) the cushioning members supporting brush bristles.
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claim of the Patent," thereby reserving the right to contest other claims (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶(a)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the Davaus "Kernel Keeper™" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The Kernel Keeper™ is described as a product for the "American farmer" that is intended to be fitted to a combine cornhead (Compl. ¶10-11). It is alleged to feature "kernel-retaining stalk-gap rails and gathering chain-brushes" (Compl. ¶11). The stated purpose of the product is to "increase the yield of corn crops by reducing the number of kernels lost in the harvesting process," which directly aligns with the problem addressed by the ’830 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes several images of the accused product, one of which is a computer-aided design drawing showing the components of a brush assembly designed to fasten to a gathering chain (Compl. ¶14, p. 5). This drawing shows the accused Kernel Keeper™ brush as an assembly of a mounting block, fasteners, and bristles, which attaches to the trailing side of a lug on the gathering chain (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart but describes Defendant S7's infringement theory with reference to images of the accused product. The following chart summarizes that theory as it pertains to Claim 3 of the ’830 Patent.
’830 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a pair of gathering chains ... the gathering chains each having paddles... | The Kernel Keeper™ is a system designed to be attached to the existing paddles or lugs of a combine's gathering chains (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 6:10-15 |
| b) a plurality of cushioning members joined to the paddles... | S7's allegation is based on images of the "Kernel Keeper™ brush fastened to the... gathering chain lug," suggesting S7's position is that the entire brush assembly, or the block it is mounted on, functions as a "cushioning member" (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 6:16-19 |
| c) the cushioning members supporting brush bristles. | The images provided in the complaint show a brush assembly where a block member supports bristles. If the block is deemed a "cushioning member," it would also be "supporting brush bristles" (Compl. p. 5). | ¶14 | col. 6:20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be the proper construction of the term "cushioning member." The infringement question turns on whether the accused Kernel Keeper™ brush assembly, which appears to be a block holding bristles, can be considered a "cushioning member" as required by the claim. The patent specification describes this element as an "L-shaped piece 46 of a molded polyurethane" that is distinct from, though attached to, the brush bristles (52) (’830 Patent, col. 4:15-18, Fig. 6).
- Technical Questions: What evidence exists that the accused product's mounting block is "joined to the paddles so as to cushion impacts," as opposed to merely serving as a structure for holding the brush bristles? The claim requires the member to perform a cushioning function, and the patent describes this function as dissipating the kinetic energy of corn ears to reduce shelling (’830 Patent, col. 4:26-28). The case may require evidence on whether the accused product's design achieves this specific function or if its primary role is sweeping.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cushioning member"
This term appears in elements (b) and (c) of asserted independent Claim 3 and is dispositive of the infringement analysis presented in the complaint. If the accused product is found to lack a "cushioning member," it cannot infringe this claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patentee's infringement theory, as presented by the plaintiff, appears to equate an entire brush-and-block assembly with the claimed "cushioning member."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader definition might point to the functional language in the patent's summary, which describes "impact absorbing bumpers" that are "adapted to reduce shatter shelling by cushioning the impacts of ears of corn" (’830 Patent, col. 2:16-19). This focus on the function of cushioning, rather than a specific structure, could support an interpretation where any component that provides some cushioning effect meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower definition would likely highlight the detailed description and Figure 6. The specification describes a specific preferred embodiment: "an L-shaped piece 46 of a molded polyurethane" (’830 Patent, col. 4:15-16). Figure 6 clearly depicts the cushioning member (46) and the brush (52) as separate, albeit connected, components. This could support an argument that a "cushioning member" must be a distinct element whose primary purpose is impact absorption, rather than simply being the block that holds brush bristles.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint states that S7's demand letters accused Davaus of inducing infringement by "encouraging others to use" the Kernel Keeper™ in a manner that allegedly infringes Claim 3 (Compl. ¶15). Davaus, in turn, seeks a declaration that it has not indirectly infringed any claim of the patent (Compl. ¶21).
Willful Infringement
While Davaus has not been accused of willful infringement in a counterclaim as of the filing of this complaint, the complaint establishes a clear record of pre-suit notice. S7's letters, starting August 18, 2023, informed Davaus of the ’830 Patent and S7’s specific infringement contentions (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 12, 14). This history of communication would likely form the basis for a future willfulness allegation by S7.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical function. The key issues for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cushioning member," which the patent illustrates as a discrete polyurethane impact absorber, be properly construed to encompass the integrated mounting block of the accused Kernel Keeper™ brush assembly?
- A related evidentiary question will be one of primary function: does the accused product's mounting block perform the specific function of "cushion[ing] impacts" as required by Claim 3, or does it primarily serve as a structural support for the brush, with any cushioning effect being merely incidental to its main purpose?