DCT
3:17-cv-00208
Days Corp v. Lippert Components Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Days Corporation (Indiana)
- Defendant: Lippert Components, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Clark Hill PLC
- Case Identification: 3:17-cv-00208, N.D. Ind., 06/12/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Lippert Components has its principal place of business in the district, transacts business there, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s auto level systems for recreational vehicles infringe a patent related to an apparatus for automatically leveling a vehicle.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns automatic leveling systems for recreational vehicles (RVs), a technology sector important for vehicle stability, occupant comfort, and the proper functioning of on-board appliances when an RV is parked on uneven ground.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed following pre-suit correspondence in which Defendant Lippert accused Plaintiff Days of infringing two of Lippert's own patents. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the sole asserted claim of the patent-in-suit (Claim 13 of the '693 Patent) was cancelled in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-03-10 | '693 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2003-09-16 | '693 Patent Issued |
| 2016-09-19 | Lippert sends first notice email to Days alleging infringement |
| 2016-10-07 | Lippert sends second notice email to Days |
| 2016-12-05 | Lippert provides claim charts to Days |
| 2017-01-20 | Days responds to Lippert with assertions of non-infringement |
| 2017-02-17 | Lippert reiterates infringement position in a reply to Days |
| 2017-06-12 | Complaint Filed |
| 2021-06-23 | IPR Certificate issued cancelling Claim 13 of the '693 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,619,693 - "Apparatus and Method for Automatically Leveling an Object"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,619,693, "Apparatus and Method for Automatically Leveling an Object," issued September 16, 2003 ('693 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art manual and semi-automated methods for leveling large vehicles as being time-consuming, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous, noting that improper leveling can induce cross-frame stresses that may damage the vehicle frame ('693 Patent, col. 1:31-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a microprocessor-controlled system that uses a plurality of adjustable legs and a dual-axis level sensor to automatically level a vehicle ('693 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect of the patented solution is a controller that includes a memory for storing a "reference level plane" and is specifically configured to allow a user to write new orientation data to that memory, effectively replacing the old reference data and recalibrating the system's "level" target ('693 Patent, col. 10:15-32).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to provide a fully automated, accurate, and safe leveling process for large vehicles like RVs, improving upon prior manual or less sophisticated systems ('693 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 13 ('693 Patent, IPR Certificate; Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
- An apparatus with a plurality of movable legs mounted to a vehicle.
- The legs are movable between a stowed position for travel and an extended position to engage the ground for leveling.
- A sensor to sense the vehicle's pitch and roll relative to a "reference level plane" and produce an orientation signal.
- A controller, coupled to the legs and sensor, that monitors the orientation signal and actuates the legs until the vehicle reaches the reference level plane.
- The controller includes a memory for storing data for the reference level plane and is configured to "write data representing an orientation signal to the memory to replace the reference level plane data with orientation signal data."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, though it is noted that Claim 12 was also cancelled in the same IPR proceeding that cancelled Claim 13 ('693 Patent, IPR Certificate).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Lippert's auto level systems for motor homes" generally (Compl. ¶70) and the "Level Up Towable RV Leveling System" specifically as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶77).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused Lippert System is an automatic vehicle leveling system that comprises four or six legs, a sensor, and a controller (Compl. ¶¶71, 73). The controller allegedly monitors pitch and roll signals from the sensor and actuates the legs to move the vehicle to a level orientation (Compl. ¶74). Crucially, the complaint alleges the controller includes a memory for a reference level plane and can write new orientation signal data to that memory to replace the existing reference data (Compl. ¶75).
- The complaint positions the parties as direct competitors in the recreational vehicle (RV) industry, both operating in Elkhart, Indiana, and selling competing vehicle leveling systems (Compl. ¶¶12-14).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'693 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for automatically leveling a vehicle, comprising: a plurality of legs each of which is mounted to the vehicle; | "The Lippert System will automatically level a vehicle, such as a motor home. The Lippert System comprises either four or six legs mounted to the vehicle." | ¶71 | col. 2:1-4 |
| wherein each of the legs is movable between a retracted stowed position and an extended use position; | "Each of the legs can be moved between a retracted, stowed position and an extended use position." | ¶71 | col. 2:5-7 |
| wherein each of the legs is moved to the retracted stowed position to allow the vehicle to travel and each of the legs is moved to the extended use position to engage a ground surface prior to leveling the vehicle; | "When the vehicle is traveling, each of the legs is in the retracted, stowed position. When the vehicle is parked, each of the legs can be extended to the extended use position to engage a ground surface." | ¶¶71-72 | col. 13:17-21 |
| a sensor mounted to the vehicle to sense pitch and roll of the vehicle relative to a reference level plane; | "The Lippert System has a sensor mounted to the vehicle that senses the pitch and roll of the vehicle relative to a level plane." | ¶73 | col. 13:22-24 |
| wherein the sensor produces an orientation signal representing the vehicle pitch and roll; and | "The sensor sends an orientation signal representing the pitch and roll to a controller." | ¶74 | col. 13:25-27 |
| a controller coupled to each of the legs and the sensor; | The controller is coupled to the sensor from which it receives an orientation signal and to the legs, which it actuates in response. | ¶¶73-74 | col. 13:28 |
| wherein the controller monitors the orientation signal... and in response to that signal the controller actuates at least one of the legs to move the vehicle... until the orientation of the vehicle reaches the reference level plane within a tolerance; and | "The controller monitors that signal and actuates one or more of the legs to move the vehicle relative to the ground surface until the vehicle reaches a reference level plane..." | ¶74 | col. 13:29-35 |
| wherein the controller includes a memory for storing data corresponding to the reference level plane and is configured to write data representing an orientation signal to the memory to replace the reference level plane data with orientation signal data. | "The controller includes memory for storing the reference level plane. The controller writes data representing the orientation signal to the memory to replace the reference level plane data..." | ¶75 | col. 13:36-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The infringement allegations in the complaint track the claim language in a conclusory manner, supported by reference to a declaration that is not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶48). A central point of contention will be what technical evidence (e.g., source code, product testing, technical manuals) Plaintiff can produce to substantiate that the accused products actually perform each claimed step.
- Technical Questions: The final limitation requires a specific software function: a controller "configured to... replace the reference level plane data." The dispute may focus on whether the accused system's software performs this exact operation. This raises the question of whether any writing of new target data to memory constitutes "replacing" the reference plane, or if it requires a specific user-initiated recalibration function as described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "reference level plane"
Context and Importance: This term defines the target state for the leveling operation. Its construction is critical because the most specific limitation of the asserted claim—and a likely point of dispute—is the controller's ability to "replace" the data corresponding to this plane. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system's stored target values constitute a "reference level plane" as contemplated by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the controller as having "a memory for storing data representing a reference level plane," which could be argued to encompass any set of stored coordinates that the system uses as a target for leveling ('693 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description teaches a specific "recalibrate reference level mode" where a user manually levels the vehicle and then gives a command to "replace the previous reference level plane data with the newly calibrated reference level plane data" ('693 Patent, col. 10:25-32). This could support a narrower definition requiring a persistent, user-defined baseline that serves as the fundamental "level" reference for all subsequent automatic operations.
The Term: "configured to write data... to replace the reference level plane data"
Context and Importance: This functional language is the heart of the claim's novel feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any updating of a target value infringes, or if infringement requires a specific, permanent recalibration feature.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any software function that overwrites the memory location where target orientation values are stored meets the plain meaning of "replace."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's only detailed description of this function is in the context of a field recalibration procedure ('693 Patent, col. 10:15-32). This suggests the "replacement" is a deliberate act to establish a new, persistent "zero" point for the system, not a temporary or algorithmic adjustment of a target during a single leveling cycle.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶78) and seeks treble damages (Compl. p. 17, ¶H). The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '693 Patent. The basis for willfulness appears to be an allegation of post-suit knowledge based on the filing of the complaint itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central, and likely dispositive, threshold issue will be one of "viability": as the sole asserted claim (Claim 13 of the '693 Patent) was cancelled during a post-filing inter partes review, it raises the fundamental question of how the infringement claim can be maintained, since a cancelled claim cannot be infringed.
A key evidentiary question will be one of "functional implementation": assuming the claim were valid, does the accused Lippert system's controller perform the specific software function of allowing a stored 'reference level plane' to be overwritten and replaced by new orientation data, and what technical evidence beyond the complaint's conclusory allegations supports this?
A critical claim construction question will be the "definitional scope" of the recalibration feature: must the controller be "configured to... replace" the reference data through a specific, user-initiated recalibration procedure as detailed in the patent's embodiment, or can the term be construed more broadly to cover any software process that overwrites a target orientation value in memory?