DCT
3:22-cv-00123
Thor Industries Inc v
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Keystone RV Company (Delaware/Indiana) and Thor Tech, Inc. (Nevada/Indiana)
- Defendant: Winnebago Industries, Inc. (Minnesota/Minnesota) and Winnebago of Indiana, LLC (Iowa/Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ryan M. Fountain
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00123, N.D. Ind., 04/08/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Winnebago of Indiana, LLC maintaining a regular and established place of business within the district where it allegedly manufactures and sells the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fifth-wheel travel trailers infringe two patents related to a downward-facing reflector on the front of the trailer designed to assist a driver in aligning the vehicle for hitching.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses a common operational challenge in the recreational vehicle (RV) market, where simplifying the process of connecting a large fifth-wheel trailer to a towing vehicle is a significant user convenience feature.
- Key Procedural History: This Amended Complaint adds infringement allegations for a second patent and withdraws prior false advertising claims. The complaint details pre-suit communications, including a September 2021 notice of infringement to the Defendant and the Defendant’s subsequent representation that it had ceased production, a representation the Plaintiff alleges was false and which forms the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-09-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,500,690 Priority Date |
| 2005-09-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,775,543 Priority Date |
| 2009-03-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,500,690 Issued |
| 2010-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,775,543 Issued |
| 2019-09-01 | Accused "Voyage" Product Line Introduced |
| 2021-09-01 | Plaintiff Notifies Defendant of Alleged Infringement (approx. date) |
| 2021-09-28 | Plaintiff Sends Written Infringement Notice to Defendant |
| 2021-10-26 | Defendant Responds to Notice, Allegedly Stating Production Stopped |
| 2022-04-08 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,775,543 - “Recreational Vehicle”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,775,543, “Recreational Vehicle,” issued August 17, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty a driver faces when maneuvering a towing vehicle to connect its hitch to a fifth-wheel trailer, particularly without assistance from a spotter outside the vehicle (’543 Patent, col. 1:46-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a reflector mounted on the elevated front portion of the trailer. This reflector is positioned to face forward and downward, allowing the driver to look in the vehicle's rearview mirror and see a simultaneous reflection of both the vehicle's hitch and the trailer's mounting arrangement as the vehicle backs up. This visual feedback is intended to simplify the alignment process (’543 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-65). The reflector is also described as being mounted on the trailer surface without extending outward, which reduces the likelihood of it being damaged during use (’543 Patent, col. 3:5-9).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a passive, low-cost solution to a persistent operational challenge for RV users, aiming to make the hitching process a one-person task. (’543 Patent, col. 1:46-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A trailer body with an elevated front portion and a downward-extending mounting arrangement.
- A reflector that is "integral" with the front portion of the trailer body.
- The reflector must face forward and downward to allow the driver to view the reflection of the hitch assembly and mounting arrangement while backing up, thereby facilitating connection.
- The reflector must be "mounted on the trailer body surface and not extending outward from the surface such that the likelihood of damage to the reflector in use is reduced."
U.S. Patent No. 7,500,690 - “Recreational Vehicle”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,500,690, “Recreational Vehicle,” issued March 10, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As the parent to the ’543 patent, the ’690 patent addresses the same technical problem of aligning a fifth-wheel trailer for hitching without external assistance (’690 Patent, col. 1:41-49).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that of the ’543 patent: a forward-and-downward-facing reflector. The complaint notes that the claims of the ’690 patent differ by addressing the "specific structure of the reflector" (Compl. ¶39). Asserted Claim 2 specifically requires the reflector to be constructed from a particular type of material.
- Technical Importance: The invention offers a visual aid to improve the efficiency and ease of the trailer hitching process, a significant usability factor in the RV market (’690 Patent, col. 1:41-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 2 (Compl. ¶49).
- Independent Claim 2 requires:
- A trailer body with an elevated front portion and a downward-extending mounting arrangement.
- A reflector that is "integral" with the front portion of the trailer body.
- The reflector must face forward and downward to facilitate connection by providing a view of the hitch components.
- The reflector must include "a surface having a layer of reflective material, and said layer of reflective material comprising a layer of reflective film adhesively secured to said trailer body."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "Voyage" and "Spyder" brand fifth-wheel travel trailers manufactured and sold by Defendant Winnebago (Compl. ¶12, 16, 45).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused trailers incorporate a "back-up assist mirror" feature, which it also refers to as a "Hitch Vision mirror" (Compl. ¶14, 16). This feature is a reflector located on the front cap of the trailer.
- The complaint alleges this reflector is positioned to allow the driver of a towing vehicle to see the trailer's hitch pin box and the truck-bed hitch at the same time, for the purpose of alignment (Compl. ¶14, 47). Figure 5 of the complaint provides a perspective view of an accused Voyage trailer, with callouts identifying the trailer body, front portion, mounting arrangement, and the accused reflector (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 5).
- The complaint positions the Defendant as a direct competitor and alleges that sales of the accused products have generated significant revenue and deprived the Plaintiff of sales (Compl. ¶20, 54).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’543 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trailer intended to be towed by a vehicle with a vehicle hitch assembly, the trailer body having an elevated front portion, with a mounting arrangement extending downward from beneath said front portion | The accused Voyage and Spyder products are fifth-wheel trailers with an elevated front portion and a downward-extending mounting arrangement. | ¶12, ¶14 | col. 1:26-38 |
| a reflector, integral with the front portion of the trailer body | The accused trailers include a reflector, identified as element D in complaint visuals. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 2:50-54 |
| said reflector facing forward and downward such that the driver of a towing vehicle may view the reflection of said vehicle hitch assembly and said mounting arrangement...such that positioning the towing vehicle...is facilitated | The reflector is alleged to be highly reflective and angled to face forward and downward to "enable the hitch positioning function." | ¶14 | col. 2:55-62 |
| said reflector being mounted on the trailer body surface and not extending outward from the surface such that the likelihood of damage to the reflector in use is reduced | The reflector is alleged to be "mounted to the trailer body surface without extending outwardly therefrom, providing the protection function." | ¶14 | col. 3:5-9 |
- ’690 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trailer intended to be towed with a towing vehicle...comprising: a trailer body having an elevated front portion, with a mounting arrangement extending downward from beneath said front portion | The accused Voyage and Spyder products are fifth-wheel trailers with the described configuration. | ¶45, ¶46 | col. 1:26-38 |
| a reflector, integral with the front portion of the trailer body, said reflector facing forward and downward such that the driver of a towing vehicle may view the reflection...thereby aiding the driver in positioning the towing vehicle | The accused trailers' reflector is alleged to be positioned to enable the hitch positioning function. Figure 6 provides a close-up view of the accused reflector (D). | ¶47, p. 22 | col. 2:55-62 |
| said reflector including a surface having a layer of reflective material, and said layer of reflective material comprising a layer of reflective film adhesively secured to said trailer body | The complaint alleges that the reflector has a surface layer of reflective material and an adhesive layer that secures it to the trailer body. | ¶48 | col. 2:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the ’543 patent requires the reflector to be mounted "not extending outward from the surface." The infringement analysis may turn on how this limitation is construed, particularly if the accused reflector is housed in a bezel or frame that creates any surface protrusion.
- Technical Questions: For the ’690 patent, Claim 2 requires a specific construction: a "layer of reflective film adhesively secured." The complaint alleges this element is met but provides no visual or technical evidence beyond a conclusory statement (Compl. ¶48). A key question is what evidence supports the claim that the accused reflector is an adhesive-backed film, as opposed to another structure like a polished metal plate.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "integral with the front portion of the trailer body"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in both asserted independent claims. Its construction is critical because it could define the required relationship between the reflector and the trailer body. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent explicitly links it to the functional benefit of damage reduction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the reflector is "mounted on the trailer body surface" (’690 Patent, col. 2:52-53), which a party could argue simply means attached, without a strict requirement of being flush or recessed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides its own definition: "The reflector is 'integral' in the sense that it is mounted on the trailer body surface, and does not extend outward from the body, thereby reducing the likelihood that it might be damaged in use" (’690 Patent, col. 2:52-56). This language suggests "integral" requires a non-protruding configuration. Figure 3 of the patent shows the reflector (22) set within the contours of the front cap, supporting this narrower view.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant encourages and assists dealers and end-users to infringe by advertising the accused products on its website, providing dealer locators, and publishing marketing videos that demonstrate the "Hitch Vision" feature (Compl. ¶19, 53). Knowledge is alleged based on pre-suit notice in September 2021 and, for the ’690 patent, on alleged awareness of Plaintiff's patented and marked products on the market (Compl. ¶19, 53).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’543 patent based on Defendant's alleged conduct after receiving notice of infringement in September 2021 (Compl. ¶30). The central allegation is that Defendant falsely represented that it had stopped production of the accused products in "early 2021" but continued to manufacture, market, and sell them (Compl. ¶22, 24). This claim is supported by allegations referencing motor vehicle registration data and an SEC filing that purportedly contradict Defendant's representation (Compl. ¶24, 29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the phrase "not extending outward from the surface" in Claim 1 of the ’543 patent be construed to read on the accused reflector's specific physical mounting, which may involve a housing or bezel that creates some level of protrusion? The resolution will likely depend on the degree to which any protrusion is found to negate the patented benefit of reduced damage.
- A second pivotal issue will be evidentiary and factual, relating to willfulness: did the Defendant, after receiving specific notice of infringement, misrepresent its production status to the Plaintiff while continuing to make and sell the accused products? The court's finding will turn on the strength of the evidence presented, including the vehicle registration data and corporate filings cited in the complaint.
- For the ’690 patent specifically, a key question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused reflector is constructed from a "layer of reflective film adhesively secured to said trailer body," as required by Claim 2, or will discovery reveal a different material composition that falls outside the claim's scope?