DCT

1:10-cv-01379

Forecast Sales v. Axxiom Mfg Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-01379, S.D. Ind., 10/29/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Indiana on the basis that Defendant Axxiom has at least one distributor or dealer in the district and regularly conducts significant business there.
  • Core Dispute: Relator alleges that Defendant's abrasive blasting equipment is falsely marked with expired patent numbers in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292, with the purpose of deceiving the public and gaining an unfair competitive advantage.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to industrial abrasive blasting (e.g., sandblasting) equipment, specifically the valves and systems used to store, transport, and dispense abrasive media.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant Axxiom previously filed a non-patent lawsuit against Plaintiff Forecast in Texas, alleging claims related to trademark and unfair competition, which may provide context for the parties' competitive relationship and Defendant's alleged intent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1968-02-01 U.S. Patent No. 3,476,440 ('440) priority date
1969-11-04 '440 Patent issued
1980-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 4,322,058 ('058) priority date
1980-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 4,339,897 ('897) priority date
1982-03-30 '058 Patent issued
1982-07-20 '897 Patent issued
1982-07-20 U.S. Patent No. 4,339,887 ('887) issued
1986-11-04 '440 Patent expired
1999-11-07 '897 Patent expired
2000-04-18 '887 Patent expired
2000-08-07 '058 Patent expired
2003-07-01 Axxiom Manufacturing, Inc. was incorporated in North Carolina
2006-10-01 Axxiom website updated to claim it is the "exclusive manufacturer"
2009-11-17 Axxiom sued Forecast in Texas federal court (non-patent issues)
2010-10-29 Complaint for False Patent Marking filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 3,476,440 - Portable Abrasive Container and Dispenser Unit

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty and inefficiency of transporting sand and other abrasives in sacks, which had to be manually handled, stacked, and emptied into separate dispensing equipment at a job site (ʼ440 Patent, col. 1:25-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, large, portable unit that functions as both a transport container and a pressurized dispenser. It is designed to be filled with abrasive material at a bulk supply point, transported to a worksite, and then pressurized to dispense the abrasive directly, eliminating the need for manual handling of sacks (ʼ440 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-8). The unit incorporates a specialized metering valve (V) to control the flow of the abrasive material (ʼ440 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach combined bulk transportation and on-site dispensing, aiming to reduce labor costs and logistical complexity in sandblasting operations (ʼ440 Patent, col. 1:35-43).

U.S. Patent No. 4,339,897 - Sandblasting Methods and Apparatus

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In automated sandblasting systems, pressure vessels must be depressurized (a "blowdown" operation) when not in use. This process carries a significant amount of abrasive material through the blowdown valve, causing frequent valve failure and operational unreliability (ʼ897 Patent, col. 1:35-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a dual-valve apparatus that integrates an air control valve with a blowdown valve. The blowdown mechanism is a "guillotine type valve" that operates by pinching a section of elastomeric hose (86) to stop flow (ʼ897 Patent, col. 2:16-25, Fig. 1). When the main air control valve is opened for sandblasting, it simultaneously actuates a mechanism (bar 55) that pinches the blowdown hose shut. Conversely, when the main valve is closed, the mechanism releases the hose, allowing it to open resiliently and vent the pressure vessel (ʼ897 Patent, col. 4:51-59).
  • Technical Importance: By using a durable, elastomeric hose as the primary flow path for the abrasive-laden blowdown air, the invention sought to create a more wear-resistant and reliable automatic blowdown system compared to those using traditional valve components subject to internal abrasion (ʼ897 Patent, col. 2:46-53).

U.S. Patent No. 4,322,058 - Pipe Side Valve

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a valve designed to control the flow of particulate abrasive materials. The key feature is a unitary plunger that moves axially to open or close a lateral inlet, with the valve body and plunger being constructed of abrasion-resistant surfaces to improve durability and extend the operational life of the component in harsh environments (ʼ058 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: This is a false marking action; no claims are asserted for infringement.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Micro Valve" products are marked with the '058 patent number (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies several products sold by Axxiom, including the "Thompson Valve," "ComboValve," and "Micro Valve," as well as larger systems that incorporate these components, such as the "Blast Recovery System (BRS)" and "Blast Recovery System II (BRS2)" (Compl. ¶¶47-54).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are valves and related systems used to control the flow of abrasive media in industrial sandblasting equipment (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges these products are marked with expired U.S. patent numbers. For instance, a photograph provided as Exhibit 8 shows a "Thompson Valve" marked with "Pat 3476440" (Compl. ¶49). Another photograph, Exhibit 10, depicts a "ComboValve" marked with "SCHMIDT MFG PAT No 4339897" (Compl. ¶51). The complaint alleges these products directly compete with those sold by the Relator, Forecast, and that the valves are sold both as individual components and as integrated parts of industrial systems costing tens of thousands of dollars (Compl., Intro; ¶¶78, 88).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not allege patent infringement. This case concerns allegations of false patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is not at issue in this false marking case.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Allegations of Falsity: The core of the complaint is the allegation that Axxiom marks its products with patent numbers that have long since expired, rendering the products "unpatented articles" with respect to those patents (Compl. ¶¶65, 75, 86). The complaint alleges, for example, that the '440 patent expired in 1986, approximately 20 years before Axxiom first began manufacturing products marked with its number (Compl. ¶¶8, 60). Similarly, the '897 and '058 patents allegedly expired in 1999 and 2000, respectively, years before Axxiom was incorporated in 2003 (Compl. ¶¶10, 12, 18, 70, 81).
  • Allegations of Intent to Deceive: The complaint alleges that Axxiom's false marking was done with a "purpose or intent... to deceive the public" or with a "reckless disregard so egregious as to amount to an intent to deceive" (Compl. ¶66). The factual basis for this allegation includes:
    • Sophistication of Management: Axxiom’s president is described as a "sophisticated, experienced businessman" who, on information and belief, must have conducted due diligence on the intellectual property involved in the business (Compl. ¶¶24, 25, 66).
    • Use of Counsel: The complaint alleges Axxiom has continuously used patent counsel since at least 2006 for various patent and trademark matters, and that this counsel "unavoidably knew" that the patents at issue were expired (Compl. ¶¶29, 45, 66, 83).
    • Anti-Competitive Marketing: Axxiom is alleged to have engaged in marketing that claims "technical and qualitative superiority" and warns customers against "pirates," thereby allegedly using the false patent markings to wrongfully bolster its credibility and deter competition (Compl. ¶¶36, 37, 66).
    • Prominent Marking: The markings are alleged to be prominently placed on the products. A photograph provided as Exhibit 11(d) shows a view of a BRS2 unit where the Combo Valve, marked with an expired patent, is at an "eye-level forward-facing location," which the complaint suggests is intended to create the impression that the entire unit is covered by the patent (Compl. ¶¶52, 77).

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

  • Proving Intent: The central issue in this case will be one of intent to deceive. While the expiration of the patents is a matter of public record, the Relator bears the burden of proving that Axxiom marked its products with the specific purpose of deceiving the public. The court will likely focus on evidence related to Axxiom's knowledge, the advice of its counsel, its due diligence practices, and whether its marketing campaigns demonstrate an intent to leverage the patent markings to mislead consumers and deter competitors.
  • The Scope of the "Offense": A key factual question will be establishing the number of individual offenses. Under the statute, a fine may be imposed for each falsely marked article. The case will require evidence establishing the specific models, manufacturing dates, and quantity of products that were marked with each expired patent number.
  • The Nexus Between Marking and Harm: The court will need to examine the connection between the alleged false markings and the claimed competitive harm. A critical question is whether the evidence of Axxiom's aggressive marketing against "pirates" and claims of technical superiority, when viewed alongside the prominent placement of expired patent numbers on its products, is sufficient to establish a deliberate scheme to mislead the public for commercial gain.