DCT
2:24-cv-02417
D'Acquisto v. Elevate Stand Co LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Andrae D'Acquisto (Iowa)
- Defendant: Elevate Stand Co LLC (Kansas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: GM Law, PC; Ryan, Kromholz & Manion, S.C.
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-02417, D. Kan., 09/11/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Kansas because the Defendant is a Kansas company that resides in the district and because it allegedly manufactures, offers for sale, and sells the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Element," "Rize," and "Ultra" portable hunting treestands infringe a patent related to a design where the seat folds and interlocks with the platform to create a rigid shelf for transport.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, lightweight treestands for hunting, a market segment where product weight, silence, and transport convenience are significant factors for consumers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the patent and its alleged infringement on August 23, 2024, less than three weeks prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-01-10 | '925 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-08-20 | U.S. Patent No. 12,063,925 Issued |
| 2024-08-23 | Plaintiff Alleges Providing Notice to Defendant |
| 2024-09-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,063,925 - "Treestand and Climbing Stick Design"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,063,925, "Treestand and Climbing Stick Design", issued August 20, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art treestands as being potentially noisy due to the use of multiple components and mechanical fasteners, which can move and create sound. It also notes that cast aluminum platforms, while an improvement, can be expensive and difficult to produce uniformly, and that ordered geometric patterns can be an "anomaly in the wild" that alerts game. (’925 Patent, col. 2:10-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable treestand with a seat member that interlocks with the platform when folded for transport, creating a "rigid shelf structure" for carrying gear. This feature transforms the seat into a functional component for transport, enhancing portability. The patent also discloses fabricating the platform and other components from a single piece of metal using a waterjet process, which is described as producing a stronger, lighter, and quieter product compared to prior art fabrication methods. (’925 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:49-54).
- Technical Importance: The design's interlocking seat-to-platform feature addresses the practical challenge for mobile hunters of carrying gear, backpacks, or game by converting the stand itself into a load-bearing frame. (’925 Patent, col. 3:58-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A portable hang-on treestand comprising a seat member, a platform member, and a center support structure.
- The seat member has one or more male protrusions.
- The platform member has one or more attachment ports configured to receive the male protrusions.
- When folded, the male protrusions interlock with the attachment ports.
- This interlocking action locks the seat member into a rigid shelf structure that is substantially perpendicular to the platform.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6. (Compl. ¶76, 79, 82).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Element," "Rize," and "Ultra" treestand models manufactured and sold by Defendant Elevate Stand Co LLC. (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as lightweight, hang-on treestands made from 6061-T6 aluminum using a waterjet process. (Compl. ¶31-33, 48-50, 68-70). The central infringement allegation is based on the products' folding mechanism. The complaint cites Defendant's own marketing materials stating that for the Element model, the "Upright and seat lock into the platform. Seat doubles as a shelf." (Compl. p.9). The complaint includes a photograph from Defendant’s marketing showing the seat of the Element model locked in a perpendicular position relative to the platform, forming a shelf. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint also highlights that the platforms include "receiving ports" for attaching climbing sticks, a feature also disclosed in the patent. (Compl. ¶51-52, 71-72).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'925 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A portable hang on treestand comprising a seat member, a platform member, and a center support structure connecting said seat member to said platform member, | The accused "Element," "Rize," and "Ultra" models are portable hang-on treestands, each having a seat, a platform, and a center support structure connecting the two. | ¶16-21, 34-39, 53-58 | col. 5:45-50 |
| wherein said seat member comprises one or more male protrusions | The complaint identifies "male protrusions" on the seats of the accused models, providing annotated images for each. The image for the Element model shows these protrusions on the seat's mounting bracket. | ¶22-23, 40-41, 59-60 | col. 3:58-60 |
| and said platform member comprises one or more attachment ports configured to receive said one or more male protrusions | The complaint identifies corresponding "attachment ports" on the platforms of the accused models. A provided image shows a close-up of the port on the Element model just prior to receiving the protrusion. | ¶24-25, 42-43, 61-62 | col. 3:60-62 |
| wherein when said treestand is folded up for transport, the one or more male protrusions of the seat member interlock with the one or more attachment ports of said platform | The complaint alleges that when folded, the male protrusions of the seat interlock with the attachment ports on the platform. This is supported by an image showing the protrusion being received by the port. | ¶26, 44, 63-64 | col. 5:49-53 |
| locking the seat member in a rigid shelf structure that is substantially perpendicular to said platform. | The complaint alleges this interlocking action locks the seat into a rigid, perpendicular shelf. This is supported by an annotated image of the folded product and a screenshot of marketing text stating the "Seat doubles as a shelf." | ¶27-28, 45, 65 | col. 3:52-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the definition of "interlock" and "locking." The complaint shows a physical insertion, but the court may need to determine if this meets the legal standard for "interlocking" or if a more active fastening mechanism is required by the claim language.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused products create a "rigid" shelf structure. The patent specification discloses that this shelf is "capable of packing out game and or gear upwards of 100 lbs" (’925 Patent, col. 3:52-54). A key question for the court will be whether the accused products' shelf function meets the level of rigidity contemplated by the patent, a question that may require expert testimony and physical testing.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "interlock"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. Its construction will determine whether the simple insertion of the seat's protrusions into the platform's ports on the accused products, which appears to rely on gravity and the fit of the parts, constitutes infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that its mechanism is a simple "rest" or "fit" rather than a true "interlock," which might imply a more secure, positive connection.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "interlock" could be construed broadly to mean "to fit or connect together." The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition that limits the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent uses the term in the context of "locking the seat member in a rigid shelf structure" (’925 Patent, col. 5:53-56). Furthermore, an alternative embodiment discloses using a "clevis pin 25, locking pin, cotter pin, bolt or other fasteners" to fix the seat in the shelf position, which may suggest that "locking" and "interlocking" imply a secure fastening beyond simple physical contact. (’925 Patent, col. 6:59-62).
The Term: "rigid shelf structure"
- Context and Importance: The required degree of "rigidity" is a potentially dispositive issue. If the term is construed to require a high weight-bearing capacity, it could create a higher bar for the plaintiff to prove infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "rigid" is not explicitly defined, and in the absence of a specific standard, it could be interpreted relatively as being stiff and not flimsy, without a specific load requirement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Detailed Description of the Invention states that the feature creates "a rigid shelf structure capable of packing out game and or gear upwards of 100 lbs" (’925 Patent, col. 3:52-54). A party may argue this language informs the meaning of "rigid" and sets a functional requirement for the claimed structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The causes of action focus on direct infringement by making, using, selling, or offering to sell the accused products. (Compl. ¶76, 79, 82).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement became willful after the Plaintiff provided Defendant with "actual notice of infringement" on August 23, 2024, and Defendant allegedly continued its infringing activities. (Compl. ¶73-74, 77, 80, 83).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "interlock," as used in the patent, be construed to cover the mechanism of the accused products where a protrusion rests in a port, or does the patent’s context require a more secure, positive fastening?
- A second key question will be evidentiary and functional: does the folded seat on the accused products form a "rigid shelf structure" as required by the claim? The resolution may depend on whether the court adopts the 100-pound load capacity disclosed in the specification as a benchmark for the claimed "rigidity."