DCT

3:18-cv-00794

Werner Co v. Lou

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00794, W.D. Ky., 01/20/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Kentucky because Defendant Louisville Ladder, Inc. resides in the district and maintains its principal place of business and headquarters there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff Werner Co. seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe Defendant Louisville Ladder, Inc.’s patent for a ladder foot, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-material covers for the ends of ladder rails (i.e., ladder feet or boots), which are designed to enhance durability and skid resistance while allowing for inspection of the underlying ladder structure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes extensive prior disputes between the parties over the patent-in-suit. Louisville Ladder previously sued Werner for infringement in the Eastern District of Texas, but voluntarily dismissed the action. Subsequently, Werner successfully challenged numerous claims of the patent in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which found claims 8-16 and 19-20 invalid. That decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The current complaint leverages this history to support its allegations that the entire patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-07-08 Plotner patent application (alleged prior art) filed
1999-06-11 Louisville Ladder announced RHINO 375 series (alleged prior art)
2002-07-30 Earliest Priority Date for '731 Patent
2006-02-21 '731 Patent issued
2018-09-28 Louisville Ladder sued Werner in E.D. Texas
2019-01-10 E.D. Texas litigation dismissed without prejudice
2019-03-22 Werner filed IPR petition against '731 Patent
2019-08-30 PTAB instituted IPR proceeding
2020-08-24 PTAB issued Final Written Decision canceling claims 8-16 and 19-20
2021-08-31 Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB's decision
2022-03-18 IPR Certificate canceling claims 8-16, 19, and 20 issued
2023-01-20 Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed in W.D. Ky.

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,000,731 - Multi-Material Cover for a Ladder Rail End

  • Issued: February 21, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes drawbacks of existing ladder feet. It states that ladder boots made of a single, soft material wear out quickly, and their construction can hide the ladder rail from inspection for damage. Conversely, existing multi-component ladder shoes often require mechanical fasteners like rivets, which increases manufacturing complexity and cost, and may use conductive materials that pose an electrocution risk (’731 Patent, col. 1:49 - col. 2:30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-material cover for a ladder rail end that comprises two primary components: a relatively hard and durable "shell" and a softer, more skid-resistant "tread." The shell and tread are made from different materials and are engaged with each other through a bond, such as a chemical or interlocking bond formed during an overmolding process, which avoids the need for separate mechanical fasteners (’731 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:15-24). The shell can be designed with an "open face" to permit visual inspection of the ladder rail while the cover is attached (’731 Patent, col. 6:61-65).
  • Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to combine the benefits of durability and skid-resistance in a single, economically manufactured unit that does not impede safety inspections (’731 Patent, col. 2:35-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability for "one or more claims" of the ’731 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15). Claims 8-16 and 19-20 have been canceled via Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-00336 Certificate). The broadest remaining independent claim is Claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A cover for an end of a ladder rail, the cover comprising: a shell formed of at least one material, said shell having a size suitable for engaging the ladder rail; and
    • a tread formed of another material, said tread being engaged with said shell at least partially by a bond independent of mechanical fasteners,
    • said bond being an interlocking bond of at least a portion of said shell and at least a portion of said tread,
    • said interlocking bond comprising: an emboss with a hole disposed therein, said emboss and said hole formed at a bottom of said shell,
    • said at least a portion of said tread disposed within said emboss and said hole,
    • said tread extending downwardly below said bottom of said shell.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint, being a request for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not identify or describe the specific Werner Co. products that are the subject of the non-infringement count (Compl. ¶15). The complaint's factual allegations focus instead on invalidity and unenforceability.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed allegations regarding non-infringement. The primary focus of the pleading is on the patent's alleged invalidity and unenforceability based on prior art and alleged inequitable conduct during prosecution. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided document.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bond independent of mechanical fasteners" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the invention's purported advance over prior art that used rivets or screws. The nature and formation of this "bond" will be critical to determining both the scope of the remaining claims and whether they are distinct from the prior art.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the bond can be formed through various means, stating it may be a "chemical-type bond," an "interlocking bond," or a "combination thereof" (’731 Patent, col. 9:19-34; col. 12:35-41). This could support an interpretation that covers multiple types of non-mechanical connections.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself narrows the broad concept of a "bond" to a specific "interlocking bond" with a defined structure. Further, the specification's preferred embodiments heavily feature overmolding processes where one material flows into or around features of the other, which could be used to argue for a definition tied to this specific manufacturing context (’731 Patent, col. 11:1-15; col. 13:11-24).

  • The Term: "interlocking bond" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a specific form of this bond, defined by an "emboss with a hole" that receives the tread material. The precise structural requirements of this feature will be a focal point for both infringement and validity analysis of the remaining claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses that interlocking members can include a variety of structures, such as "detents, voids, darts, projections, undercuts, a combination thereof, among others" (’731 Patent, col. 14:1-3). A party might argue that the "emboss with a hole" is merely one example of a broader class of interlocking features.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language of Claim 1 is highly specific, reciting "an emboss with a hole disposed therein... said at least a portion of said tread disposed within said emboss and said hole" (’731 Patent, col. 15:55 - col. 16:1). A party would likely argue that this language requires the specific geometry recited and cannot be read to cover other, structurally different interlocking mechanisms.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Inequitable Conduct: The complaint makes extensive allegations of inequitable conduct, asserting that the patent is unenforceable (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 67-69).
    • The core allegation is that the inventors and their counsel, with an intent to deceive, withheld material prior art from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution (Compl. ¶¶ 68-69).
    • The allegedly withheld material prior art includes Louisville Ladder's own "RHINO 375 stepladders," Werner's stepladders with the "EDGE brace," and Werner's prior art "Plotner patent" (U.S. 5,636,706) (Compl. ¶¶ 60-66).
    • The complaint alleges the materiality of this prior art is evidenced by the PTAB's subsequent invalidation of claims 8-16 and 19-20 based on some of these same references (Compl. ¶79).
    • Intent to deceive is alleged based on the inventors' direct knowledge of the prior art, its high materiality, and an alleged "larger pattern of non-disclosure" in connection with other, unrelated patents (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 41-44, 68, 80). To support this pattern, the complaint presents a visual comparison of a figure from Louisville Ladder's U.S. Patent No. 11,187,039 and a photo of what is alleged to be Louisville's own prior art FXP1700 Series Platform Ladder (Compl. p. 17).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of enforceability: Did Louisville Ladder or its inventors intentionally withhold material prior art from the patent office with deceptive intent? The outcome of the prior IPR, which invalidated numerous claims based on that same art, will be a significant factor in the court's analysis of materiality and potential inferences of intent.
  • A second critical question concerns the validity of the remaining claims (1-7, 17-18). Can Louisville Ladder demonstrate that the specific limitations of these claims, particularly the "interlocking bond" structure of Claim 1, are novel and non-obvious over the prior art that invalidated a substantial portion of the patent?
  • Finally, assuming any claims survive the validity and enforceability challenges, a dispositive question will be one of claim scope: Do Werner's products, which are not described in the complaint, practice the specific structural limitations of any remaining valid claim, or is there a technical mismatch that supports a judgment of non-infringement?