2:12-cv-01079
Ray Bros Inc v. Architectural Building Components Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ray Bros., Inc. (RBI) and Gino R. Ray (Louisiana)
- Defendant: Architectural Building Components, Inc. (ABC) (Texas) and Charles L. Smith Jr. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: KEATY Law Firm, L.L.C.
- Case Identification: 2:12-cv-01079, E.D. La., 04/27/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that the defendants conduct business in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s retrofit framing system for metal roofs infringes a patent related to a support assembly for installing a new roof over an existing one.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns structural systems for reinforcing and re-covering existing preformed metal panel roofs, a common need in commercial construction, particularly in areas subject to high winds.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of competitive interactions, including an instance in June 2009 where a sales representative allegedly photographed the Plaintiff's system, and subsequent encounters in June 2010 and February 2011 where the parties bid on the same construction projects. This history may be used to support allegations of knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-06-XX | RBI allegedly demonstrates its roofing system to a sales representative. |
| 2009-07-22 | Earliest priority date for the ’087 Patent. |
| 2010-06-XX | RBI allegedly first learns of ABC's similar system during a bid process. |
| 2011-02-XX | RBI and ABC are supply bidders on a School Board project. |
| 2011-06-XX | RBI allegedly learns ABC is advertising its retrofit framing system. |
| 2011-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 8,061,087 issues. |
| 2012-04-27 | Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,061,087, RETROFIT FRAMING SYSTEM FOR METAL ROOF (issued Nov. 22, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes how existing metal roofs, particularly those built to older standards, are vulnerable to damage from high-velocity winds, which can lift panels off a building. The background notes that such roofs often lack a sufficient number of attachment points to the underlying structure. ('087 Patent, col. 1:8-19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a support assembly installed directly on top of an existing metal roof without requiring its removal. The system uses a framework of interconnected members—including bottom members that sit in the low-profile "drain channels" of the existing roof panels and transverse top members—to create a new, level, and securely anchored plane for attaching new roof panels. ('087 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:61-65). This increases the number of attachment points and enhances wind resistance. ('087 Patent, col. 2:26-30).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a building's roof to be brought into compliance with modern, more stringent building codes for wind resistance without the significant cost, disruption, and weather exposure risk associated with removing the original roof. ('087 Patent, col. 2:56-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a roofing system support assembly comprising:
- A plurality of elongated bottom members fit into the drain channels of an existing roof.
- A plurality of elongated first top members extending transversely to the bottom members, having a "generally Z-shaped configuration."
- A plurality of support brackets positioned in the drain channels, secured to the existing roof panels and to the first top members to support them at a desired elevation.
- A plurality of strapping members extending transversely to and secured to the first top members.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant ABC's "retrofit framing system for metal roofs." (Compl. ¶¶11, 16, 20).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused product is a system used for retrofitting metal roofs that is "substantially similar" and "virtually identical" to the system disclosed in the ’087 Patent (Compl. ¶¶16, 22). It is allegedly advertised through materials and a company website (Compl. ¶¶9, 20). The complaint alleges that Defendant ABC is a direct business competitor of Plaintiff RBI and that the parties have bid against one another for roofing supply contracts (Compl. ¶¶15, 17, 34). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the accused system beyond these allegations of similarity.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint's infringement theory rests on general allegations that the accused system is "virtually identical" to the patented invention (Compl. ¶22). It does not map specific features of the accused product to claim limitations. The following chart summarizes the allegations based on the complaint's overarching theory of infringement.
’087 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of elongated bottom members fit into drain channels of the existing roof and be secured to the preformed roof panels of the existing roof to extend about a peripheral line of the existing roof | The complaint alleges that the defendants make, use, or sell a retrofit framing system that infringes the claims of the ’087 patent. | ¶11, ¶25 | col. 3:12-24 |
| a plurality of elongated first top members extending transversely to the bottom members and be secured at a level above the elevated ridges of the preformed roof panels...having a generally Z-shaped configuration | The complaint alleges the accused system is "virtually identical" to the system disclosed in the patent, which would necessarily include this feature. | ¶22 | col. 3:36-41 |
| a plurality of support brackets positioned in the drain channels and be secured to the preformed roof panels and to the first top members for supporting the first top members at a desired elevation | The complaint's allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" implies the accused system contains components that perform the function of the claimed support brackets. | ¶11 | col. 5:1-14 |
| a plurality of strapping members extending transversely to the first top members and be secured to the first top members | The complaint's allegation that the defendants built a "knock-off" suggests the accused system includes the claimed strapping members. | ¶24 | col. 4:51-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint's allegations are made "upon information and belief" and assert that the accused system is a "knock-off" (Compl. ¶¶11, 24). A central question for the court will be whether discovery produces evidence demonstrating that the accused system actually incorporates each and every element recited in the asserted claims.
- Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product contains distinct components corresponding to the "bottom members," "Z-shaped top members," "support brackets," and "strapping members," as required by the claim, and that these components are arranged and function in the claimed manner? The complaint does not detail the structure of the accused product.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "support brackets"
Context and Importance
The Term: "support brackets" Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires "a plurality of support brackets" that are positioned and secured in a specific way to support the "first top members at a desired elevation." The existence, structure, and function of a corresponding component in the accused product will be a critical infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether a component in the accused system meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the brackets "can be L-shaped brackets" ('087 Patent, col. 5:2-3). The use of the permissive "can be" may suggest that the term is not strictly limited to an L-shape and could encompass other structures that perform the same supporting function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only embodiment of a "support bracket" detailed and illustrated in the patent is an L-shaped bracket, potentially with a reinforcing "gusset 75" ('087 Patent, col. 5:7-8; Fig. 9). A party could argue that the term should be construed as limited to this disclosed L-shaped structure.
The Term: "generally Z-shaped configuration"
Context and Importance
This term defines the required geometry of the "first top members." Infringement will depend on whether the corresponding components in the accused system possess this shape. The qualifier "generally" makes its precise scope a likely point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "generally" ('087 Patent, col. 3:37) explicitly suggests that the shape does not need to be a perfect, geometric "Z" and that some deviation is contemplated within the scope of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific structural breakdown of the Z-shaped member, describing it as having "a first horizontal part 42, a vertical part 43, a second horizontal part 45 and an angularly descending part 46" ('087 Patent, col. 3:38-41; Fig. 6). An argument could be made that a "generally Z-shaped" member must contain these distinct structural features, not just resemble the letter "Z" in a loose sense.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶12, 26). The factual basis for inducement is the allegation that the defendants "outwardly and openly encourag[e] third-parties to use the retrofit framing system" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶23).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that defendants "had full and complete knowledge of, or should have known of, the ‘087 patent" (Compl. ¶27). The factual support for this allegation appears to stem from pre-suit events, including the parties bidding against each other on projects where the technology was at issue and plaintiff's use of a "patent notice" on advertising materials (Compl. ¶¶15-18, 21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint relies on conclusory allegations that the accused system is a "knock-off." A key question will be whether the plaintiff can produce factual evidence to demonstrate that the defendant's system contains every limitation of the asserted claims, a burden that is not met by the complaint itself.
- The case will likely also turn on a question of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "generally Z-shaped configuration"? The outcome may depend on whether this term is interpreted broadly to cover any structure that approximates a Z-shape, or narrowly to require the specific multi-part embodiment detailed in the patent specification.