DCT
2:20-cv-03135
Wilco Marsh Buggies Draglines Inc v. Weeks Marine Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc. (Louisiana)
- Defendant: Weeks Marine, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keaty Law Firm LLC; Intellectual Property Consulting, L.L.C.
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-03135, E.D. La., 11/18/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, having established offices and conducting regular business in the State of Louisiana.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of certain amphibious excavators infringes a patent related to vehicles capable of operating on land, in shallow water, and while floating.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns heavy amphibious machinery designed for excavation, dredging, and construction in challenging environments such as marshes, wetlands, and coastal areas.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit arose from a non-provisional patent application filed on June 3, 2003. No prior litigation or other proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-06-03 | Patent Priority Date ('795 Application Filing Date) |
| 2005-02-15 | Notice of Allowance Issued for the '795 Application |
| 2005-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 6,918,801 Issues |
| 2020-11-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,918,801 - "AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of then-existing heavy equipment for marshlands. Conventional "marsh buggies" can traverse soft terrain but are not designed to perform work while floating in deep water. Conversely, "spud barges" can work in deep water by anchoring to the seabed with pilings (spuds), but they lack self-propulsion and have difficulty accessing land-locked or remote work sites without environmentally damaging dredging. (Compl. ¶10; ’801 Patent, col. 1:19 - 2:16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-propelled amphibious vehicle that combines the features of a marsh buggy and a spud barge. It uses a tracked pontoon system for mobility on both land and water. Crucially, it incorporates deployable spuds that can be extended to the seabed to stabilize the vehicle, allowing it to perform heavy excavation work while floating. This provides a single vehicle capable of traveling to a remote, deep-water site and then operating with stability. (’801 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:8-29; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a single piece of equipment to perform heavy earth-moving operations in low-lying, soft-terrain areas that were previously difficult or impossible to access without using multiple specialized vehicles or creating disruptive access channels. (’801 Patent, col. 2:4-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 12, along with numerous dependent claims.
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): A vehicle comprising:
- a chassis;
- at least two pontoons supported by the chassis providing sufficient buoyancy to float;
- a track system on the pontoons for propulsion on land or in water; and
- a plurality of spuds connected to the chassis, having a first deployed position extending below the pontoons and a second retracted position not extending below the pontoons.
- Independent Claim 9 (Method): A method comprising the steps of:
- providing an earth excavating vehicle adapted to move over land or water;
- floating the vehicle in a body of water;
- deploying spuds from the vehicle into the bottom of the body of water;
- performing earth excavating operations;
- retracting the spuds;
- moving the vehicle to a position where it is resting on the bottom of the water; and
- performing earth excavating operations.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Amphibious Excavator" series of vehicles manufactured by EIK Engineering and used by Defendant Weeks Marine. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are alleged to be amphibious excavators that include an undercarriage with attached pontoons and spuds. (Compl. ¶19). This configuration is alleged to allow for excavation activities in soft terrain, such as swamps, and to enable the vehicle to float on water. (Compl. ¶19).
- The complaint alleges that these products are used for dredging and other earth-moving operations, including coastal restoration projects, and that the supplemental pontoons and spuds are required for such operations. (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 27).
- The complaint references a figure from an EIK operation manual showing an accused excavator operating in water. (Compl. ¶23). This visual, FIG. 1.18 from Exhibit H, illustrates an excavator equipped with a supplementary pontoon and spuds while dredging at a particular water depth. (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'801 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle comprising: a chassis; | The infringing products are vehicles that comprise a chassis. | ¶33 | col. 4:9-12 |
| at least two pontoons supported by said chassis, wherein said pontoons provide sufficient buoyancy such that the vehicle can float on water; | The infringing products have at least two pontoons supported by the chassis that allow them to float. | ¶36 | col. 4:15-17 |
| a track system disposed on said pontoons and adapted to provide propulsion to the vehicle when moving on land or in water; | The infringing products have a track system on the pontoons that provides propulsion on land and water. | ¶39 | col. 4:12-15 |
| a plurality of spuds connected to said chassis, wherein said spuds have a first position...and a second position... | The infringing products have spuds that can extend below the pontoons or be retracted. | ¶42 | col. 4:20-29 |
'801 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 9)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (based on use) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing earth excavating equipment disposed on a vehicle adapted to move over land or through the water; | Defendant's use involves a vehicle with excavating equipment adapted for land and water movement. | ¶83 | col. 3:7-9 |
| floating the vehicle carrying the earth excavating equipment in a body of water; | Defendant's use involves floating the vehicle. | ¶86 | col. 3:9-10 |
| deploying a plurality of spuds from the vehicle into the bottom of the body of water; | Defendant's use involves deploying spuds into the waterbed. | ¶89 | col. 3:10-14 |
| performing earth excavating operations; | Defendant's use involves performing excavation. | ¶92 | col. 3:14-15 |
| retracting the plurality of spuds such that the entirety of the spuds are above the bottom of the vehicle; | Defendant's use involves retracting the spuds. | ¶95 | col. 3:15-17 |
| moving the vehicle to a position where the vehicle is not floating but is resting at the bottom of a body of water... | Defendant's use involves moving the vehicle to rest on the waterbed. | ¶98 | col. 3:17-20 |
| performing earth excavating operations. | Defendant's use involves performing excavation while resting on the waterbed. | ¶101 | col. 3:20-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint makes direct, conclusory allegations of infringement. A potential point of contention is whether the term "connected to said chassis" in Claim 1 requires a specific type of structural attachment that may differ from the configuration of the accused products. The method steps of Claim 9, particularly the specific sequence of floating, anchoring, and then moving to rest on the bottom, will require factual proof of the defendant's actual operational procedures.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not detail the mechanism of the accused spuds. The patent discloses both winch-based and hydraulic systems for spud deployment (’801 Patent, Figs. 4, 5). A key technical question for the court will be whether the specific operation and structure of the accused product's spud assemblies meet the functional requirements of the claims, such as deploying to a "first position" and retracting to a "second position."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "spuds connected to said chassis" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The relationship between the stabilizing spuds and the vehicle's main frame is a core structural element of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it permits a broad, indirect attachment or requires a more specific, direct connection—could be determinative of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "spud assemblies 22 located on the sides of the pontoons" (’801 Patent, col. 4:20-21), which are themselves part of the overall chassis structure. This could support an argument that an indirect connection via the pontoon assembly falls within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s specific embodiments depict spud retainers (e.g., retainer 43, 53) that appear to be directly affixed to the vehicle structure. (’801 Patent, Figs. 4, 5). A party could argue that "connected to said chassis" should be limited to these more direct attachment methods shown in the preferred embodiments.
The Term: "track system disposed on said pontoons" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the relationship between the vehicle's propulsion system and its flotation system. The physical arrangement is central to the vehicle's amphibious capability.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "disposed on" could be interpreted broadly to mean mounted to, associated with, or integrated with the pontoons, not necessarily in one specific arrangement. The text describes the track systems as being "equipped" on the pontoons. (’801 Patent, col. 4:12-15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently show the tracks wrapped around the entire periphery of each pontoon, suggesting the pontoon itself acts as the frame for the track. (’801 Patent, Figs. 1, 2). A party might argue that "disposed on" should be construed to require this specific encircling configuration.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges infringement of method claims through Defendant's "use" of the products. (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 83). It further alleges that the manufacturer, EIK, provides assembly and operation manuals that "describe and illustrate" how to assemble and operate the infringing features, including the pontoons and spuds. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23). These allegations may provide a factual basis for a claim of induced infringement by alleging that Defendant's use follows instructions that teach the infringing method.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is "intentional, deliberate, willful" and occurred with "actual and constructive knowledge" of the ’801 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 161, 176). These allegations form the basis for Count I, titled "Willful Patent Infringement," and a request for trebled damages. (Compl. ¶167; Prayer for Relief D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "spuds connected to said chassis," as described in the patent, be interpreted to cover the specific mechanical design of the accused excavators? The resolution will depend on whether the court adopts a broader functional meaning or a narrower one tied to the patent's specific illustrated embodiments.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: Does the defendant's actual use of the accused products follow all the sequential steps recited in method claim 9? The plaintiff will need to present evidence that the accused excavators are not only capable of performing each step but are in fact used in a manner that includes floating, deploying spuds for stability, excavating, and then repositioning to rest on the seabed for further work, as the claim requires.