DCT
1:25-cv-01469
LoCo Lures LLC v. Parks
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: LoCo Lures, LLC d/b/a V & M Baits (Louisiana)
- Defendant: Steve Parks (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Intellectual Property Consulting, LLC; Keaty Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01469, W.D. La., 10/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff V & M resides in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit, including communications regarding the alleged infringement, occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Wild Bug" fishing lures do not infringe Defendant's U.S. Patent No. 7,774,974, which relates to fishing lure tail designs.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the design of soft plastic fishing lures, specifically the shape and function of the lure's tail, which is engineered to create movement and noise to attract fish.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint heavily emphasizes the prosecution history of the asserted patent, alleging that the patentee, during examination, elected a single embodiment (a unitary, crescent-shaped tail) without traverse in response to a restriction requirement. Plaintiff argues this election constitutes a binding disclaimer of other, non-elected embodiments, such as those with bifurcated or paddle-style tails.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-11-20 | ’974 Patent application filed |
| 2008-02-20 | USPTO issues first Office Action rejecting all claims |
| 2008-08-19 | Patentee files response to first Office Action |
| 2008-11-19 | USPTO issues second Office Action with a restriction requirement |
| 2008-12-11 | Patentee responds by electing the species shown in Figs. 1-4 |
| 2009-03-19 | USPTO issues third Office Action (final rejection) |
| 2009-11-13 | USPTO issues fourth Office Action |
| 2010-05-12 | Patentee files response arguing claims cover only "curved tails" |
| 2010-06-28 | USPTO issues Notice of Allowance |
| 2010-08-17 | ’974 Patent issues |
| 2025-02-07 | Defendant’s representative sends email alleging infringement by Plaintiff |
| 2025-02-11 | Defendant’s representative sends email with a proposed license agreement |
| 2025-10-01 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,774,974 - "Fishing Lure"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies two common problems with soft plastic fishing lures: they frequently get snagged in weeds, and many have insufficient "action"—the combination of visual movement and noise—to effectively attract fish (’974 Patent, col. 1:17-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fishing lure with a uniquely designed tail intended to solve these problems. The tail features an arcuate, or curved, outside edge that is thicker than its center portion, creating protruding lips or a flange. A gap extends from the outside edge toward the center, allowing the tail to move freely. As the lure is retrieved through water, the flow across these features causes the tail to move rapidly back and forth, which in turn creates a gurgling sound and causes the lure's body to sway, mimicking live bait while being weedless (’974 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-8). The general structure is depicted in the patent's Figure 1 (’974 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This design aims to maximize a lure's "action" to provoke strikes from fish, while simultaneously preventing the lure from snagging on underwater vegetation, a significant operational benefit for anglers (’974 Patent, col. 1:12-16, col. 2:4-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not specify which claims were asserted against it but seeks a declaration of non-infringement as to all claims (Compl. ¶43). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 and 10.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A body with a width greater than its height.
- A tail coupled to the body.
- The tail has a center portion with an arcuate outside edge and a gap forming an inside edge, with the outside edge being longer than the inside edge.
- The center portion has a lip that protrudes from the center portion at the outside edge.
- The tail has a height greater than its width, while the body has a width greater than the tail's width.
- Independent Claim 10:
- A body.
- A member coupled to the body that can move relative to the body.
- The member has side surfaces, a curved outside edge, and an inside edge shorter than the outside edge.
- At least one side surface has a flange protruding from it, located at the outside edge.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff’s line of fishing lures sold under the name "Wild Bug" (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused "Wild Bug" lure as structurally and functionally different from the patented invention (Compl. ¶34). Instead of a unitary, crescent-shaped tail, the accused product allegedly features a "two-part bifurcated claw- or paddle-shaped tail" (Compl. ¶34). The complaint includes a photograph of the "Wild Bug" lure, which shows a lure body with two distinct, claw-like appendages extending from the rear (Compl., p. 8).
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's commercial importance or market positioning.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's primary arguments for why its "Wild Bug" lure does not meet the limitations of a representative independent claim, based on the narrative provided in the complaint.
’974 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as interpreted by Plaintiff) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a tail having a coupling portion that is coupled to one of the body ends...the tail having a center portion | Plaintiff alleges its "Wild Bug" lure has a "two-part bifurcated claw- or paddle-shaped tail," not a unitary tail with a single center portion as depicted in the patent's elected embodiment. | ¶34 | col. 2:49-51 |
| the center portion having an arcuate outside edge | Plaintiff alleges its product does not include a unitary tail with a "center portion having an arcuate outside edge," but instead has dual claw-like extensions. The complaint includes a photograph of the accused lure to illustrate this structural difference. (Compl., p. 8). | ¶32 | col. 2:50-51 |
| the center portion having a lip that protrudes from the center portion at the outside edge | Plaintiff's non-infringement argument focuses on the overall tail structure, asserting its "paddle-like" tails are fundamentally different from the claimed configuration, which includes a lip on a crescent-shaped tail. | ¶33 | col. 2:60-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions (Prosecution History Estoppel): The central dispute concerns the legal effect of the patentee's prosecution history. A primary question for the court will be whether the patentee’s election of the species shown in Figures 1-4, allegedly without traverse, constitutes a disclaimer of subject matter, thereby limiting the scope of the claims to a unitary, crescent-shaped tail and surrendering any claim to the bifurcated, "paddle-like" design of the accused product (Compl. ¶37-41). The complaint notes that during prosecution, the patentee contrasted his crescent-shaped "Shad" lure, shown in a photograph, with paddle-style lures (Compl. ¶21-22).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the "dual claw-like extensions" of the accused "Wild Bug" lure can be technically characterized as meeting the claim limitation of "a tail...having an arcuate outside edge." This will depend on the construction of "a tail" and whether the structure of the accused product falls within that definition.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a tail"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s non-infringement case hinges on construing "a tail" narrowly to mean the unitary, crescent-shaped embodiment elected during prosecution (Compl. ¶39). Defendant will likely argue for a broader construction that covers any appendage providing locomotive action, including Plaintiff's bifurcated design. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope, in light of the prosecution history, appears to be the dispositive issue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discloses multiple embodiments, including a lure with two tails (Fig. 7) and a crawfish-style lure with distinct tail members (Fig. 14), which could support an argument that "a tail" is a generic term not limited to a single, unitary structure (’974 Patent, col. 4:42-53, col. 5:26-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint alleges the patentee, in response to a restriction requirement, elected the single embodiment of Figures 1-4 "without traverse" (Compl. ¶19, ¶37). Further, the patentee allegedly argued to the USPTO that "his claimed lure covers only curved tails" to distinguish prior art, specifically referencing the design where "the outside edge forms the trailing edge" (Compl. ¶28). This record may be used to argue the patentee disclaimed broader tail structures.
The Term: "arcuate outside edge"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff explicitly alleges its "Wild Bug" lures lack this feature (Compl. ¶32). The dispute will turn on whether the curved edges of Plaintiff's "dual claw-like extensions" meet this limitation, or if the term is limited to the single, continuous curve of the elected embodiment.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: "Arcuate" generally means curved, and Defendant may argue that the individual claws of the accused product each possess a curved outer edge.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses the term in reference to the single, disc- or crescent-shaped tail shown in Figures 1 and 4, which has one continuous outside edge (’974 Patent, Fig. 4, element 21; col. 2:50-57). Plaintiff will likely argue the patentee's arguments distinguishing prior art based on the properties of this specific shape limit the term to that configuration (Compl. ¶28).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that the defendant's initial demand letter accused V & M of direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶8). However, the complaint itself, being for declaratory judgment, is focused on establishing non-infringement and does not allege facts supporting these theories.
- Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is not at issue, as the complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement filed by the accused infringer. The complaint does allege the defendant's infringement assertions were made in "bad faith" as a basis for seeking attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶1).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of prosecution history estoppel: Did the patentee’s election of a single species (the unitary, crescent-shaped tail of Figs. 1-4) in response to a restriction requirement, and subsequent arguments to the examiner, constitute a clear and unmistakable surrender of claim scope over other designs, such as the bifurcated, "paddle-like" tail of the accused product?
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the claim term "a tail," as used in the ’974 Patent, be construed broadly enough to encompass the accused product's "two-part bifurcated claw- or paddle-shaped" structure, or is its meaning irrevocably narrowed by the patent’s specification and prosecution history to the elected unitary embodiment?