Delta P Technology Intl LLC v. Savant Mfg Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Delta P. Technology International, L.L.C. (Mississippi)
  • Defendant: Savant Manufacturing, Inc. (Louisiana)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MUDD & BRUCHHAUS, L.L.C.
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00462, W.D. La., 04/11/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining its principal place of business, regularly conducting business, and having committed alleged acts of infringement within the Western District of Louisiana.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unauthorized manufacture and sale of industrial cribbing units infringes a patent related to an apparatus for supporting floating roofs in large storage tanks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns modular, reusable support frames designed to safely prop up the internal floating roofs of large industrial tanks (e.g., for fuel or chemicals) during maintenance, inspection, or cleaning.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Plaintiff contracted Defendant to manufacture a set number of the patented units. Plaintiff alleges it sent a letter to Defendant in October 2017 notifying it of the "patent status" of the units, more than a year before the patent issued. This notification may be used to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,112,770, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SUPPORTING A FLOATING ROOF DISPOSED IN A STORAGE TANK," issued October 30, 2018. (Compl. ¶6; ’770 Patent, p. 1).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the instability of traditional support methods, such as stacked wooden "cribbing stacks," which are used to prop up floating roofs inside storage tanks during maintenance (’770 Patent, col. 1:46-52). These wooden stacks are susceptible to failure from horizontal or rotational forces exerted by the roof, creating significant safety hazards. They also absorb hazardous materials from the tank, leading to costly and environmentally harmful disposal issues (’770 Patent, col. 2:16-24, 32-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular, metal "cribbing system" designed to overcome the failures of wood stacks (’770 Patent, col. 3:25-44). As depicted in Figure 9, the system is assembled from vertical risers and horizontal spans connected at base and cap members to form a rigid, three-dimensional frame (’770 Patent, Fig. 9). This interconnected structure is intended to resist horizontal shear forces and prevent the catastrophic "tip over" common with prior art methods, thereby providing a more stable and reusable support structure (’770 Patent, col. 3:48-56).
• Technical Importance: The invention purports to offer a safer, more reliable, and environmentally sustainable alternative to the long-standing industry practice of using disposable wooden cribbing stacks for tank maintenance (’770 Patent, col. 7:16-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of the ’770 Patent generally. The following analysis is based on representative independent apparatus claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’770 Patent recites a "cribbing system" comprising the following essential elements:
  • A first and second "vertical riser"
  • A "first horizontal base span" and a "first horizontal cap span"
  • A first and second "base member", each with receptacles "configured to selectively receive" a vertical riser and the horizontal base span
  • A first and second "cap member", each with receptacles "configured to selectively receive" a vertical riser and the horizontal cap span
  • A "grounding strap" coupled to one or more system components, where the components are "electrically conductive"
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Twenty-eight (28) "cribbing units" manufactured and sold by Defendant Savant Manufacturing, Inc. (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused cribbing units function as supports for floating roofs inside storage tanks (Compl. ¶7). The infringement allegations are predicated on the assertion that Defendant was originally contracted to "replicate" an existing set of six "original units," which were themselves constructed "according to the process and instructions contained within Patent '770" (Compl. ¶9, ¶10). The complaint further alleges that the 28 units ultimately sold by Defendant were "identical to the patented apparatus" (Compl. ¶12).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include a claim chart or provide specific evidence mapping claim elements to the accused products. Its infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused units are "identical" to the patented apparatus because Defendant was contracted to "replicate" units built from the patent's teachings (Compl. ¶10, ¶12).

'770 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Support: The complaint’s core infringement theory relies on the conclusory statement that the accused units are "identical to the patented apparatus" (Compl. ¶12). A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the 28 units sold by Defendant actually incorporate every limitation of an asserted claim.
• Technical Mismatch: Claim 1 of the ’770 patent explicitly requires a "grounding strap" that is "electrically conductive" and coupled to the system's metal components. The complaint’s factual allegations make no mention of this element. This raises the question of whether the accused units include this specific safety feature. The absence of this element in the accused products would present a significant challenge to a claim of literal infringement of Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "grounding strap"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is a specific, functional element of the claimed system. Its presence and nature in the accused products will be critical for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint is silent on this feature, suggesting it could be a point of non-infringement or require a broad construction to cover the accused units.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to this component more generally as a "grounding element" (e.g., ’770 Patent, col. 7:49), which may support a construction that is not limited to a literal "strap." Claim 1 requires the strap to be coupled to "one or more" of the listed components, suggesting flexibility in its configuration (’770 Patent, col. 8:31-39).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment describes a "broom-like structure made of braided wire" (’770 Patent, col. 7:53-54). A defendant may argue that this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "grounding strap" to this specific structure or similar conductive, brush-like elements. Dependent claim 12, which specifies "a braided wire," could also be used to argue for a narrower construction of the independent claim term.

• The Term: "selectively receive"

• Context and Importance: This term is used repeatedly in Claim 1 to describe the connection between the risers/spans and the base/cap members. Its construction will define the required nature of the assembly. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused units' connections meet the claim's functional requirements.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the plain meaning of "selectively receive" only requires that the components are designed to fit together in a non-permanent fashion, without mandating a specific fastening mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes adjustability via "selective pinning between the respective holes in the... riser... and... member" (’770 Patent, col. 9:1-5). It also discloses "restraint positions comprising a hole... that penetrates both walls of a tubular receptacle" (’770 Patent, col. 6:25-28). This may support an argument that "selectively receive" implies not just mating parts, but a specific, adjustable locking mechanism as taught in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a count for "INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT" but alleges that Defendant infringed by offering to sell or selling "a product which is made by a process patented in the United States" (Compl. ¶14). This language appears to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which applies to products made by patented processes. However, the ’770 patent claims an apparatus (a "cribbing system"), not a process of manufacture. The complaint does not allege facts to support inducement or contributory infringement, such as knowledge and intent to cause a third party to directly infringe.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation is primarily based on a letter Plaintiff sent to Defendant on October 17, 2017, which allegedly provided "notif[ication]... of the patent status of the cribbing unit construction process and apparatus" (Compl. ¶11). This alleged notification occurred after the patent application was published but prior to its issuance.

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

• A central issue will be one of factual proof: Can Plaintiff establish that the 28 units sold by Defendant contain every element of an asserted claim, particularly given the complaint’s failure to allege any facts concerning the "grounding strap" limitation required by representative Claim 1?
• A key legal question will be the effect of the prior contract: How will the court treat the parties' pre-existing manufacturing agreement? Will the dispute be framed as a straightforward patent infringement matter, or will Defendant be able to leverage the contract to assert equitable defenses such as an implied license to sell units it was authorized to build?
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Will the term "grounding strap" be construed broadly to encompass any conductive element, or will it be limited to the specific "broom-like" wire structure disclosed in the patent's embodiments, and what evidence will show the accused product meets either definition?