DCT
1:18-cv-11293
Gorilla Power LLC v. Fullerton Tool Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gorilla Power, LLC (Florida) and Gorilla Tools, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Fullerton Tool Company, Inc. (Michigan) and JM Lawson Associates, LLC (Connecticut)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BRACKETT & ELLIS, A Professional Corporation
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-11293, E.D. Mich., 04/25/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant JM Lawson Associates, LLC is an agent of Defendant Fullerton Tool Company, Inc., has committed acts of infringement in the district, and has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' 4 flute end mill cutting tools infringe a patent related to a variable helix rotary cutting tool designed to reduce harmonic vibrations and extend tool life.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns high-performance end mills, which are cutting tools used in industrial machining for the aerospace, automotive, and manufacturing industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that after a former contractor for Plaintiff (James M. Lawson) began working for a competitor (Defendant Fullerton), Fullerton purchased Plaintiff’s patented product, copied the invention, and began manufacturing and selling an "identical knock-off." These allegations form the basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-04-28 | James M. Lawson forms JM Lawson Associates, LLC |
| 2006-07-07 | '754 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2008-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,367,754 issues |
| 2012-09-01 | James M. Lawson begins work as a contractor for Gorilla |
| 2016-09-06 | James M. Lawson terminates his contract with Gorilla |
| 2016-09-01 | JM Lawson Associates begins working with Fullerton |
| 2018-04-25 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,367,754 - Variable Helix Rotary Cutting Tool
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that during machining operations, "Harmonic vibrations constitute major sources of internal stresses in end mill cutters," which can cause the tools to become dull, wear out, and break prematurely (ʼ754 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a four-flute rotary cutting tool designed to counteract these destructive vibrations. The solution lies in a specific, asymmetrical arrangement of the helical grooves (flutes) on the tool. It specifies one pair of flutes that are symmetrical and share the same helix angle, combined with a third flute and a fourth flute that each have a unique helix angle, different from the first pair and from each other ('754 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-col. 3:3). This specific combination of one symmetrical pair and two individually angled flutes is presented as an "optimum combination" for reducing resonant harmonic vibrations ('754 Patent, col. 2:64-67).
- Technical Importance: This variable helix geometry is asserted to reduce the amplitude of harmonic vibrations generated during use, thereby extending the operational life and performance of the cutting tool ('754 Patent, col. 3:28-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and provides an exemplary claim chart for Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶20, 23).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A rotary cutting tool with a substantially cylindrical main body.
- A pair of flutes (a first and second flute) on opposite sides of the main body that are symmetrical and have the same helix angle.
- A third flute with a helix angle that is different from the helix angle of the first pair.
- A fourth flute, generally opposite the third flute, with a helix angle that is different from both the helix angle of the first pair and the helix angle of the third flute.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Fullerton's "4 flute end mill cutting tool" (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is an "identical knock-off" of Plaintiff's own "4 Flute Sasquatch" end mill, which embodies the '754 Patent (Compl. ¶18). The functionality is that of a solid carbide rotary cutting tool for industrial machining (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges that after Defendant Fullerton retained the services of JM Lawson Associates (whose principal was a former sales contractor for Plaintiff), Fullerton purchased one of Plaintiff's patented tools, "copied the patented invention," and began manufacturing and marketing the accused product, including to Plaintiff's own customers (Compl. ¶18). Plaintiff further alleges it obtained and measured the accused tool and confirmed it "has the same three different helical angles as disclosed in the '754 Patent" (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'754 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substantially cylindrical main body having a shank end and a cutting end formed integrally opposite the shank end, the main body having a longitudinal axis of rotation; | Fullerton’s end mill comprises a substantially cylindrical main body having a shank end and a cutting end formed integrally opposite the shank end. The main body of the Fullerton end mill has a longitudinal axis of rotation. | ¶20 | col. 3:35-40 |
| a pair of flutes comprising a first flute and a second flute formed on opposite sides of the main body... each of the pair of flutes defining a helical cutting edge having a helix angle... | The pair of flutes in the Fullerton end mill comprise a first flute and a second flute formed on opposite sides of the main body... Each of the pair of flutes of the Fullerton end mill define a helical cutting edge having a helix angle... | ¶20 | col. 3:48-56 |
| wherein the pair of flutes are symmetrical and have the same helix angle; | Based on measurements from four recognized measuring instruments, the pair of flutes of the Fullerton end mill are symmetrical and have the same helix angle. | ¶20 | col. 4:58-63 |
| a third flute formed on one side of the main body between the pair of flutes, the third flute defining a helical cutting edge having a helix angle that is different than the helix angle of the pair of flutes; and | The Fullerton end mill has a third flute... Based on measurements... the third flute... has a helix angle that is different than the helix angle of the pair of flutes. | ¶20 | col. 4:64-col. 5:4 |
| a fourth flute formed on the other side of the main body... the fourth flute defining a helical cutting edge having a helix angle that is different than the helix angle of the pair of flutes and different than the helix angle of the third flute. | The Fullerton end mill has a fourth flute... Based on measurements... the fourth flute... has a helix angle that is different than the helix angle of the pair of flutes and different than the helix angle of the third flute. | ¶20 | col. 4:5-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement theory rests heavily on its allegation that it "measured the helical angle of the flutes using four different universally-recognized instruments" and confirmed the angles match the patent's disclosure (Compl. ¶19). A central question will be whether discovery and expert analysis validate these measurements and confirm that the accused product's geometry literally meets the claim limitations.
- Scope Questions: The patent’s preferred embodiment discloses specific angles ("about 37 degrees," "about 33 degrees," and "about 34 degrees") ('754 Patent, col. 4:63-64, col. 5:3-4, col. 5:11-12). The litigation may raise the question of how literally these specific angular relationships must be met by the accused product, especially if measurements show minor deviations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "symmetrical"
- Context and Importance: This term is applied to the "pair of flutes" that have the same helix angle. Its definition is critical because the claimed invention is distinguished from prior art based on its unique combination of one symmetrical pair and two non-symmetrical, individually angled flutes. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine the required geometric relationship between the first two flutes beyond just having the same helix angle.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the pair of flutes to be "formed on opposite sides of the main body," which may suggest that "symmetrical" simply reinforces this oppositional placement without imposing a stricter geometric constraint (ʼ754 Patent, col. 5:17-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes that it is "important that the pair of flutes 20 and 22 are symmetrical" ('754 Patent, col. 4:60-61). This language, combined with Figure 2 which depicts the flutes as diametrically opposed, could be argued to require a precise 180-degree rotational symmetry.
The Term: "about"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the specification's description of the preferred and "most preferably" helix angles (e.g., "about 37 degrees") but not in independent claim 1 ('754 Patent, col. 4:64). However, its use in the specification is relevant to understanding the scope of the claimed invention and will be critical if infringement of dependent claims (e.g., claims 5, 8, 11, 13) which recite these values is alleged. The interpretation of "about" will determine the permissible deviation from the stated numerical values.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides numerical ranges (e.g., "between 33-42 degrees") for the helix angles, suggesting the "about" values are exemplary, not rigid limits ('754 Patent, col. 4:63). The patent also states that "all helix angle measurements are +/-0.5 degrees," which provides an explicit boundary for what "about" might mean ('754 Patent, col. 4:12-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent distinguishes between a preferred range ("between 33-42 degrees") and a "most preferably" value ("about 37 degrees"), which could support an argument that "about" implies a narrower range than the explicitly stated +/-0.5 degrees, particularly for the "most preferred" embodiment ('754 Patent, col. 4:63-64).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶23). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these theories, such as detailing how Defendants would have induced their customers to infringe. The allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendants' acts of making and selling the accused tools.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants having "full knowledge of the existence and validity of the '754 Patent" (Compl. ¶25). The factual basis for this allegation is the claim that Defendants purchased Plaintiff’s commercial product (the "4 Flute Sasquatch"), which is marked with the patent number, and then "copied the patented invention and began selling an identical end mill knock-off" (Compl. ¶13, 25). The hiring of a former Gorilla contractor is also alleged to support knowledge (Compl. ¶15, 18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The dispute as framed in the complaint appears to be less about nuanced claim interpretation and more about a direct factual conflict over alleged copying. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Do the measurements of the accused Fullerton end mill confirm, as the complaint alleges, that it possesses the specific three-tier helix angle structure required by Claim 1 of the '754 Patent? The case may turn on a "battle of the experts" regarding the precise geometry of the accused tool.
- A central question for damages will be one of knowing misconduct: Does the evidence support the narrative that Defendants, aware of the '754 patent, deliberately purchased and copied Plaintiff's product? The resolution of the willfulness allegation will depend heavily on the facts surrounding the role of the former Gorilla contractor and the development process of the accused Fullerton tool.