DCT
2:23-cv-11581
Difr-Tek Digital, LLC v. Progressive Components International Corporation
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Difr-Tek Digital, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: Progressive Components International Corporation (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: FisherBroyles, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-11581, E.D. Mich., 06/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Michigan based on the defendant having employees or sales representatives, customers, and sales within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ProFile brand asset management systems for injection molding tools infringe a patent related to using unique identifiers to track and manage tool information via a central database.
- Technical Context: The technology provides a system for tracking industrial manufacturing tools, such as molds and dies, by linking a physical identifier on the tool to a database of critical information, intended to improve efficiency and reduce errors in manufacturing environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with a notice letter and a copy of the patent-in-suit in 2022. It also alleges Defendant was aware of the patent application as early as its publication date in April 2019.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-03-01 | ’298 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-04-04 | ’298 Patent Application Publication Date |
| 2022-04-19 | ’298 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-04-19 | Alleged Start of Infringing Activity (at least as early as) |
| 2022-XX-XX | Pre-Suit Notice Letter Sent to Defendant |
| 2023-06-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,308,298 - "Tooling System," issued April 19, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem of critical information related to manufacturing tools (e.g., molds, dies) being lost, incomplete, or unavailable when tools are moved between facilities. This makes it difficult to distinguish tools, perform required maintenance, or operate them correctly, leading to inefficiency and potential danger from misuse. (’298 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a unique, machine-readable identifier (e.g., a QR code) is affixed to a tool. A user with a portable device can scan the identifier to communicate with a tool database, which stores and provides access to the tool’s history, design specifications, and other critical data. This system allows for real-time access to and updating of tool information directly from the factory floor. (’298 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-45; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The system aims to create a dynamic and reliable "single source of truth" for tool assets, thereby improving management, reducing costly errors, and streamlining maintenance throughout a tool's lifecycle. (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 15, 16, and 18, and dependent claim 17. (Compl. ¶¶24-25).
- Independent Claim 15 recites a tooling system for an injection molding tool, comprising:
- an identifier tag configured to be connected to an injection molding tool;
- a tool database configured to store information about the tool, including tool design and an image of the tool; and
- a portable communication device configured to scan the tag, provide and store the tool's location, communicate with the database, display tool information, and transfer information to the database.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "injection molding monitoring systems under the brand ProFile," which includes "asset management system software that uses QR codes attached to injection molding tools" (the "Accused System"). (Compl. ¶2).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint describes the Accused System as a "cloud-based tracking system" marketed to OEMs, Molders, and Mold Builders to "organize and track tooling activity." (Compl. ¶18).
- Its function is presented as an "advanced mold monitoring system for tracking and maintaining molds." (Compl. ¶18).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’298 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an identifier tag that is configured to be connected to an injection molding tool; | The QR codes that are part of the ProFile system and are attached to injection molding tools. | ¶2 | col. 17:19-21 |
| a tool database that is configured to store information about an injection molding tool, tool design, and an image of the tool; | The "cloud-based tracking system" and "asset management system software" used to "organize and track tooling activity" and maintain molds. | ¶2, ¶18 | col. 17:22-25 |
| and a portable communication device that is configured to scan the identifier tag and provide location of an injection molding tool, the communication device is further configured to communicate with the tool database and display information of the injection molding tool that is stored in the tool database, the tool database is configured to store a location of the injection molding tool... | A portable device, as an integral part of the Accused System, which allegedly scans the QR codes and communicates with the cloud-based database to display and transfer information, including location data, as part of the system's function to track and monitor injection molding tools. | ¶2, ¶18, ¶24 | col. 17:26-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint contains general allegations but lacks specific factual support demonstrating that the Accused System performs every function recited in the claims. A central question for discovery will be whether the ProFile system's database is, in fact, "configured to store" the specific data types required by claim 15, such as "tool design" and "an image of the tool."
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the Accused System includes the location-based functionality recited in claim 15. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence showing that the system is configured to "provide location of an injection molding tool" and that the database is configured to "store a location" of that tool.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "portable communication device"
- Context and Importance: This term is central because claim 15 requires it to perform a specific set of integrated functions (scan, provide location, communicate, display, transfer). The infringement analysis will turn on whether the device used with the ProFile system meets this functional definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that a user's generic smartphone running a simple QR reader app does not constitute the highly "configured" device recited in the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the reader can be a "'smart phone' with the appropriate application," which may support an argument that common, general-purpose devices fall within the claim's scope. (’298 Patent, col. 4:36-39).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the device to be "configured to" perform a lengthy list of specific tasks, including providing location. This may support an argument that the term requires more than a general-purpose device and instead refers to a device with specialized software or hardware provided as part of the overall "tooling system." (’298 Patent, col. 17:26-38).
The Term: "provide location of an injection molding tool" and "store a location"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is specific to claim 15, and proving infringement requires showing the Accused System performs this function. Its definition is critical because if the Accused System lacks this feature, it cannot infringe this claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "location" is not limited to automated GPS data and could encompass a manually entered text field describing a tool's position in a factory (e.g., "Plant B, Press 4"), which the system then "provides" and "stores." (’298 Patent, col. 12:10-14, describing "plant location 710").
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes using a "global positioning system (GPS) as part of a cellular phone or using cellular triangulation" to track tools. This could support a narrower construction requiring automated, coordinate-based location tracking, as depicted in Figure 9. (’298 Patent, col. 1:37-39; col. 12:36-40).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that the Defendant causes its customers to use the Accused System in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶20, 24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge of the ’298 Patent. The complaint pleads pre-suit knowledge based on a 2022 notice letter and alleged awareness of the published patent application since 2019. (Compl. ¶19, ¶22). It alleges that Defendant's infringement continued despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional completeness: The complaint makes broad allegations of infringement. The case will likely depend on whether discovery produces evidence that the accused ProFile system actually performs every specific function recited in the asserted claims, particularly the requirements to store "tool design" and "an image" and to "provide" and "store" a tool's "location."
- The case will also present a core issue of definitional scope: The construction of the term "location" will be critical. The court will need to determine whether the claim requires automated, GPS-style tracking as explicitly described in certain embodiments, or if the term can be construed more broadly to cover manually entered positional data within a facility.
- Finally, a central dispute may concern the nature of the accused device: The parties will likely contest whether a user's own smartphone running an application for the ProFile system qualifies as the "portable communication device" that is "configured to" perform the specific, multi-step process recited in claim 15, or if the claim requires a more specialized, integrated component of the accused system.