DCT

2:25-cv-14003

Bestop Inc v. Champion Auto Systems LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-14003, E.D. Mich., 12/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Champion’s alleged acts of infringement and sales within the Eastern District of Michigan, combined with the fact that Champion's President resides and conducts corporate operations from a personal residence within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "FASTOP" line of aftermarket soft tops for Ford Bronco vehicles infringes eleven patents related to retractable soft top assemblies, linkages, and sealing mechanisms.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns folding soft tops designed to replace removable hard panels over the front cockpit of sport-utility vehicles, offering a convenient "open air" experience without the need to remove and store bulky panels.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the asserted patents via a cease-and-desist letter on July 31, 2025, followed by additional letters. Defendant allegedly responded by disputing infringement of only one of the eleven patents and continued to market and sell the accused products, including at a subsequent trade show, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-04-02 Earliest Priority Date for '’279 Patent Family
2016-05-13 Earliest Priority Date for '’843 Patent Family
2017-11-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,815,356 Issues
2018-04-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,931,921 Issues
2018-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,944,155 Issues
2019-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,442,279 Issues
2019-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,449,843 Issues
2019-11-12 U.S. Patent No. 10,471,813 Issues
2020-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,696,146 Issues
2021-09-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,124,053 Issues
2023-05-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,648,830 Issues
2023-09-19 U.S. Patent No. 11,760,176 Issues
2025-07-31 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendant
2025-09-24 Plaintiff sends follow-up letter to Defendant
2025-10-23 Plaintiff sends second follow-up letter warning of willfulness
2025-10-31 Defendant's President responds via email
2025-11-04 Defendant displays Accused Products at SEMA trade show
2025-12-12 Complaint for Patent Infringement filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,442,279 - *"Soft Front Cockpit Cover"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes removable hard top panels on sport-utility vehicles as being "laborious, difficult, time consuming, and ergonomically disadvantageous" to remove and store, making it impractical to quickly achieve an "open air feel" or to reinstall the panels in the event of inclement weather (’279 Patent, col. 1:41-col. 2:8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a complete, self-contained soft panel top assembly designed to replace the front hard panels. It features a lightweight, pivotal portion that folds back, allowing an occupant to create a sunroof-style opening without needing to leave the vehicle or store any components. A key aspect is a lightweight rear header designed to form a "weatherproof seal" with the vehicle's remaining hard top portion, simplifying installation and use (’279 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-49).
  • Technical Importance: This design offered a more user-friendly and integrated solution for enjoying an open-air driving experience compared to the cumbersome process of removing and storing heavy, multi-piece hard panels (’279 Patent, col. 2:8-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of all claims of the ’279 Patent, with specific allegations directed to at least claims 1-21 (Compl. ¶¶290, 295, 297 et seq.). The asserted independent claims are 1, 19, and 20.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a soft panel top assembly comprising:
    • two door rails for attachment at a roof opening
    • a pivotable portion pivotally connected to the door rails at two pivot points
    • a header connected to the pivotable portion
    • a rear header for coupling at the roof opening and in sealing engagement with a hardtop roof portion
    • a soft skin roof top cover connected to the header and rear header
  • Independent Claim 19 recites a soft panel top assembly comprising: two door rails; two side rail linkage assemblies pivotally connected to the door rails; a header; a lightweight rear header; a soft skin cover; and a first fabric management bow.
  • Independent Claim 20 recites a soft panel top assembly comprising: two door rails; a pivotal portion that moves about pivot points; a header; a lightweight molded rear header with geometry that follows the hardtop contour; a cover; and first and second fabric management bows with channels to retain a molded extrusion connected to the cover.

U.S. Patent No. 10,449,843 - *"Folding Soft Top with Lift Assist"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior art folding soft top "sunroofs" could require "considerable force at the start of the deployment due to the operator's angle of attack." Additionally, the fabric of the top could become entangled or interfere with the frame mechanism during operation (’843 Patent, col. 1:51-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a folding soft top with a "lift assist mechanism" that uses gas struts to make opening and closing the top easier. The patent describes connecting a first and second gas strut in "force opposition" to control linkages; one strut is preloaded in the closed position to provide an initial force for opening, while the other gets loaded during opening to dampen, or buffer, the motion when closing the top (’843 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-19). The system also incorporates intermediate bows and control linkages for improved fabric management.
  • Technical Importance: The use of gas struts in this configuration reduces the physical effort required to operate the folding top, making the feature more convenient and accessible, while the linkage design improves reliability by managing the fabric path (’843 Patent, col. 1:63-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of all claims of the ’843 Patent, with specific allegations directed to at least claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶¶343, 349, 351 et seq.). The asserted independent claims are 1, 17, and 20.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a folding soft top assembly comprising:
    • a pivotal portion
    • a pair of intermediate bow pivot links
    • a pair of lift assist mechanisms, each with a first and second gas strut connected in "force opposition" to the pivot link and a side rail via first and second idler links to assist movement
  • Independent Claim 17 recites a folding soft top assembly comprising: a pair of front side rails pivotally connected to rear side rails; control linkages; intermediate fabric management bows; and first and second gas struts connected to provide lift assist and control motion.
  • Independent Claim 20 recites a folding soft top assembly with a pivotal portion, intermediate bow pivot links, first and second idler links, lift assist mechanisms with gas struts, and first and second stops that contact the idler links to load the gas struts during opening and closing rotations.

U.S. Patent No. 9,815,356 - *"Soft Front Cockpit Cover"*

  • Technology Synopsis: Based on the complaint's allegations, this patent describes a soft panel top assembly for a vehicle's front cockpit, featuring a pivotable portion connected to door rails, a front header, a rear header for sealing against a hardtop, and a soft cover that moves between open and closed positions (Compl. ¶¶69-74). The allegations also detail specific linkage assemblies and fabric management bows (Compl. ¶¶76, 82).
  • Asserted Claims: All claims, with specific allegations for at least claims 1-19 (Compl. ¶¶65, 75 et seq.).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the entire FASTOP product, including its door rails, pivotable portion with linkage assemblies, headers, fabric management bows, and soft cover (Compl. ¶¶69-121).

U.S. Patent No. 9,931,921 - *"Soft Front Cockpit Cover"*

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology, as alleged in the complaint, concerns a soft panel top assembly with a specific focus on the sealing system. It describes a rear header assembly made of a lightweight molded material that includes a sealing system designed to engage with a hard top seal to provide a weather-tight seal (Compl. ¶137).
  • Asserted Claims: All claims, with specific allegations for at least claims 1-49 (Compl. ¶¶129, 139 et seq.).
  • Accused Features: The FASTOP product's rear header assembly and its sealing system are accused of infringement, including allegations about the materials used for the seal (e.g., closed cell foam) and its interaction with the vehicle's hard top (Compl. ¶¶137, 140, 142, 144).

U.S. Patent No. 9,944,155 - *"Lift Assist Mechanism for Soft Top"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, according to the complaint, relates to a frame and soft top assembly with a lift assist mechanism comprising first and second gas cylinders. The cylinders are allegedly connected in "force opposition" such that one is compressed when the top is down to assist in opening, and the other is compressed during opening to provide force assistance for closing (Compl. ¶¶247-248).
  • Asserted Claims: All claims, with specific allegations for at least claims 1-18 (Compl. ¶¶243, 248 et seq.).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the FASTOP products incorporate a lift assist mechanism with gas cylinders that operate in the claimed "force opposition" manner to assist in opening and closing the soft top (Compl. ¶¶247-248).

U.S. Patent No. 10,471,813 - *"Soft Front Cockpit Cover"*

  • Technology Synopsis: The allegations for this patent focus on a panel top assembly with a detailed rear header and sealing system. The system is alleged to include a "tertiary seal" for backup weather resistance and a specific construction where a "bulbous" sealing portion is sandwiched and retained to create a weather-tight seal against a hard top (Compl. ¶¶399-401).
  • Asserted Claims: All claims, with specific allegations for at least claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶¶395, 402 et seq.).
  • Accused Features: The FASTOP product's rear header assembly, including its upper rear header, retainer, and multi-part sealing system, is accused of infringing (Compl. ¶¶399-401).

U.S. Patent No. 10,696,146 - *"Front Top Assembly for SUV"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is alleged to cover an articulating front top cover assembly where the frame portion is a "cassette attachment" that can be a one-piece or multi-piece unit. The articulating portion includes front and rear links that allow the cover to move between open and closed positions (Compl. ¶¶442, 450, 452, 454).
  • Asserted Claims: All claims, with specific allegations for at least claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶¶438, 443 et seq.).
  • Accused Features: The FASTOP product's frame is accused of being an infringing "cassette attachment," and its articulating portion with its cover and linkage assembly is also accused (Compl. ¶¶442, 450, 460).

U.S. Patent No. 11,124,053 - *"Soft Front Cockpit Cover"*

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent covers a soft top insert for a vehicle roof opening defined by a windshield frame, side members, and a cross member. The invention allegedly includes a rear header assembly with a sealing system that has a "tertiary seal" for backup weather resistance (Compl. ¶¶473-474).
  • Asserted Claims: All claims, with specific allegations for at least claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶¶469, 475 et seq.).
  • Accused Features: The FASTOP product is accused as a soft top insert with a rear header assembly and a multi-part sealing system that infringes the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶473-474, 476).

U.S. Patent No. 11,648,830 - *"Folding Soft Top with Lift Assist"*

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the '843 patent, this patent is alleged to cover a folding soft top assembly with gas strut lift assist mechanisms. The allegations detail intermediate bow pivot links connected to side rails and gas struts that provide force to assist the pivotal portion's movement between open and closed positions (Compl. ¶¶525-528).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-7 and 11-19 (Compl. ¶521).
  • Accused Features: The FASTOP product's pivotal portion, intermediate bow pivot links, and gas strut lift assist mechanisms are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶526-528).

U.S. Patent No. 11,760,176 - *"Soft Front Cockpit Cover with Linkage"*

  • Technology Synopsis: The allegations for this patent describe a soft front cockpit cover with an articulating portion that includes a "coupling link" and an "auxiliary tensioning link." A cross-car bow is connected to the cover and the auxiliary tensioning link, and a bracket connects the bow to the coupling link to enable rotation between open and closed positions (Compl. ¶576).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 18 (Compl. ¶571).
  • Accused Features: The FASTOP product's articulating portion, including its alleged coupling link, auxiliary tensioning link, cross-car bow, and bracket, is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶576).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are aftermarket products for hardtop Ford Bronco vehicles marketed under the names "Fresh Air Soft Top," "FASTOP," and "Jese." The complaint specifically identifies two models: the "Accused FASTOP 4-Door" and the "Accused FASTOP 2-Door" (collectively, the "Accused FASTOP Products") (Compl. ¶¶20-21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused FASTOP Products are described as soft panel top assemblies that replace the removable hard panels over the front cockpit of a vehicle (Compl. ¶69). The complaint alleges they include a pivotable portion with a soft cover that moves between a closed position and an open position, allowing for an "open air feel" without removing the assembly from the vehicle (Compl. ¶74). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website showing the "Ford Bronco 4 door Fresh Air Soft Tops" installed on a vehicle (Compl. ¶22). The products are alleged to be sold as aftermarket components, including to Ford dealerships, for installation on consumer vehicles (Compl. ¶13, ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,442,279 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a soft panel top assembly comprising: two door rails for attachment at a roof opening of a vehicle; The Accused FASTOP Products have two door rails for attachment at a roof opening of a vehicle. ¶294 col. 3:12-14
a pivotable portion pivotally connected to the at least two door rails at two pivot points on each door rail; The Accused FASTOP Products have a pivotable portion pivotally connected to the at least two door rails at two pivot points on each door rail. ¶294 col. 3:33-39
a header connected to the pivotable portion and adapted to selectively connect to the vehicle; The Accused FASTOP Products have a header connected to the pivotable portion and adapted to selectively connect to the vehicle. ¶294 col. 4:11-13
a rear header operable for being coupled at the roof opening in the vehicle, said rear header in sealing engagement with a hardtop roof portion to provide a weather tight seal in said roof opening; and The Accused FASTOP Products have a rear header operable for being coupled at the roof opening in the vehicle, the rear header in sealing engagement with a hardtop roof portion to provide a weather tight seal in the roof opening. ¶294 col. 4:51-54
a cover that is a soft skin roof top cover, said cover operably connected to the header and rear header, where pivoting the pivotable portion allows the cover to move between a closed position and an open position. The Accused FASTOP Products have a cover that is a soft skin roof top cover, the cover operably connected to the header and rear header, where pivoting the pivotable portion allows the cover to move between a closed position and an open position. ¶294 col. 4:47-50

10,449,843 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A folding soft top assembly for a vehicle...comprising: a pivotal portion operably connected to said side members of said vehicle...selectively pivotal between a closed position and at least one open position; The Accused FASTOP Products are a folding soft top assembly...[with] a pivotal portion operably connected to the side members of the vehicle, the pivotal portion selectively pivotal between a closed position and an open position. ¶347, ¶348 col. 3:9-11
a pair of intermediate bow pivot links operably connected to a pair of side rails, respectively; The Accused FASTOP Products have a pair of intermediate bow pivot links operably connected to a pair of side rails, respectively. ¶348 col. 3:65-col. 4:4
a pair of lift assist mechanisms each comprising a first gas strut and a second gas strut operably connected to said intermediate bow pivot link and said side rail in force opposition... The Accused FASTOP Products have a pair of lift assist mechanisms each with a first gas strut and a second gas strut operably connected to the intermediate bow pivot link and the side rail in force opposition. ¶348 col. 4:11-19
said lift assist mechanism including a first idler link connected to said first gas strut and to said side rail and a second idler link connected to said side rail and said second gas strut operable to assist moving said soft top assembly... The lift assist mechanism including a first idler link connected to the first gas strut and to the side rail and a second idler link connected to the side rail and the second gas strut operable to assist moving the soft top assembly... ¶348 col. 4:22-25
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations for many of the patents closely mirror the claim language without providing extensive, independent technical descriptions of the accused products' operations. A potential point of contention may be whether this level of detail is sufficient to plausibly allege infringement of each element, particularly for complex functional limitations. For instance, the complaint alleges the existence of a "tertiary seal" (Compl. ¶170) to meet a limitation in the '’921 Patent, which raises the question of whether the accused product’s sealing structure contains a distinct component that meets the definition of such a seal as understood in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: For the '843 Patent and other lift-assist patents, a central technical question will be whether the accused product's gas struts are actually connected and function "in force opposition" as claimed (Compl. ¶348). The complaint asserts this functionality, but provides no detail on the mechanical arrangement that achieves it. This raises the evidentiary question of what proof exists that one strut is preloaded for opening while the other is loaded to dampen closing, as opposed to a more conventional dual-strut system where both struts primarily assist with lifting.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "rear header" (’279 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in nearly all asserted patents and is central to how the soft top integrates with the vehicle's existing hard top. Its construction will be critical for infringement, as a narrow definition focused on specific materials or geometry could allow the defendant to design around the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines whether a simple rear cross-member infringes or if a more complex, lightweight, molded, and contoured structure is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Independent Claim 1 of the ’279 Patent defines the term functionally as a component "operable for being coupled at the roof opening...in sealing engagement with a hardtop roof portion" (’279 Patent, col. 8:44-48). This suggests any rear structural element that performs this coupling and sealing function could suffice.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claims and the specification provide more detail. Claim 20 requires the rear header to be a "lightweight molded material" with "rear geometry which follows the contour of the hardtop roof portion" (’279 Patent, col. 10:59-62). The specification repeatedly refers to the rear header as a "lightweight" "closeout" made from a "wireframe and/or lightweight molded section" (’279 Patent, col. 2:44-47), which may support a narrower construction limited to such specific embodiments.

  • The Term: "lift assist mechanism...in force opposition" (’843 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core novelty of the lift-assist patents. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused product's mechanism operates in this specific manner. The definition is critical because if "in force opposition" is construed to require the specific pre-loading and dampening functions described in the specification, infringement will depend on detailed evidence of the accused product's force dynamics during operation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a functional definition: one strut is compressed when the top is closed, and upon opening, its force assists the motion while the other strut becomes compressed. Upon closing, the "now compressed" second strut provides assistance (’843 Patent, col. 8:50-col. 9:3). An argument could be made that any two-strut system that exhibits this sequence of loading and unloading meets the definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and summary describe a specific sequence where "One is closed and preloaded when the sunroof is in its closed position and upon opening the sunroof the preloaded strut provides lift assistance," while the other "gets loaded as the top is deployed and buffers the closing" (’843 Patent, col. 2:11-17). This description of one strut being "preloaded" for opening and the other providing a "buffering" or dampening function for closing may be used to argue for a narrower definition that requires more than just sequential compression and extension.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant's "marketing materials, product instructions, and sales activities," which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to install and use the Accused FASTOP Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶27, 122). Contributory infringement is also pled, on the basis that the accused products are specially made for infringing use, constitute material components of the patented inventions, and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶29, 123).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit actual notice. Plaintiff asserts it sent a certified letter on July 31, 2025, identifying the asserted patents and demanding that Defendant cease its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶31). The complaint further alleges that despite this notice and subsequent letters, Defendant continued to sell the products and advertised them at the SEMA trade show on November 4, 2025, constituting deliberate and intentional disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶¶32-34, 41-42).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the specific multi-part linkage assemblies, pivot points, and fabric management structures of the accused FASTOP products map directly onto the precise mechanical arrangements required by the asserted independent claims, or are there material differences in their construction and operation that place them outside the claims' scope?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused product's "gas strut lift assist mechanism" function in the specific "force opposition" manner claimed in patents like the '843 patent—whereby one strut is preloaded to initiate opening and the other is loaded to dampen closing—or does it employ a more conventional dual-strut lift system that lacks this claimed reciprocal functionality?
  • Given the complaint’s detailed timeline of pre-suit communications, a central question for damages will be one of willfulness: Did Champion's alleged decision to continue marketing and selling the accused products after receiving specific, written notice of eleven patents constitute objective recklessness, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages?