Fleet Engineers Inc v. Mudguard Tech LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fleet Engineers, Inc. (Michigan)
  • Defendant: Mudguard Technologies, LLC (Tennessee) and Tarun Surti (Individual)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McGarry Bair PC
• Case Identification: 1:12-cv-01143, W.D. Mich., 10/19/2012
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the plaintiff's residence within the district, as well as the defendants' business contacts and prior contractual agreements with the plaintiff in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its AeroFlap brand mud flap does not infringe Defendant's patent related to aerodynamic mud flaps, and further that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns aerodynamic mud flaps for large trucks, which are designed to reduce water spray and decrease wind resistance to improve fuel efficiency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states the parties had a prior business relationship involving a distribution agreement for the defendant's "V-Flap" product, which is the subject of the patent-in-suit. Following the termination of that agreement, the plaintiff developed its own "AeroFlap" product. The defendants subsequently sent letters alleging patent infringement, which precipitated this declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-09-02	'949 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2010-04-20	Defendant Surti contacted Plaintiff regarding V-Flap product
2010-07-20	Parties entered into a Distributor Agreement
2010-09-30	Distributor Agreement terminated by mutual agreement
2012-02	Plaintiff introduced its AeroFlap product at a trade show
2012-04-03	U.S. Patent No. 8,146,949 Issued
2012-06-28	Plaintiff received first correspondence alleging infringement
2012-10-19	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,146,949 - "MUD FLAP" (issued April 3, 2012)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional solid rubber mud flaps for trucks create significant wind resistance, reducing fuel efficiency. While lighter flaps with perforations exist, they can still deflect water and debris sideways into the path of other vehicles. ('949 Patent, col. 1:11-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mud flap with a series of vertically extending channels on its front face (the side facing the tire). These channels are designed to catch water and debris and direct it downward toward the road. The rear walls of these channels contain "slotted openings" which are sized to allow air to pass through—reducing drag and preventing the flap from being pushed up by wind—while being narrow enough to block most water and debris from passing through to the rear. ('949 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-52; Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: This design purports to solve two problems simultaneously: it manages water spray more effectively than simple perforated flaps and reduces aerodynamic drag compared to solid flaps, thereby potentially improving both safety and fuel efficiency. ('949 Patent, col. 4:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶39, 53). The independent claims are 1, 9, and 14.
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • A vertically extending flap mounted to the rear of a vehicle wheel.
  • A plurality of "laterally spaced, vertically extending vanes" that define "vertically extending channels" on the front side of the flap to direct water and debris downward.
  • "vertically extending slotted openings" in the channels that are of a size that "permit[] air to pass through" but "prevent[] water and debris from doing so."
• Independent Claim 9 adds the requirement that the vanes are "tapered" with "inwardly and rearwardly inclined lateral surfaces."
• Independent Claim 14 adds further structures on the rear side of the flap, including "deflectors" aligned with the slotted openings and "air outlets" to direct airflow.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the "AeroFlap brand mudflap product" manufactured and sold by Plaintiff Fleet Engineers (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the AeroFlap as an "aerodynamic AEROFLAP mud flap" developed by Fleet Engineers' in-house engineers (Compl. ¶12). It was introduced after the termination of a distribution agreement between the plaintiff and defendants for a similar product (Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the structure or operation of the AeroFlap. It does allege that defendants' infringement accusations have caused at least one customer to refrain from purchasing the AeroFlap product, suggesting it has achieved some level of market entry (Compl. ¶46).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action and therefore denies, rather than alleges, infringement. It makes a general assertion that "Fleet Engineers has not infringed any claims of the ‘949 patent" but does not provide specific non-infringement arguments or a claim-by-claim analysis (Compl. ¶39). The correspondence referenced as containing these details (Exhibit J) was not included with the complaint filing. As such, a detailed claim chart cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent claims and the nature of the dispute, the core infringement analysis will likely turn on the following questions:

• Structural Questions: Does the Plaintiff's AeroFlap product possess the specific physical structures recited in the claims? Specifically, does it contain elements that meet the definitions of "vanes," "channels," "slotted openings," and, for claim 14, rear-side "deflectors"? The absence of any technical description of the AeroFlap in the complaint leaves this as a central open question.
• Functional Questions: If the AeroFlap product has openings, do they perform the dual function required by claim 1, namely "permitting air to pass through... and preventing water and debris from doing so"? The degree of "preventing" required by the claim may become a significant point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"vanes"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in all independent claims and defines the primary water-channeling structure. Whether the vertical elements on the AeroFlap (if any) meet the definition of "vanes" will be a threshold issue for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 describes vanes broadly by their function of "defining a plurality of vertically extending channels on the front side of the flap for directing water and debris." ('949 Patent, col. 8:41-45).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a preferred embodiment where the vanes are "tapered," have "rounded" front edges, and are inclined at specific angles (e.g., "7 degrees"). ('949 Patent, col. 2:27-34). Defendants may argue these features are necessary to define a "vane" as used in the patent.

"slotted openings ... of a size permitting air to pass ... and preventing water and debris from doing so"

• Context and Importance: This functional language is the heart of the invention's claimed air/water separation capability. The dispute will likely focus on how effectively an opening must block debris to meet the "preventing" limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "relatively little water and debris can escape through them," which may support an interpretation that absolute prevention is not required. ('949 Patent, col. 3:9-11).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific dimensions and inclined side walls for the openings in its embodiments, which are described as the mechanism for achieving the separation. ('949 Patent, col. 2:45-52). A party could argue that the term's scope is limited to openings that use a similar structure to achieve the function.

"deflectors"

• Context and Importance: This element is a key limitation in independent claim 14. Infringement of this claim hinges entirely on whether the AeroFlap has a corresponding structure on its rear side.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the term functionally, as being for "directing any water and debris passing through the openings in a downward direction toward the ground." ('949 Patent, col. 3:45-48).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description show "deflectors" as distinct vertical structures positioned behind the openings and connected by "bridges," forming "air outlets." ('949 Patent, Fig. 10; col. 3:45-58). An argument could be made that the term requires this specific, more complex rear-side configuration.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "vanes" be interpreted broadly to cover any vertical-channel-forming protrusions, or will it be limited to the specific "tapered" and angled structures shown in the patent's embodiments? Similarly, how much debris must an opening block to satisfy the "preventing" limitation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: As the complaint lacks technical details of the accused product, the case will depend on discovery to establish whether the AeroFlap product physically embodies the combination of "vanes," "channels," and "slotted openings," and particularly the rear-side "deflectors" required by claim 14.
• A third major question will concern validity: Plaintiff has alleged the patent is invalid as anticipated (§102) or obvious (§103) (Compl. ¶55). This will require the court to analyze prior art in the field of vehicle mud flaps to determine if the claimed combination of downward-directing channels and air-permeable slots was previously known or would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill.