DCT
1:25-cv-01206
Quality Edge Inc v. Mac Metal Architectural Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Quality Edge, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: MAC Metal Architectural, Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Price Heneveld LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01206, W.D. Mich., 10/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Michigan because Defendant transacts business in the district, including through sales at specific, named distributors located in Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HARRYWOOD PLUS metal plank siding infringes a patent related to channeled plank siding with an internal drainage system.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns modular building siding designed to offer the durability and water-shedding capabilities of formed metal while mimicking the aesthetic of traditional materials like wood.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of two earlier patents, establishing a priority claim back to December 2018. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff marks its own VESTA® Siding product in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-12-11 | ’423 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-08-23 | ’423 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,421,423 - "CHANNELED PLANK SIDING"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for modular plank siding that incorporates an internal drainage system to manage water infiltration. (’423 Patent, col. 1:13-17). It also seeks to provide a durable, metal-based product that can be customized to look like a wooden panel, thereby combining modern material benefits with traditional aesthetics. (’423 Patent, col. 5:6-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a siding panel with a specific cross-sectional geometry designed for interlocking assembly and water management. Each panel features an upper "securing flange" for attachment to a building and a lower "tab portion." When panels are installed, the tab of an upper panel fits into a "receiving channel" of the panel below it, hiding the fasteners. (’423 Patent, col. 1:20-45). A key feature is an "inner channel" formed between the panel's main body and the tab portion, which is designed to collect and drain water via "weep holes," directing it away from the building wall. (’423 Patent, col. 1:39-45; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The design provides an integrated system for both securing siding panels and actively managing moisture, while simultaneously concealing the attachment hardware for a cleaner aesthetic. (’423 Patent, col. 5:11-13, 5:21-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
- Claim 1 of the ’423 Patent recites the following essential elements for a siding panel:
- An elongated body with an inner and outer face.
- A securing flange portion near the upper end, generally parallel to the outer face and spaced from it by a "first distance."
- A receiving channel near the bottom of the securing flange.
- A tab portion near the lower end, generally parallel to the outer face and spaced from it by a "second distance."
- An inner channel formed by a lower inclined surface between the inner face and the tab portion.
- An upper inclined edge near the upper end of the body.
- A requirement that the "second distance is smaller than said first distance."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the HARRYWOOD PLUS metal plank siding. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes a photograph showing the accused siding installed on a building. (Compl. p. 3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as "metal plank siding." (Compl. ¶11). The infringement allegations rely on technical diagrams of the accused product's cross-section, which depict a panel with an interlocking design that includes an upper securing flange and a lower tab portion, along with specific channels and surfaces. (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges the product is sold through distributors in the judicial district, positioning it as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's products. (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’423 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated body having an inner face and an outer face | The HARRYWOOD PLUS product is an elongated panel with an inner and outer face. | ¶15 | col. 3:20-22 |
| a securing flange portion near an upper end... being generally parallel to said outer face | The accused product has a securing flange at its upper end for attachment. | ¶15 | col. 3:25-28 |
| said securing flange portion being spaced away from said outer face... a first distance | The securing flange is spaced from the outer face, alleged to be a distance of 11/32". | ¶15 | col. 1:26-30 |
| a receiving channel located near a bottom of said securing flange | The accused product includes a receiving channel to accept the tab of an adjacent panel. | ¶15 | col. 3:40-44 |
| a tab portion near a lower end... being generally parallel to said outer face | The accused product has a tab portion at its lower end. | ¶15 | col. 3:45-47 |
| said tab portion being spaced away from said outer face... a second distance | The tab portion is spaced from the outer face, alleged to be a distance of 17/64". | ¶15 | col. 1:35-37 |
| an inner channel formed by a lower inclined surface between said inner face... and said tab portion | An inner channel is allegedly formed by a lower inclined surface and the inner face. | ¶15 | col. 1:39-41 |
| an upper inclined edge located near the upper end of said elongated body | The accused product has an upper inclined edge near its upper end. | ¶15 | col. 3:28-30 |
| wherein said second distance is smaller than said first distance | The complaint alleges that the second distance (17/64" ≈ 0.266") is smaller than the first distance (11/32" = 0.344"). | ¶15 | col. 1:37-38 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s allegations appear to map the accused product’s structure directly onto the claim elements, suggesting a theory of literal infringement. A potential dispute may arise over the term "generally parallel," as Defendant could argue that its product's flanges or tabs are angled sufficiently to fall outside a reasonable interpretation of this term.
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the HARRYWOOD PLUS product has the specific geometry and dimensions alleged in the complaint. The complaint’s annotated diagram, which provides precise measurements for the "first distance" and "second distance," will be a key piece of evidence. (Compl. p. 4). The source and accuracy of this diagram, and whether it represents all versions of the accused product, will likely be a focus of discovery.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "generally parallel"
- Context and Importance: This term is used to define the orientation of both the upper "securing flange portion" and the lower "tab portion" relative to the panel's outer face. Its construction is critical because even a minor deviation from parallel could form the basis of a non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because manufacturing tolerances or intentional design angles in the accused product could be argued to fall outside its scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the modifier "generally" suggests the patentee did not intend to require strict, mathematical parallelism. This interpretation allows for minor, ordinary-course variations in manufacturing or slight angles inherent in the design. The specification does not define a specific angular tolerance, which may support construing the term according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the flange and tab portions as being substantially parallel to the main faces of the elongated body. (’423 Patent, Figs. 3, 7). A party could argue that "generally parallel" should be construed in light of these embodiments to mean nearly parallel, excluding designs with noticeable or functional angles.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of contributory and induced infringement. (Compl. ¶16). It does not, however, allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as pointing to Defendant’s user manuals, installation guides, or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful based on "actual knowledge" of the ’423 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18). The complaint does not specify the basis for this alleged knowledge, such as whether pre-suit notice was provided.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The dispute centers on allegations that a competing product copies the specific, patented geometry of Plaintiff’s siding design. The case will likely turn on two central questions:
A core issue will be one of factual correspondence: Do the physical dimensions and cross-sectional geometry of the accused HARRYWOOD PLUS siding, as sold in the market, precisely match the structural limitations of Claim 1? The resolution will depend on evidence developed during discovery, including product teardowns and analysis of technical specifications.
A secondary issue may be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "generally parallel"? A construction that allows for minor deviation from true parallelism may favor the Plaintiff, while a stricter construction could provide a basis for a non-infringement defense if the accused product incorporates any discernible angles in its flange or tab.