DCT

0:11-cv-00670

Basalite Concrete Products v. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:11-cv-00670, E.D. Cal., 10/18/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper because Plaintiff manufactures the licensed product at a plant within the district and Defendant conducts business in California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a former licensee, seeks a declaratory judgment that certain of Defendant's patents for retaining wall blocks are invalid and/or that it is a co-inventor, and seeks disgorgement of royalties allegedly collected improperly on expired or co-invented patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the design, manufacture, and ornamental appearance of concrete blocks used for landscaping and civil engineering retaining walls.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long-standing licensor-licensee relationship of over twenty years. After formal written agreements expired in 2006, the parties continued under an informal arrangement. A dispute over royalty rates arose, which Plaintiff alleges culminated in Defendant sending a termination notice and a cease-and-desist letter, creating the basis for this declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-11-08 Complaint alleges U.S. Patent No. D380,560 expired
2006-09-15 Complaint alleges U.S. Patent Nos. RE37,278 and RE34,314 expired
2008-12-03 Plaintiff Basalite proposes new, lower royalty rates to Defendant Keystone
2009-01-01 Effective date of the "New Royalty Rates" which Plaintiff alleges Keystone accepted
2009-09-27 Complaint alleges U.S. Patent No. 5,827,015 expired
2010-03-02 Keystone allegedly repudiates the new royalty rate agreement
2010-06-08 Complaint alleges U.S. Patent Nos. 5,078,940 and 5,217,630 expired
2010-09-29 Keystone sends letter attempting to terminate the license arrangement with Basalite
2010-10-18 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,827,015 - "Composite Masonry Block"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,827,015, "Composite Masonry Block," issued October 27, 1998.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in manufacturing strong, versatile concrete blocks for retaining walls. Specifically, it notes that conventional manufacturing techniques can result in weak exterior features, such as interlocking flanges, which compromises the structural integrity of a wall. It also notes the difficulty in using prior blocks to construct walls that follow the natural contours of a landscape in a serpentine pattern (ʼ015 Patent, col. 2:5-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a high-strength composite masonry block with a specific geometry designed for structural integrity and versatility. The block body is described as having an "irregular trapezoidal shape" with two-part sidewalls, which enables the construction of both straight and curved retaining walls (ʼ015 Patent, col. 3:20-29). A key feature is a flange extending from the back of the block, which serves as an interlocking element. The patent also discloses a manufacturing process and mold design intended to apply uniform pressure during formation, ensuring that both the block body and the critical flange element are strong (ʼ015 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-62).
  • Technical Importance: This design approach sought to provide landscapers and contractors with a single block type that could be used to build aesthetically varied (straight or curved) and structurally sound mortarless retaining walls.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity for "certain of Keystone's Patents" but does not specify claims (Compl. ¶53). Independent claim 1 is representative of the product.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A block body with parallel front/back and upper/lower surfaces, where the lower surface has a smaller area than the upper.
    • Opposed sidewall surfaces, each comprising a first part and a second part.
    • The first sidewall part extends from the front surface at an angle of ninety degrees or less.
    • The second sidewall part joins the first part and the back surface, intersecting the back surface at an angle less than ninety degrees.
    • A flange extending from the back surface past the height of the block, which includes a setback surface and a locking surface.
    • The top and sidewall surfaces are "generally solid and continuous across their entire extents."

U.S. Patent No. 5,078,940 - "Method for Forming an Irregular Surface Block"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,078,940, "Method for Forming an Irregular Surface Block," issued January 7, 1992.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that creating a rough, "split-type" appearance on concrete blocks traditionally required splitting a larger, cured block. This process is described as producing waste material and being limited to creating substantially flat, or planar, split surfaces ('940 Patent, col. 1:9-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and apparatus for forming a block with an irregular, split-type surface without a conventional, wasteful splitting step. The method involves placing block-forming material into a mold cavity. When the newly formed block is removed from the cavity, a portion of the material is intentionally retained within the mold (e.g., by a face plate with projections). This action "shears" the face of the block, creating the desired rough texture directly during the molding process ('940 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:47-61). This technique allows for the creation of non-planar split-type surfaces.
  • Technical Importance: This method offered a more efficient way to manufacture popular split-face blocks while reducing material waste and enabling more complex, non-planar textured designs.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claim 1 is the broadest method claim.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Providing a cavity defined by a lower support member and one or more walls, where the member and walls are capable of relative vertical movement.
    • Placing block-forming material into the cavity.
    • Removing the formed block by causing linear relative vertical movement between the support member and the walls.
    • During removal, "retaining a portion of said material in place against at least a portion of said one or more walls."
    • This action forms a "vertical split surface" on the block where the retained material separates from the remainder of the block material.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. RE34,314 & RE37,278

  • Patent Identification: Reissue Patent Nos. RE34,314 (reissue of 4,825,619) and RE37,278 (reissue of 4,802,320), related to "Block Wall" and "Retaining Wall Block" technology.
  • Technology Synopsis: These patents describe retaining wall blocks with a distinct shape, generally comprising a body with a decorative front face, a narrower neck, and a head with outwardly-directed "ears" for anchoring. The system relies on interlocking stacked blocks using pins that pass through holes in one block and into pockets in the block below.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges these patents cover certain products for which Keystone improperly collected royalties post-expiration (Compl. ¶44). The features would be the interlocking retaining wall blocks manufactured by Basalite.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. D380,560

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D380,560, "Three Faceted Broken Front Face of a Retaining Wall Block," issued July 1, 1997.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design—the visual appearance—of a retaining wall block face that has three distinct, rough or "broken" facets.
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents have a single claim to the ornamental design as shown in the figures.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges this patent covers certain products for which Keystone improperly collected royalties post-expiration (Compl. ¶44). The features would be any retaining wall blocks sold by Basalite embodying the patented three-faceted design.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,217,630

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,217,630, "Apparatus for Forming an Irregular Surface Block," issued June 8, 1993.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a divisional of the application that led to the '940 method patent and claims the apparatus for carrying out the method. It describes a mold structure with a cavity and a "means...for retaining a portion of said material in place," such as a face plate assembly with projections, to create the split-type surface during block removal.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges this patent covers certain products or manufacturing techniques for which royalties were improperly collected (Compl. ¶44). The accused instrumentality would be the molds used by Basalite to produce its "Softsplit" line of blocks.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The products at issue are retaining wall system blocks manufactured by Basalite under a license from Keystone (Compl. ¶¶1, 28). The complaint specifically names product lines including "Standard Unit, Compac Unit, Intermediate, Legacy, Gardenwall, Sedona, and all products designated as Softsplit" as being subject to the royalty dispute (Compl. ¶44).

Functionality and Market Context

These are concrete block products used to construct mortarless retaining walls for landscaping and other applications (Compl. ¶1, ¶10). The complaint alleges that Basalite manufactured and marketed these products using Keystone's "Know-How, Molds, Patent Rights, and Trademarks" under a long-standing franchise agreement (Compl. ¶¶28, 68). The dispute arose after Keystone sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding Basalite stop using its patent rights (Compl. ¶28, ¶52).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action and therefore does not contain affirmative allegations of infringement against specific products. Instead, Plaintiff Basalite seeks a declaration that certain of Defendant Keystone's patents are invalid and/or that Basalite is a co-inventor (Compl. ¶¶51-58). This request was prompted by a cease-and-desist letter from Keystone which, according to the complaint, "implies a threat to institute an action against Plaintiff for patent infringement" (Compl. ¶52). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of infringement. However, the documents suggest the primary technical questions that would arise in any subsequent infringement action by Keystone.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • For the '015 Patent (Product): A central question for any infringement analysis would be one of geometric scope: do the retaining wall blocks manufactured by Basalite meet the specific two-part sidewall and flange limitations of claim 1, particularly the angular relationships defined for the sidewall parts relative to the front and back surfaces?
    • For the '940 Patent (Method): A key technical question would focus on the manufacturing process used by Basalite to create its "Softsplit" blocks (Compl. ¶44). Does that process constitute "retaining a portion of said material in place against at least a portion of said one or more walls" to form a split surface, as required by claim 1, or does it achieve a textured surface through a different, non-infringing mechanism?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "retaining a portion of said material in place...to form a vertical split surface" (from Claim 1 of the '940 Patent).

    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core inventive step of the '940 method patent. The outcome of an infringement dispute would likely depend on whether the accused manufacturing process performs this specific action. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the patented method from other texturing techniques.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the action as when "the volume of material 18 contained within the first portion of the cavity...remains in place.... This action essentially 'shears' or splits the material 18" ('940 Patent, col. 4:14-17). A party could argue that any process that achieves this shearing or splitting effect by holding back some material falls within the claim's scope, regardless of the specific mechanism used.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment describes a specific structure for achieving the retention, namely a "face plate assembly 12" with "a series of rearwardly facing projections, shown at 36a, 36b, 36c and 36d" ('940 Patent, col. 3:49-65; Fig. 1). A party could argue the term should be limited to processes that use analogous projecting structures to actively grip and retain the material, rather than any incidental retention.

  • The Term: "sidewall first part extends from the block front surface...at an angle of no greater than ninety degrees" (from Claim 1 of the '015 Patent).

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is critical for defining the block's geometry and its ability to form both straight and curved walls, a key feature of the invention. The definition of this angular relationship is central to determining the scope of the patent's coverage over different block designs.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "no greater than ninety degrees" encompasses both a right angle (90°) and any acute angle. A patentee would likely argue this clear language should be given its full breadth.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An accused infringer might point to the patent's figures, such as FIG. 2, which appear to show a specific angle that is exactly ninety degrees. They could argue that the claims should be interpreted in light of these specific embodiments, a potential limiting the scope to blocks with right-angled front sidewall portions.

VI. Other Patent-Related Allegations

  • Improper Royalty Collection (Post-Expiration): The complaint alleges that Defendant violated federal patent law by continuing to charge and demand royalties for products allegedly covered by six specific patents (D380,560; RE37,278; RE34,314; 5,827,015; 5,078,940; and 5,217,630) after their respective expiration dates (Compl. ¶¶43-45). Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of these alleged overcharges.
  • Improper Royalty Collection (Co-Inventorship): Plaintiff alleges that it "contributed to the conception of certain inventions involving products, processes, molds," such that its employees qualify as co-inventors of certain Keystone patents (Compl. ¶47). Based on this, Plaintiff claims it is unlawful for Keystone to have charged royalties on those co-invented products and seeks a declaratory judgment to correct inventorship on the relevant patents (Compl. ¶¶48, 55-56).

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

This case presents a complex commercial dispute where patent rights are central to the underlying contractual obligations. The resolution will likely turn on the following key questions:

  • A question of contract interpretation vs. patent law: Will the royalty obligations be interpreted under the "Brulotte" doctrine as impermissible post-expiration patent royalties, as Basalite alleges, or as permissible payments for a broader portfolio of licensed rights (e.g., know-how, trademarks) that survived the expiration of individual patents?
  • An evidentiary question of inventorship: Can Basalite produce sufficient corroborating evidence to show its employees contributed to the "conception" of the claimed inventions? If so, it could establish co-ownership, rendering Keystone’s collection of royalties from Basalite improper and potentially affecting the patents' validity or enforceability if inventorship is not corrected.
  • A threshold question of jurisdiction: Did Keystone's cease-and-desist letter create a sufficient "actual controversy" under the Declaratory Judgment Act to give the court jurisdiction over Basalite's claims of patent invalidity, particularly for patents that may have already expired at the time of Keystone's demand?