DCT
0:16-cv-02170
Graco Inc v. Pellicciotti
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota Inc. (Minnesota)
- Defendant: James Pellicciotti d/b/a Quick Fix Airless Low Cost Repair and Bad Ass Airless Parts, and Southwest Professional Mfg Reps, LLC (Arizona)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robins Kaplan LLP
- Case Identification: 0:16-cv-02170, D. Minn., 06/27/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged purposeful direction of infringing acts to citizens of the District of Minnesota through online sales and because Plaintiff Graco is located in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ imported airless paint sprayer pumps infringe a patent related to the design of packings on a pump rod.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical seals (packings) within high-pressure reciprocating pumps, which are critical components for durability and performance in applications like industrial paint spraying.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the principal defendant, James Pellicciotti, is a former employee of Graco Inc. and is familiar with its patents. This allegation is central to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-01-02 | ’998 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application) |
| 2001-04-10 | ’998 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-06-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,212,998 - “Packings on Pump Rod” (issued Apr. 10, 2001)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In high-pressure reciprocating pumps, such as those used for paint, the seals (or "packings") around the moving piston rod wear out over time, leading to leaks and costly downtime. The patent background notes that prior designs could suffer from misalignment of components, which causes uneven wear and "premature piston failure" (’998 Patent, col. 2:4-5). Users desire "increased packing life so as to prevent interruption of jobs and productivity" (’998 Patent, col. 1:12-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a piston rod that is precisely machined with a "relief" or "shoulder" that serves as a definitive seating surface for the packings (’998 Patent, col. 1:25-32; Fig. 1). This design ensures the packings are perfectly aligned with the rod and cylinder, which minimizes side-loading and uneven wear. By pre-loading the packings to a predetermined compression tolerance against this shoulder, the invention claims to simplify assembly and increase packing life by over 50% (’998 Patent, col. 1:38-40).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a simple, mechanical means to improve the alignment and extend the life of a critical, high-wear component in piston pumps, enhancing overall reliability and reducing maintenance.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the patent generally, with the primary focus on its single independent claim, Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
- A reciprocating piston pump having a piston rod with upper and lower ends reciprocating within a cylinder.
- Packings that seal between the piston rod and the cylinder.
- An improvement comprising the rod having a "relief along the circumference thereof."
- The packings are "captured and located on said rod" by the relief.
- The packings move with the rod relative to the cylinder while reciprocating.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Rongpeng QF488 airless pump (also known as the Rongpeng QF490 airless pump)" (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is an airless pump for paint spraying, allegedly imported from a Chinese manufacturer (Compl. ¶¶5, 23). Defendants are alleged to advertise, offer for sale, and sell the accused pumps through online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay, as well as a dedicated website, "badasssprayproducts.com" (Compl. ¶¶24, 25). The complaint includes a screenshot from this website showing the accused "Rongpeng QF488/QF490 pump" offered for sale (Compl. ¶26, Exh. C).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner, stating that the accused pumps infringe the ’998 Patent without mapping specific product features to claim limitations.
’998 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a reciprocating piston pump having a piston rod having upper and lower ends and reciprocating within a cylinder... | The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused Rongpeng QF488/QF490 pump infringes the ’998 Patent but does not specify which component(s) of the accused product meet this limitation. | ¶40 | col. 2:32-34 |
| and having packings sealing between said piston and said cylinder, | The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused Rongpeng QF488/QF490 pump infringes the ’998 Patent but does not specify which component(s) of the accused product meet this limitation. | ¶40 | col. 2:34-36 |
| the improvement comprising said rod having a relief along the circumference thereof, | The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused Rongpeng QF488/QF490 pump infringes the ’998 Patent but does not specify which component(s) of the accused product meet this limitation. | ¶40 | col. 2:36-37 |
| said packings being captured and located on said rod so as to move with said rod relative to said cylinder while reciprocating. | The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused Rongpeng QF488/QF490 pump infringes the ’998 Patent but does not specify which component(s) of the accused product meet this limitation. | ¶40 | col. 2:37-39 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused pumps infringe. A primary issue will be whether discovery reveals that the internal mechanism of the Rongpeng pumps contains a piston rod with the specific "relief" structure recited in Claim 1. The visual evidence provided, such as a screenshot of Defendants' eBay listing for a spray gun, shows the external appearance of a related product but offers no insight into the internal pump mechanics at issue (Compl. ¶31, Exh. D).
- Technical Questions: The core technical question is whether the accused pump’s piston rod and packing assembly is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed invention. Specifically, does the accused device utilize a "relief" on the rod to positively locate the packings for alignment, or does it use a different, conventional assembly method?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a relief along the circumference thereof"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central novel feature of the invention. The entire infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused pumps possess a structure that meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to the specific embodiment shown or covers a wider range of recessed structures on a piston rod.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the general term "relief," which is not explicitly defined. A party could argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any indentation, groove, or recessed area on the rod's circumference capable of locating a packing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the relief in the context of a "shoulder (16a)" that provides "exact alignment and runout" (’998 Patent, col. 1:25-29). The summary states the "pump rod is machined to allow relief with a shoulder" (’998 Patent, col. 1:25-26). A party could argue that the term "relief" is therefore limited to the specific shoulder structure disclosed in the preferred embodiment (Fig. 1), which is necessary to achieve the stated benefits of precise alignment and increased life.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint’s first claim for relief is for "Direct Patent Infringement" (Compl. p. 9). While the prayer for relief requests an injunction against inducing infringement (Compl. ¶b), the body of the complaint does not contain factual allegations to support a claim for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ purported "actual knowledge" of the ’998 Patent (Compl. ¶41). This allegation is factually supported by the assertion that Defendant James Pellicciotti is a "former employee of Graco Inc. and upon information and belief is familiar with Graco’s patents" (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "a relief," which is central to the invention, be construed broadly to cover any recess on a pump rod, or will it be limited to the specific "shoulder" structure disclosed in the patent's specification that provides precise alignment?
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of detailed technical allegations, a key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate through reverse engineering or discovery that the accused Rongpeng pumps contain the specific internal piston rod and packing assembly recited in Claim 1 of the ’998 Patent.
- Willfulness and Knowledge: The allegation that the principal defendant is a former employee of the plaintiff raises a significant factual question regarding pre-suit knowledge. The viability of the willfulness claim will likely depend on evidence of the defendant's specific role at Graco and his exposure to the patented technology.