Graco Inc v. Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Case Identification: 0:23-cv-00130, D. Minn., 01/17/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the District of Minnesota.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s handheld airless paint sprayers infringe two patents related to the mechanical design and pressure regulation systems of such devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, handheld airless paint sprayers designed to deliver professional-grade finishes, a market segment where portability and performance are key competitive factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-10-22	Earliest Priority Date for ’689 and ’690 Patents
2022-03-XX	Plaintiff allegedly received inquiry from distributor about accused product
2022-09-20	U.S. Patent No. 11,446,689 Issued
2022-09-20	U.S. Patent No. 11,446,690 Issued
2023-01-17	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,446,689, "Portable airless sprayer," Issued September 20, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need in the market for a paint sprayer that combines the portability of small, handheld "buzz guns" with the high-quality, atomized finish of large, stationary professional airless spray systems. Existing handheld units allegedly produced inferior finishes at low pressures, while professional systems were too cumbersome for small-scale jobs or touch-up work (’689 Patent, col. 1:41-col. 2:6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, handheld airless sprayer that integrates a motor, a drive mechanism, and a reciprocating piston pump into a single housing. A key aspect is the use of a drive system (e.g., a wobble assembly) to convert the motor's rotational motion into the linear, reciprocating motion needed to drive the high-pressure piston pump, all within a portable form factor (’689 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-20). The overall configuration is depicted in the patent's Figure 2, with the internal pump and drive mechanism shown in an exploded view in Figure 4 (’689 Patent, Fig. 2; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This design allows a user to apply professional-quality architectural coatings at high pressure (e.g., 360 psi or greater) without being tethered to a large, stationary power unit and pump (’689 Patent, col. 1:47-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A housing forming a handle.
  • A tip guard with a bore.
  • A reversible spray tip with a barrel insertable and rotatable within the bore, comprising a spray orifice.
  • An electric motor outputting rotational motion.
  • A drive that converts the rotational motion to reciprocating linear motion.
  • A trigger to control the motor.
  • A reservoir to store paint.
  • A pump with at least one piston to draw paint from the reservoir and drive it to the spray orifice.
  • A "return valve" that redirects paint to the reservoir when pump output pressure exceeds a "first pressure threshold".
  • A "valve" located downstream of the pump, comprising a cylinder, needle, ball tip, and spring, which opens to allow atomization when paint pressure exceeds a "second threshold pressure".
  • The "first pressure threshold" is higher than the "second pressure threshold".
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 11,446,690, "Portable airless sprayer," Issued September 20, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’689 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a portable, high-performance airless sprayer. It further focuses on the mechanisms for controlling fluid flow, including priming the pump and returning paint to the reservoir (’690 Patent, col. 10:49-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a specific, manually-operated return valve assembly that allows a user to control a return flow circuit. The assembly includes a body, a seat, and a spring-loaded plunger with a ball at one end, all operated by an external lever. This mechanism enables the user to prime the pump by displacing air or to return pressurized paint back to the reservoir, for example, for cleaning or pressure relief (’690 Patent, col. 11:15-33; Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: This user-operated valve provides direct control over the sprayer's fluid circuit, facilitating priming and depressurization in a compact, integrated handheld device (’690 Patent, col. 11:15-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A handheld paint sprayer with a housing, tip guard, reversible spray tip, motor, drive, trigger, reservoir, and pump.
  • A "return valve" configured to control a return flow of paint back to the reservoir, forming "a circuit for flow of the paint" from the reservoir, through the pump, through the return valve, and into the reservoir.
  • The return valve comprises a body, a seat, a plunger supporting a ball, a spring pushing the plunger toward the seat, and a lever connected to the plunger.
  • The lever is configured to be pushed or pulled by an operator to withdraw the ball from the seat, allowing paint to flow past the seat and back into the reservoir.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "Bauer 20V Cordless Handheld Airless Paint Sprayer" and the "Avanti Handheld Airless Paint Sprayer" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint alleges the Avanti product is "materially the same" as the Bauer product and focuses its technical analysis on the Bauer 20V (Compl. ¶50).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused Bauer 20V is a battery-powered, portable airless paint sprayer (Compl. ¶27). The complaint, supported by extensive teardown photographs and service manual diagrams, alleges the product contains an electric motor, a drive that converts rotational motion to reciprocating linear motion, and a piston pump that draws paint from a connected reservoir (a "Paint Cup") (Compl. ¶¶31, 32, 35, 37). The complaint also provides visual evidence of the product's reversible spray tip, which can be rotated to clear blockages, and a manual return valve for priming or returning paint to the reservoir (Compl. ¶¶30, 68). An annotated diagram from the product's service manual shows the main external components, including the paint cup, trigger, and nozzle guard (Compl. ¶27, p. 7).
• The complaint does not provide specific details on the products' commercial importance but alleges they are sold through Defendant's nationwide retail stores and website (Compl. ¶90).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

11,446,689 Patent Infringement Allegations

| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality - |
| a housing, the housing forming a handle; - | The Bauer 20V comprises a housing that forms a handle. - | ¶28 - | col. 4:35-36 - |
| a reversible spray tip including a barrel...comprising a spray orifice that atomizes the paint; | The Bauer 20V has a reversible spray tip, described in the user manual as reversible between "CLEAN" and "SPRAY" positions, with a spray orifice to atomize paint. | ¶30 - | col. 6:46-54 - |
| an electric motor located within the housing that outputs rotational motion; | The Bauer 20V includes an electric motor within its housing that outputs rotational motion. - | ¶31 - | col. 4:63-65 - |
| a drive located within the housing that converts rotational motion output by the electric motor to reciprocating linear motion; | The Bauer 20V's motor couples to a drive that converts rotational motion to reciprocating linear motion. The complaint includes a photograph illustrating this mechanism. | ¶32 - | col. 6:38-44 - |
| a reservoir supported by the housing and configured to store a supply of the paint; | The Bauer 20V has a "Paint Cup" that functions as a reservoir to store paint. - | ¶34 - | col. 4:33-35 - |
| a pump located within the housing and above the reservoir...the pump including at least one piston configured to reciprocate to draw the paint up from the reservoir...and drive the paint...to the spray orifice...to atomize the paint; | The Bauer 20V's pump is located above the reservoir and includes a piston that reciprocates to draw paint from the reservoir and drive it to the spray orifice. A photograph shows the paint flow path from the piston to the nozzle. | ¶35, ¶37 - | col. 7:56-col. 8:14 - |
| a return valve...configured to redirect paint output...back into the reservoir when pressure of the paint output by the pump exceeds a first pressure threshold...; | The Bauer 20V's return valve is alleged to open and redirect paint to the reservoir when pump pressure exceeds a threshold of about 3,300 PSI, overcoming a return valve spring. | ¶41, ¶42 - | col. 10:49-58 - |
| a valve...biasing the ball tip against a seat to block...paint...when the paint is below a second threshold pressure, the paint within the cylinder forcing the needle to retract...when the pressure...is above the second threshold pressure...; | The Bauer 20V has a valve where a spring biases a ball tip against a seat. Paint pressure above a second threshold (allegedly 1,050 PSI) forces the needle to retract, opening the valve and allowing paint to be atomized. | ¶46, ¶47, ¶48 - | col. 9:44-col. 10:11 - |
| wherein the first pressure threshold is higher than the second pressure threshold. | The complaint alleges the first threshold (3,300 PSI) is higher than the second threshold (~1,050 PSI). - | ¶49 - | col. 8:1-col. 10:22 - |

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The core of the infringement case for the ’689 patent may turn on factual evidence regarding the operation of the two separate valve systems. The complaint alleges specific pressure thresholds for the opening of the return valve (3,300 PSI) and the atomizing valve (1,050 PSI) (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 48). A key question for the court will be whether testing and expert analysis confirm that the accused product's valves operate in this distinct, two-tiered pressure-actuated manner as claimed.

11,446,690 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality -	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a return valve connected to the pump, the return valve configured to control a return flow of the paint output from the pump back to the reservoir such that a circuit for flow of the paint is formed from the reservoir, through the pump, through the return valve, and into the reservoir...;	The Bauer 20V's return valve is alleged to control a return flow of paint back to the reservoir, forming a circuit. The complaint includes a photograph illustrating this return flow path. -	¶68	col. 10:59-65
the return valve comprising: a body;	The Bauer 20V's return valve comprises a body. -	¶69	col. 10:50-51
a seat;	The Bauer 20V's return valve comprises a seat. An exploded view in the complaint identifies the component. -	¶70	col. 10:52
a plunger disposed at least partially within the body, the plunger supporting a ball at a first end...the ball configured to interface with the seat to block the paint...;	The return valve has a plunger supporting a ball at one end, which interfaces with the seat to block paint flow back to the reservoir. -	¶71	col. 10:52-56
a spring located within the body, the plunger extending within the spring, the spring pushing the plunger toward the seat to engage the ball;	A spring within the valve body pushes the plunger toward the seat to engage the ball. An exploded view shows the plunger, spring, and ball components. -	¶72	col. 10:52-56
and a lever connected to the plunger and disposed outside of the housing, the lever configured to be...pushed or pulled by an operator to withdraw the ball from engagement with the seat...	An external lever is connected to the plunger. The complaint alleges an operator can push or pull the lever to withdraw the ball from the seat, allowing paint to return to the reservoir.	¶73	col. 11:21-33

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused mechanism contains every structural element recited in the claim. A central question may be one of definitional scope: does the term "circuit for flow of the paint," as described in the patent, read on the specific fluid path created by the accused product's return valve?
  • Technical Question: While the complaint provides detailed teardown photos, a question for the court will be whether the connection between the external lever and the internal plunger in the accused product functions precisely "to withdraw the ball from engagement with the seat" in the manner required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the '689 Patent: "return valve"

• Context and Importance: This term, along with the separate "valve," is central to the claimed two-threshold pressure regulation system. The definition is critical because the infringement analysis depends on mapping two distinct components in the accused device to these two claimed valves, each with a different pressure-actuated function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the "return valve" functionally as a valve that "redirect[s] paint output...when pressure...exceeds a first pressure threshold." A party could argue any valve performing this pressure-relief function meets the definition, regardless of its specific structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to this component as "pressure relief valve 22" (’689 Patent, col. 4:31; col. 10:49-50). A party could argue this suggests the term "return valve" should be construed as being limited to the specific "pressure relief valve" embodiment shown in Figure 10 and described in the specification.

Term from the '690 Patent: "a circuit for flow of the paint"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the path paint takes when the return valve is activated. The infringement allegation hinges on the accused product creating this exact circuit. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether minor variations in the fluid path of the accused device can avoid infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language broadly describes the circuit as going "from the reservoir, through the pump, through the return valve, and into the reservoir." A party could argue any system that follows this general sequence satisfies the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where "a complete circuit is formed between fluid container 16, suction tube 48, pumping mechanism 18, pressure chamber 150, relief valve 22 and return line 50" (’690 Patent, col. 10:59-63). A party could argue that the term "circuit" should be limited to an arrangement that includes all these specific intermediate components in the described path.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). It makes allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, which the complaint cites generally (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 55).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of the patents-in-suit "[a]t least by way of this complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 76). This allegation supports a claim for willful infringement based on post-suit conduct but does not allege that Defendant had knowledge of the patents before the lawsuit was filed.

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

This case presents a focused dispute over the mechanical and operational details of handheld paint sprayers. The resolution will likely depend on the court's findings on two central questions:

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused product’s dual-valve system operate based on two distinct and hierarchical pressure thresholds as required by claim 1 of the ’689 patent? The plaintiff’s specific PSI allegations will need to be substantiated with technical evidence, which will likely be countered by the defendant's own testing and analysis.

2. A core issue will be one of structural and functional correspondence: Does the accused product's manually-operated return valve contain every mechanical element—and do those elements interact—in the precise manner recited in the detailed, multi-part "return valve" limitation of claim 1 of the ’690 patent? This will involve a granular comparison of the accused device's physical components against the claim's specific structural requirements.