DCT
4:18-cv-00979
Hunter Engineering Co v. Fastlign LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hunter Engineering Company (Missouri)
- Defendant: FastLign, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
- Case Identification: 4:18-cv-00979, E.D. Mo., 06/15/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Missouri because Defendant has specifically directed activities at Plaintiff, a resident of the district, through correspondence and in-person meetings concerning the alleged infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from the court that its "Quick Check Drive" system does not infringe Defendant’s patents related to contactless, drive-through vehicle wheel alignment assessment.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that use lasers or other optical sensors to quickly assess a vehicle's wheel alignment as it drives by, eliminating the need to physically attach measurement equipment to the wheels.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed after a series of interactions between the parties. The complaint mentions meetings in August 2017 and May 2018 where Defendant asserted that Plaintiff's product infringed its patents. The action was precipitated by a formal letter from Defendant's counsel dated June 8, 2018, providing notice of infringement, which created the "substantial controversy" required for a declaratory judgment suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-08 | Priority Date for U.S. 9,377,379 & U.S. 9,677,974 Patents |
| 2016-06-28 | U.S. Patent 9,377,379 Issued |
| 2016-09-14 | Opus Inspection Announces Acquisition of FASTLIGN Technology |
| 2017-06-13 | U.S. Patent 9,677,974 Issued |
| 2017-08-17 | First meeting between Plaintiff and Defendant |
| 2018-05-24 | Second meeting where Defendant alleges infringement |
| 2018-06-01 | Phone call where Defendant reiterates infringement allegation |
| 2018-06-08 | Defendant sends letter accusing Plaintiff of infringement |
| 2018-06-15 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,377,379 - Method, System and Apparatus for Assessing Wheel Condition on a Vehicle
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,377,379, "Method, System and Apparatus for Assessing Wheel Condition on a Vehicle," issued June 28, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art wheel alignment systems often require equipment to be physically mounted on a vehicle's wheels or require the vehicle to be stationary, making them laborious and unsuitable for rapid, "on the go" assessments (’379 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a contactless method where a fixed sensor measures the distance to a wheel as it moves past. By determining the distance to a first location on the wheel at a first time, and then to a second location at a later time, the system can calculate an "offset" that indicates the "tire wearing angle" (also called "dynamic toe"), providing an assessment of the wheel's alignment while the vehicle is in motion (’379 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-47).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for a preliminary, drive-through diagnostic of wheel alignment without attaching any instruments to the vehicle, thereby streamlining the vehicle inspection process in automotive service settings (’379 Patent, col. 6:15-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of claims 1-20. The independent claims are 1, 11, and 18.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- contactlessly determining a distance to a first location on the wheel from a fixed point at a first time
- contactlessly determining a distance to a second location on the wheel from the fixed point at a second time
- determining an indication of a tire-wearing angle for the wheel based on the two distances
- outputting to a user the indication of the tire-wearing angle
- Independent Claim 11 (System): Recites a system with a stationary sensor and a control system programmed to perform the core steps of the method in Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 18 (Multi-Wheel Method): Recites a method for assessing multiple wheels (front and subsequent) by determining distances to the center of each, deriving "adjusted tire wearing angles," and outputting the results.
U.S. Patent No. 9,677,974 - Method, System and Apparatus for Assessing Wheel Condition on a Vehicle
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,677,974, "Method, System and Apparatus for Assessing Wheel Condition on a Vehicle," issued June 13, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’379 patent, the ’974 patent addresses the same technical problem of creating a simple, contactless method for assessing wheel condition on a moving vehicle (’974 Patent, col. 1:22-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that involves driving a vehicle, contactlessly measuring distances to a first location and then a second location on a wheel at two different times, calculating a "tire-wearing angle" from that data, and outputting the result (’974 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-42).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides the same advantage of enabling rapid, drive-through wheel alignment diagnostics without physical contact with the vehicle (’974 Patent, col. 6:15-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of claims 1-11. The independent claims are 1 and 11.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- contactlessly determining a distance to a first location on the wheel
- driving the vehicle
- contactlessly determining a distance to a second location on the wheel at a later time
- determining an indication of a tire-wearing angle for the wheel based on the distances
- outputting the indication of the tire wearing angle
- Independent Claim 11 (Multi-Wheel Method): Recites a method for assessing multiple wheels by contactlessly determining distances to the center of each, deriving "adjusted tire wearing angles," and outputting the indication.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Hunter Engineering Company’s "Quick Check Drive™" system (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a system that "provides wheel alignment inspection automatically as the vehicle passes between two towers at the inspection location" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes an image of the Defendant's (FastLign's) own system, which depicts a car passing between two towers labeled "LASER TECHNOLOGY" and "ANALYZE TIRE DIRECTION," to illustrate the general technology space (Compl. p. 4). While discussions about commercializing the Hunter system were mentioned, no specific details on its market position are provided (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following tables summarize the Plaintiff's asserted reasons for why its product does not meet the patent claims.
’379 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Plaintiff's Stated Reason for Non-Infringement | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining an indication of a tire-wearing angle for the wheel | The complaint asserts that the Quick Check Drive™ system does not "determin[e] an indication of a tire-wearing angle." | ¶27 | col. 2:42-47 |
| outputting to a user the indication of the tire wearing angle | The complaint asserts that the Quick Check Drive™ system does not "output[] to a user the indication of the tire wearing angle." | ¶27 | col. 5:60-63 |
’974 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Plaintiff's Stated Reason for Non-Infringement | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining an indication of a tire-wearing angle for the wheel | The complaint alleges that the accused system does not "determin[e] an indication of a tire-wearing angle for the wheel." | ¶34 | col. 2:39-42 |
| outputting the indication of the tire wearing angle for the wheel | The complaint alleges that the accused system does not "output[] to a user the indication of the tire wearing angle for the wheel." | ¶34 | col. 5:58-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute centers on the meaning of "tire-wearing angle." The patents define this term as being equivalent to "dynamic toe," which is "a measurement of the difference in the direction of movement of the vehicle and the direction of orientation of the wheel" (’379 Patent, col. 2:42-45). The central question is whether the data calculated and displayed by the accused Quick Check Drive™ system falls within the scope of this definition.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of non-infringement without providing any technical details about what the Quick Check Drive™ system actually measures or outputs. A key factual question for the court will be to determine the specific functionality of the accused system and compare it to the claim requirements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "tire-wearing angle"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and represents the core output of the claimed invention. Plaintiff’s non-infringement case rests on its assertion that its system does not determine or output this specific value (Compl. ¶¶27, 34). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating that "dynamic toe (which may also be referred to as the tire wearing angle) is a measurement of the difference in the direction of movement of the vehicle and the direction of orientation of the wheel" (’379 Patent, col. 2:42-45). A party might argue that any output reflecting this relationship, regardless of its specific label or format, meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes calculating the "tire wearing angle" from an "offset," which is the difference between two distance measurements taken at two locations on the wheel (’379 Patent, col. 9:50-57). A party could argue that the term requires this specific method of derivation from a calculated offset, and does not cover other types of alignment-related measurements.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶26, 33). As is typical for a DJ complaint, it does not provide specific facts for analysis, but rather makes a blanket denial of liability.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged by the Plaintiff. However, the complaint establishes a basis for a potential counterclaim of willful infringement by the Defendant. The complaint details that Defendant provided Plaintiff with pre-suit notice of infringement during in-person meetings on May 24, 2018, a phone call on June 1, 2018, and a formal letter on June 8, 2018 (Compl. ¶¶18-20, Ex. A).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "tire-wearing angle," which the patent equates with "dynamic toe," be construed to cover the specific measurements that are calculated and displayed by the Plaintiff's Quick Check Drive™ system? The outcome of the case will depend heavily on the breadth of this key term's construction.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what does the accused Quick Check Drive™ system actually do? The complaint's conclusory denials of infringement provide no technical details, creating an informational vacuum. The resolution of the dispute will require evidence demonstrating the precise function and output of the accused system to determine if there is a factual mismatch with the patent's claims.