DCT

4:22-cv-00663

Sandcraft LLC v. KB3 Utv LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00663, W.D. Mo., 10/18/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because each Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ aftermarket carrier bearing assemblies for Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTVs) infringe a patent related to a specialized carrier bearing assembly designed to reduce driveshaft vibration.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses mechanical vibration in UTV driveshafts, a common issue that can cause noise, component stress, and performance degradation in off-road vehicles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the patent-in-suit through multiple channels, including the publication of the patent application and direct correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel citing related patents. The asserted patent was the subject of a Certificate of Correction, issued on June 5, 2018, which corrected a typographical error in Claim 1, a claim not specifically asserted in the complaint's infringement counts.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-11-25 ’872 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2017-05-25 Alleged Knowledge Date (Publication of ’741 Application)
2018-05-01 ’872 Patent Issue Date
2018-06-05 ’872 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued
2020-04-03 Alleged Knowledge Date (Correspondence from Counsel)
2020-05-07 Alleged Knowledge Date (Correspondence from Counsel)
2022-08-15 Alleged Knowledge Date (Correspondence from Counsel)
2022-10-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,956,872 - “CARRIER BEARING ASSEMBLY”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In vehicles like UTVs, a driveshaft composed of multiple segments connected by universal joints (U-joints) can suffer from significant vibration, noise, and stress if the "operating angles" between the segments are not properly matched. This problem is exacerbated when the driveshaft moves during vehicle operation. (’872 Patent, col. 1:16-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a carrier bearing assembly that physically repositions the driveshaft to correct these operating angles. It achieves this through a bracket with two key features: an opening for the driveshaft that is "substantially offset" from the bracket's center, and the ability for this opening to be formed at a "non-perpendicular angle." (’872 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:37-56). This assembly constrains a portion of the driveshaft at a specific, corrected angle, thereby reducing the mismatch between the U-joint operating angles and mitigating vibration. (’872 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a mechanical solution to a persistent problem in UTVs, aiming to improve ride quality, reduce mechanical wear, and enhance durability by actively managing driveshaft geometry. (’872 Patent, col. 1:51-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint specifically alleges infringement of independent Claim 11. (Compl. ¶22).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 11 are:
    • A bracket;
    • A mounting structure permitting the bracket to be mounted to a vehicle frame;
    • An opening extending through the bracket;
    • A bearing fitted into the opening for the driveshaft to pass through and be constrained;
    • A gap of less than 0.01 inch between the driveshaft and the bearing; and
    • An angle a between the bearing and the mounting structure that is not 90 degrees, but falls within the specific ranges of 85°≤a<90° and 90°<a≤95°.
  • The complaint states that dependent claims are also infringed and reserves the right to assert them. (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "carrier bearings products" that Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import. (Compl. ¶16, 17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are aftermarket carrier bearings for UTVs that "embody and use inventions claimed in the ’872 Patent." (Compl. ¶17). It further alleges that these products directly compete with the Plaintiff’s own commercial products. (Compl. ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references "Images of the Accused Products" in an "Exhibit B" and a claim chart in an "Exhibit C," but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document. (Compl. ¶17, 22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit C, which was not provided. (Compl. ¶22). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations. The complaint alleges that Defendants’ "Accused Products" directly infringe at least Claim 11 of the ’872 Patent because they include all the elements of the claim. (Compl. ¶22, 28).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary issue for the court will be factual and evidentiary. What evidence does the complaint, or will discovery, provide to show that the accused products meet the precise numerical limitations of Claim 11? Specifically, the analysis will turn on whether the accused products possess (1) "a gap of less than 0.01 inch between the driveshaft and the bearing" and (2) "an angle a between the bearing and the mounting structure" that falls within the claimed ranges of 85° to less than 90° or greater than 90° to 95°. The complaint itself offers no specific measurements or technical data to support these allegations.
    • Scope Questions: The interpretation of the claim language will be critical. The infringement question depends on how the court defines the reference points for measuring the "angle a between the bearing and the mounting structure." The complaint does not specify Plaintiff's proposed methodology for this measurement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "an angle a between the bearing and the mounting structure"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central technical limitation of asserted Claim 11, distinguishing the invention from a standard bearing assembly with a 90-degree angle. Proving that the accused product falls within the specific angular ranges recited in the claim is essential for a finding of literal infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that in some embodiments, "the angle a can be any suitable angle." (’872 Patent, col. 3:53-54). A party might argue this suggests a degree of flexibility, although the claim itself provides precise numerical bounds.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites very specific and narrow numerical ranges (85°≤a<90° and 90°<a≤95°). The specification links this angle to the manufacturing of the bracket itself, describing how the "opening 55 can be formed... through the bracket 50 at an angle a." (’872 Patent, col. 3:49-52). This may suggest the angle is a fixed, structural feature of the bracket relative to its mounting points.

The Term: "mounting structure"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because it forms one of the two reference points for measuring the angle a. Practitioners may focus on this term because whether the angle is measured relative to the bolt axes, the bushing surfaces, or the plane where the bracket meets the vehicle frame could yield different results and determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the structure functionally as "permitting the bracket to be mounted to a frame of a vehicle." (’872 Patent, col. 4:47-49). An exploded view in Figure 4 shows the structure includes bolts (20A, 20B), washers (23A, 23B), and stepped bushings (24A/26A, 24B/25B), which could all be considered part of the "mounting structure."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the "mounting structure" refers more narrowly to the components that define the mounting plane, such as the bottom surfaces of the bushings or the bolts themselves. The specification notes the structure "can include bolting to secure the bracket," which could be read to mean the bolts are an example of the structure, not the entirety of it. (’872 Patent, col. 2:17-18).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of at least Claim 11. (Compl. ¶29, 30). The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendants provide "instructions for installing the Accused Products in an infringing manner." (Compl. ¶23). The contributory infringement claim is based on allegations that the Accused Products are "especially made or especially adapted" for an infringing use and have "no substantial non-infringing uses." (Compl. ¶24).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’872 patent. (Compl. ¶25). This knowledge is alleged to have arisen from Defendants’ "active monitoring of the UTV market," the May 25, 2017 publication of the underlying patent application, and "correspondence sent by Sandcraft’s counsel" on three separate dates in 2020 and 2022. (Compl. ¶19-21).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff produce sufficient technical evidence, such as precise measurements from accused products, to demonstrate that they meet the specific numerical limitations of Claim 11 regarding both the non-90-degree angle and the sub-0.01-inch gap between the bearing and driveshaft?
  • The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: How will the court define the boundaries of the "mounting structure" and, consequently, the proper methodology for measuring the "angle a between the bearing and the mounting structure"? The resolution of this issue will directly impact the infringement analysis.
  • A central issue for damages will be willfulness: Does the evidence, particularly the alleged pre-suit correspondence from Plaintiff's counsel, establish that Defendants had actual knowledge of the '872 Patent and proceeded with their conduct in an objectively reckless manner?