DCT

2:19-cv-00156

BNJ Leasing Inc v. Portabull Fuel Service LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00156, S.D. Miss., 10/17/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a Mississippi corporation that resides and conducts business within the Southern District of Mississippi.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Taurus" mobile refueling tank infringes a patent related to a mobile refueling vessel featuring a specific type of worker access and refueling station.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns large, transportable fuel tanks designed for use at remote industrial sites, such as construction or pipeline projects, to refuel heavy machinery on-site.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted '782 Patent is a divisional of a prior application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,931,986. The complaint details a chain of ownership from the inventor to Plaintiff MRB, then to Plaintiff BNJ, followed by an exclusive license from BNJ back to MRB, establishing the basis for both parties' standing to sue.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-02-24 Earliest Priority Date ('782 Patent, via parent application)
2015-03-13 Inventor assigns rights to Plaintiff MRB Enterprise Inc.
2018-03-19 Plaintiff MRB assigns rights to Plaintiff BNJ Leasing, Inc.
2018-04-03 Related U.S. Patent No. 9,931,986 issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,232,782 issues
2019-03-19 Plaintiff BNJ grants exclusive license to Plaintiff MRB
2019-10-17 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,232,782 - “Mobile Refueling Vessel” (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of refueling heavy equipment at remote construction sites where traveling to a conventional gas station is impractical. It also notes that existing mobile tanks often require expensive and cumbersome secondary containment systems, like berms or bladders, to prevent environmental contamination from fuel leaks ('782 Patent, col. 1:19-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, mobile refueling vessel that includes a dedicated refueling station for operator safety and efficiency. This station, located at the rear of the vessel, comprises a deck, a foldable ladder for access from the ground, and a distinct, movable platform that extends out to provide a stable floor for a worker to stand on while operating a fuel dispenser boom ('782 Patent, col. 4:46-64; Fig. 5). The platform and ladder can be folded into a "stowed" position to make the entire vessel "road ready" for transport ('782 Patent, col. 4:61-65; Compl. ¶9).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a safer and more ergonomic method for on-site refueling by giving the operator a secure, elevated standing position, which is an improvement over potentially unstable or makeshift solutions (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the patent's only claim, Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A mobile vessel configured to store fuel.
    • A port for withdrawing fuel and a connected fuel dispenser.
    • A refueling station at the front or rear wall of the vessel, which itself includes:
      • A generally horizontal deck.
      • A deck access device (e.g., a ladder) with a first portion and a foldable second portion for providing worker access to the deck.
      • A movable platform mounted to the deck that is movable between a deployed position (extending away from the deck for a worker to stand on) and a stowed position (folded towards the deck for transport).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant Portabull’s "Taurus" mobile refueling tank (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Taurus tank is a "state of the art mobile fuel solution" used in the "midstream construction field" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint provides photographs depicting the accused Taurus tank as a large, red, towable vessel with a prominent yellow ladder and caged platform assembly at its rear. A photograph provided as Figure 3 in the complaint shows the Taurus tank actively refueling a "Precision Pipeline" truck, with an operator standing on the elevated platform using a fuel dispenser (Compl. Fig. 3, p. 9). This visual illustrates the accused product's use in an industrial setting.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Taurus mobile refueling tank directly infringes Claim 1 of the '782 Patent (Compl. ¶29-30). Although the complaint references an infringement analysis in an unattached "Exhibit 3," the core of the infringement theory can be inferred from the complaint's text and its accompanying visual evidence. A photograph provided as Figure 1 in the complaint shows the overall structure of the accused Taurus tank, including the refueling station at the rear (Compl. Fig. 1, p. 8).

’782 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a mobile vessel configured to store fuel therein... The accused "Taurus" is described as a "mobile refueling tank" and is depicted with wheels for transport. ¶26; Fig. 1 col. 5:24-31
a refueling station at the ... rear wall of the vessel... The Taurus tank features a yellow structure at its rear, identified as the area for refueling operations. Fig. 1 col. 6:5-7
a generally horizontal deck arranged lower than the fuel dispenser and the port on which a worker can stand to access the fuel dispenser; The yellow structure on the Taurus tank includes a flat deck area below the operator's platform. Fig. 1; Fig. 3 col. 6:8-11
a deck access device including a first portion and a second portion, ... the second portion foldable between a deployed position and a stowed position ... to provide the worker access to the generally horizontal deck... The Taurus tank has a yellow ladder providing access to the refueling station. A photograph shows the ladder in a deployed state. Fig. 1; Fig. 3 col. 6:12-23
a movable platform mounted to the generally horizontal deck, the platform is movable between a deployed position and a stowed position, in the deployed position the platform extends away from the deck to provide a floor for the worker to stand on... The Taurus tank features a caged platform where an operator is shown standing during a refueling operation. A photograph provided as Figure 2 in the complaint shows an overhead view of the platform assembly (Compl. Fig. 2, p. 9). ¶27; Fig. 3 col. 6:24-31
...and in the stowed position the movable platform is folded from the deployed position towards the generally horizontal deck. The complaint does not contain allegations or visual evidence depicting the accused platform in its stowed position. — col. 6:31-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the accused ladder constitutes a "deck access device including a first portion and a second portion", with the second portion being "foldable". The complaint's visuals show a ladder, but do not provide sufficient detail to determine if it meets this specific structural limitation.
    • Mechanical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the precise mechanics of the accused platform. Does it fold "towards the generally horizontal deck" to enter its stowed position, as required by the claim? The complaint provides no evidence of the stowing mechanism, creating a key evidentiary question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "deck access device including a first portion and a second portion... the second portion foldable"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific structure of the ladder used to access the refueling station. Infringement will depend on whether the accused ladder, which appears to be a single unit in the provided photos, can be shown to meet this two-part, foldable limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a point of novelty described with significant particularity.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any multi-section ladder where one section moves relative to another to facilitate transport meets the limitation, even if not explicitly "pivoting."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes and illustrates a ladder with "two sections 92a and 92b pivotally connected together," where section 92a "is folded upwardly upon ladder section 92b" for transport ('782 Patent, col. 4:51-52, 63-65; Fig. 4). This detailed description of a specific pivoting embodiment could support a narrower construction limited to similarly hinged, two-part ladders.

  • The Term: "in the stowed position the movable platform is folded from the deployed position towards the generally horizontal deck"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific action required to make the platform "road ready." The accused product must be shown to stow its platform via this "folding... towards the... deck" motion.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might contend that any motion that brings the platform from its extended operational position to a resting position closer to the deck for transport qualifies as "folded... towards the... deck."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the tiltable platform 96 is pivoted onto deck 94" from its deployed position ('782 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:1). Figure 4 clearly illustrates this pivoting action around pivot point 98. This could be used to argue that the term requires a specific pivoting or hinging action that lays the platform onto or over the deck, rather than another form of retraction or stowing.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief includes boilerplate language requesting an injunction against infringement "by inducement, or contribution" (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶B), the substantive infringement count (Count I) alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶30).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It requests treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the statutory basis for enhanced damages, but does not plead specific facts suggesting pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent that would typically support a willfulness claim (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶G).

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court's determination of the following key questions:

  • A primary issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused "Taurus" tank's access ladder possess the specific "first portion" and "foldable second portion" structure required by Claim 1, or is there a material difference that places it outside the claim's scope?
  • A critical evidentiary question will be one of mechanical operation: Can Plaintiffs produce evidence that the accused platform stows by being "folded... towards the generally horizontal deck"? The infringement analysis for this limitation hinges on evidence of the stowing mechanism, which is absent from the complaint's allegations.
  • The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: Will the detailed descriptions and figures of the ladder and platform in the patent specification be used to narrowly construe the claim terms, or will the terms be given a broader meaning that is more likely to read on the accused product's structure as depicted in the complaint?