DCT
1:22-cv-01110
Sade v. SP Decatur Parkway Solar LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rovshan Sade (North Carolina)
- Defendant: SP Decatur Parkway Solar LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01110, M.D.N.C., 12/20/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Middle District of North Carolina and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s solar power plant utilizes solar tracking systems that infringe two patents related to the mechanical design and construction of solar trackers.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves single-axis solar trackers, which are mechanical systems designed to orient photovoltaic panels toward the sun throughout the day to maximize energy generation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on August 19, 2022, approximately four months prior to filing suit, Plaintiff sent letters to Defendant identifying the patents-in-suit, alleging infringement, and offering a license. Defendant did not respond.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-07-06 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,057,546 and 9,917,546 |
| 2015-06-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,057,546 Issues |
| 2018-03-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546 Issues |
| 2022-08-19 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letters to Defendant |
| 2022-12-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,057,546 - "Solar Tracker"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional solar systems as often being costly, aesthetically unappealing, and requiring significant space, which are impediments to adoption (’546 Patent, col. 1:21-42). Fixed-mounted panels are also noted as being unable to harness the full energy capacity available throughout the day (Compl. ¶35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a free-standing solar tracker that does not require a permanent foundation (’546 Patent, col. 1:47-48). It comprises a base, a support frame, and a panel assembly that rotates to track the sun’s movement (’546 Patent, Abstract). The base can be designed to form an open pan to hold ballast material (e.g., gravel or sand) for stability and to double as a "suitcase" for transporting the tracker’s disassembled components (’546 Patent, col. 2:28-33).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to increase the energy output of solar panels by tracking the sun while offering a portable, non-permanent installation solution that is relatively inexpensive to build and operate (’546 Patent, col. 1:52-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶39).
- Essential elements of claim 5 include:
- a support frame;
- a panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame, comprising a central spine and a plurality of panel carriers extending outwardly from the spine;
- a mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly to the support frame, which includes a mounting member with a slot configured to receive the spine; and
- an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the sun.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, suggesting the right to assert additional claims is reserved (Compl. ¶38).
U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546 - "Solar Tracker"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’546 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problems: the high cost, space requirements, aesthetic concerns, and inefficiency associated with conventional, fixed solar panel installations (’917 Patent, col. 1:27-46).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a similar free-standing solar tracker designed to be deployed without a foundation and stabilized with ballast (’917 Patent, Abstract). The solution focuses on a rotating panel assembly mounted on a support frame, with components designed for disassembly and transport (’917 Patent, col. 2:35-40).
- Technical Importance: This technology seeks to improve the return on investment for solar systems by increasing energy output through sun tracking and reducing installation complexity and cost (’917 Patent, col. 2:59-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- a support frame;
- a panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame, which includes a central spine and panel carriers fixed relative to the spine and extending from both sides;
- an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly; and
- a mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly, which includes a mounting member with an open-ended slot configured to receive the central spine.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the option to assert others (Compl. ¶57).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the solar trackers used in Defendant's solar energy facility, which is described as a power plant that generates electricity (Compl. ¶23, ¶37).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s solar trackers are "decentralized" structures that move photovoltaic panels from East to West to follow the sun, thereby maximizing energy production (Compl. ¶20-21). The trackers are alleged to include support posts, a central "torque tube beam" acting as a spine, "transversely arranged elongated members" serving as panel carriers, a bearing assembly for mounting, and an electromechanical actuator for rotation (Compl. ¶42-45). The complaint alleges these trackers are used to provide solar energy to customers, including utilities (Compl. ¶26). An image provided in the complaint shows a large array of these trackers installed in a field (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,057,546 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a support frame | A plurality of support posts that form a support frame. The complaint provides a photograph labeled "Support Posts" as evidence. | ¶42 | col. 2:57-58 |
| a panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame... comprising a central spine and a plurality of panel carriers | A rotatably mounted frame that includes a "torque tube beam" as the central spine and "transversely arranged elongated members" as the panel carriers. | ¶43 | col. 3:23-26 |
| a mounting assembly... comprising a mounting member rotatably connected to the support frame and a slot in said mounting member configured to receive the spine | A bearing assembly that mounts on the support posts. The "inner bearing race" is identified as the mounting member, which includes an "open beam slot" where the torque tube is seated. A photograph shows this assembly. | ¶44 | col. 4:1-7 |
| an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun | An electromechanical actuator used for rotating the panel assembly. | ¶45 | col. 3:18-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 5 requires a "mounting member rotatably connected to the support frame." The complaint identifies the "inner bearing race" as the "mounting member" and the larger "bearing assembly" as mounting on the support posts (Compl. ¶44). A potential point of contention may be whether this accused configuration meets the claim’s specific requirement that the "mounting member" itself is "rotatably connected to the support frame," as the nature of that connection is not fully detailed.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused "open beam slot" in the "inner bearing race" functions as the "slot... configured to receive the spine" as required by the claim? The analysis may turn on the specific mechanical interaction between the accused torque tube and the alleged slot.
U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a support frame | A plurality of support posts forming a support frame. | ¶60 | col. 2:66-67 |
| a panel assembly... including a central spine... and a plurality of panel carriers fixed relative to the central spine and extending outwardly from both sides | A frame with a "torque tube beam" as the central spine and "transversely arranged elongated members" as panel carriers to which panels are clipped. An image shows the spine and carriers. | ¶61 | col. 3:36-42 |
| an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun | An electromechanical actuator for rotating the panel assembly. | ¶62 | col. 4:30-32 |
| a mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly... comprising: a mounting member... and an open-ended slot in said mounting member | A bearing assembly is identified as the mounting assembly. An "inner bearing race" is the mounting member, and it includes an "open beam slot" where the torque tube is seated. A photograph labeled "Open-ended slot" is provided. | ¶63, p. 15 | col. 4:11-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the term "panel carriers fixed relative to the central spine" read on the accused configuration where photovoltaic panels are "clipped" to elongated members (Compl. ¶61)? The dispute may focus on whether "clipped" constitutes a "fixed" relationship as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires an "open-ended slot" in the mounting member. The complaint provides a photograph purporting to show this feature (Compl. p. 15). A key question will be whether the depicted structure technically qualifies as an "open-ended slot" or if it is functionally and structurally distinct (e.g., a cradle or a simple recess).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "mounting member" (’546 Patent, Claim 5)
- Context and Importance: The complaint maps this term to an "inner bearing race" within a larger "bearing assembly" (Compl. ¶44). The infringement analysis depends on whether this specific component of the accused device can be properly characterized as a "mounting member rotatably connected to the support frame." Practitioners may focus on this term because the precise definition will determine whether the accused bearing architecture falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes mounting assemblies in general terms, for example, as for "securing the lower end of the panel assembly 60 to the front support frame 42" (’546 Patent, col. 3:45-47). The absence of a specific definition for "mounting member" may support an interpretation based on its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass a component like an inner bearing race.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description of a specific embodiment shows a "second mounting assembly 90" comprising a "connecting plate 92" and "mounting forks 94" (’546 Patent, col. 4:1-4; Fig. 7). This could be used to argue that a "mounting member" is a discrete structural element like a fork or plate, rather than an integrated part of a bearing like a race.
- The Term: "open-ended slot" (’917 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a specific structural feature of the mounting assembly. The complaint alleges the accused "inner bearing race includes an open beam slot" and provides a corresponding photograph labeled "Open-ended slot" (Compl. ¶63, p. 15). The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether the accused feature is structurally equivalent to the claimed "open-ended slot."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may suggest it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. This could support a reading that covers any slot, channel, or recess that is not fully enclosed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 7 of the patent illustrates a slot (95) within a mounting fork (94) (’917 Patent, Fig. 7). A party could argue that this figure defines the intended structure of the "open-ended slot" as a U-shaped channel cut into a larger solid member, potentially excluding other shapes or configurations like a simple cradle where a torque tube rests.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant actively induces its customers and others to use the infringing solar trackers (Compl. ¶47, ¶65). The factual basis includes allegations that Defendant designs specifications for use, collaborates on development, and provides technical support services (Compl. ¶26-27).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of the date of Plaintiff's pre-suit notification letter, August 19, 2022 (Compl. ¶49, ¶67). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement despite this notice is "knowing, deliberate, and willful" and constitutes "egregious" conduct (Compl. ¶49, ¶67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "mounting member," described in the patent in the context of plates and forks, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused "inner bearing race," which is an integral component of a larger bearing assembly? The case may depend on the level of structural specificity imported from the specification’s embodiments into the claims.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused tracker's "open beam slot," as depicted in the complaint’s photographs, possess the structural characteristics of the "slot" and "open-ended slot" required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in mechanical design between the accused product and the patented invention?