DCT
1:22-cv-01111
Sade v. Blackwell Solar LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rovshan Sade (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Blackwell Solar LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01111, M.D.N.C., 12/20/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the judicial district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in North Carolina.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s solar energy facility utilizes solar tracker systems that infringe two patents related to the mechanical design of single-axis solar trackers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns single-axis solar trackers, which are mechanical systems designed to orient solar panels toward the sun throughout the day to maximize energy generation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of the infringement via letters on August 19, 2022, which identified the patents-in-suit, the alleged infringement, and offered a license. Plaintiff claims Defendant did not respond. This alleged pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-07-06 | Priority Date for ’546 and ’17546 Patents |
| 2015-06-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,057,546 Issued |
| 2018-03-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546 Issued |
| 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," issued June 16, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional solar systems as facing impediments to widespread adoption due to high costs, the need for large open spaces, and unappealing aesthetics when mounted on buildings (’546 Patent, col. 1:22-38). The complaint echoes this, noting that prior art trackers were inefficient and unable to harness the full energy capacity of installed panels (Compl. ¶35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "free-standing solar tracker" that does not require a permanent foundation, making it easier to deploy and move (’546 Patent, col. 1:45-52). It features a base that can be filled with ballast material (like sand or gravel) to hold it in place and which can also serve as a "suitcase" to contain and transport the tracker's components when disassembled (’546 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:29-34). The core of the system is a rotatable panel assembly mounted on a support frame, allowing it to track the sun.
- Technical Importance: The design aims to create a solar tracker that is relatively inexpensive to build and operate, and which can be deployed in a variety of locations without permanent installation, thereby increasing the return on investment (’546 Patent, col. 1:52-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶39) and alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶38).
- Independent Claim 5 elements:
- a support frame;
- a panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame for supporting one or more solar panels, said panel assembly comprising a central spine and a plurality of panel carriers extending outwardly from said spine;
- a mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly to the support frame, the mounting assembly comprising a mounting member rotatably connected to the support frame and a slot in said mounting member configured to receive the spine of the panel assembly; and
- an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun.
U.S. Patent No. 9,917,546, "Solar Tracker," issued March 13, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’546 patent, this patent addresses the same technical problems of cost, installation complexity, and aesthetics associated with conventional solar trackers (’17546 Patent, col. 1:28-44; Compl. ¶54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a support structure for a solar tracker with a similar mechanical arrangement to the ’546 patent. It describes a panel assembly with a "central spine" and attached "panel carriers" that is rotatably mounted to a support frame via a specialized mounting assembly (’17546 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:56-65). This patent’s claims focus on a particular configuration of the mounting assembly.
- Technical Importance: This design also seeks to provide a cost-effective and easily deployable solar tracking system to improve energy capture efficiency (’17546 Patent, col. 1:60-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58) and alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶57).
- Independent Claim 1 elements:
- a support frame;
- a panel assembly rotatably mounted to said support frame and configured to support one or more solar panels, said panel assembly including a central spine rotatably mounted to the support frame and a plurality of panel carriers fixed relative to the central spine and extending outwardly from both sides of said central spine for supporting said solar panels;
- an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun; and
- a mounting assembly for rotatably mounting the panel assembly to the support frame, said mounting assembly comprising: a mounting member configured to be rotatably connected to said support frame and an open-ended slot in said mounting member configured to receive the central spine of the panel assembly.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the solar trackers used in Defendant's solar energy project or facility (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 37).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused trackers are part of a power plant used to generate and provide solar energy to Defendant's customers, including utilities (Compl. ¶¶23, 26). The trackers are alleged to rotate solar panels to follow the sun to maximize energy production (Compl. ¶41, ¶59). The complaint provides annotated photographs to identify specific components of the accused trackers, including "Support Posts" that form a support frame (Compl. ¶42), a "Torque Tube" that serves as a central spine, and "Panel Carriers" that hold the solar panels (Compl. ¶43). The trackers also allegedly include a "Bearing Assembly" for mounting and rotation (Compl. ¶44) and an electromechanical "Actuator" to drive the rotation (Compl. ¶45). The complaint provides an annotated image showing the accused product's "Support Posts" that allegedly form the support frame (Compl. p. 8, ¶42).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’546 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a support frame | The accused trackers use a plurality of "Support Posts" that form a support frame. | ¶42 | col. 2:57 |
| a panel assembly rotatably mounted to the support frame...said panel assembly comprising a central spine and a plurality of panel carriers... | The accused trackers have a rotatably mounted frame with a central "torque tube beam" (the central spine) and transversely arranged "elongated members" (the panel carriers) to which panels are mounted. A provided image identifies the "Torque Tube" and "Panel Carriers" (Compl. p. 8, ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 2:25-34 |
| 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... | The accused trackers use a "bearing assembly" to mount the frame to the support posts. This assembly allegedly includes an "inner bearing race" (the mounting member) with an "open beam slot" where the torque tube is seated. | ¶44 | col. 4:1-3 |
| an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun | The accused trackers use an "electromechanical actuator" to rotate the panel assembly. | ¶45 | col. 3:18-19 |
’17546 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a support frame | The accused trackers include a plurality of "support posts forming a support frame." | ¶60 | col. 2:66 |
| a panel assembly...said panel assembly including a central spine...and a plurality of panel carriers fixed relative to the central spine... | The accused trackers include a frame with a "torque tube beam" (the central spine) and "transversely arranged elongated members" (the panel carriers) to which panels are clipped. | ¶61 | col. 3:35-41 |
| an actuator assembly for rotating the panel assembly to track the movement of the sun | The accused trackers use an "electromechanical actuator for rotating the panel assembly." An annotated photo shows the accused actuator (Compl. p. 14, ¶62). | ¶62 | col. 4:30-32 |
| a mounting assembly...comprising: a mounting member...and an open-ended slot in said mounting member configured to receive the central spine... | The accused trackers use a "bearing assembly" (the mounting assembly) with an "inner bearing race" (the mounting member) that includes an "open beam slot" where the torque tube is seated. A key annotated image purports to show the "Open-ended slot" on the "Mounting Assembly" of the accused product (Compl. p. 15, ¶63). | ¶63 | col. 6:27-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "bearing assembly" with its "inner bearing race" (Compl. ¶44, ¶63) falls within the scope of the claimed "mounting member." The patent specification illustrates specific L-shaped brackets and mounting forks (e.g., ’546 Patent, Fig. 5-7), which raises the question of whether the claims should be interpreted as limited to such structures or can be read more broadly to cover the accused bearing assembly.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory rests on a direct one-to-one mapping of components. A technical question will be whether the accused "open beam slot" in the "inner bearing race" (Compl. ¶44, ¶63) functions as the "slot" recited in the claims. The complaint provides visual evidence asserting this equivalence, but the precise mechanical interaction and structure will be subject to scrutiny.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "central spine"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core structural element of the claimed panel assembly. The complaint equates it to the accused "torque tube beam" (Compl. ¶43, ¶61). The construction of this term will determine whether a common industry component like a torque tube falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not impose specific structural limitations on the "central spine" beyond its role in supporting the panel carriers and being received by the mounting assembly's slot. The specification describes it functionally as part of the "panel support frame" ('546 Patent, col. 2:25-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses that in the "exemplary embodiment," the "spine 66" is made from a "metal tube" ('546 Patent, col. 2:38-39). A party could argue this embodiment limits the scope of the term.
The Term: "mounting member"
- Context and Importance: This term is the key interface between the rotating panel assembly and the stationary support frame. The complaint alleges the accused "inner bearing race" is the "mounting member" (Compl. ¶44, ¶63). Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent illustrates specific brackets and forks (e.g., mounting forks 94 in Fig. 6-7 of the ’546 Patent), while the accused product uses a different, albeit functionally similar, bearing race.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language broadly recites a "mounting member" that is "rotatably connected" and has a "slot." This functional language may support a construction that is not limited to the specific embodiments shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show specific structures for the mounting member, such as "L-shaped mounting brackets 84" ('546 Patent, col. 3:49-50) and "mounting forks 94" ('546 Patent, col. 4:1). A defendant may argue these specific disclosures limit the term's meaning. The visual provided in the complaint showing the "Mounting Assembly" with an "Open-ended slot" (Compl. p. 15) will be directly compared against these patent figures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by Defendant's acts of, among other things, actively inducing its customers to use the infringing trackers (Compl. ¶47, ¶65). It further alleges affirmative acts such as designing specifications for the products, providing technical support, and enabling their use in the United States (Compl. ¶¶26-27).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It specifically pleads that Defendant knew of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as August 19, 2022, the date of Plaintiff's letter" (Compl. ¶49, ¶67). The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued infringement despite this notice constitutes knowing, deliberate, and willful infringement (Compl. ¶49, ¶67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a dispute centered on the mechanical structure of solar trackers. The complaint's use of annotated photographs from an apparently operational site suggests a fact pattern grounded in a specific, identifiable product. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A central question of claim construction: Can the term "mounting member", as described and claimed in the patents-in-suit, be construed to read on the accused "inner bearing race" component of a commercial solar tracker's bearing assembly? The resolution will depend on whether the court adopts a broader functional definition or a narrower one tied to the specific bracket and fork embodiments illustrated in the patents.
- An evidentiary question of infringement: Assuming the claim construction is broad enough, does the Plaintiff's evidence, particularly the annotated photographs, accurately depict the accused products and demonstrate that they practice each element of the asserted claims? The factual inquiry will focus on whether the accused "open beam slot" is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed "slot" or "open-ended slot."