FBA Operating Co v. Beech Lane LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FBA Operating Co. (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: Beech Lane, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00488, W.D.N.C., 08/02/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant does business in the district and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless recreational vehicle (RV) leveling system infringes a patent related to using a vehicle-mounted sensor and a smart device to calculate and display leveling adjustments.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the process of leveling recreational vehicles, which is critical for the proper function of on-board appliances and for user comfort, by replacing manual, iterative adjustments with a sensor-driven, software-based solution.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff FBA Operating Co. acquired the patent-in-suit from the original assignee, Command Electronics, LLC, through an Asset Purchase Agreement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-12-05	'925 Patent Priority Date
2021-01-12	U.S. Patent No. 10,890,925 Issues
2021-12-23	Plaintiff acquires '925 Patent via Asset Purchase Agreement
2023-08-02	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,890,925 - "Vehicle leveling systems, devices and methods and computer program products for leveling vehicles using smart devices"

• Issued: January 12, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the conventional method of leveling a recreational vehicle (RV) as a "trial and error system" that is imprecise, time-consuming, and prone to user error, particularly when using traditional bubble levels which have a significant margin of error (’925 Patent, col. 2:5-12; Compl. ¶¶19-20). This manual process requires the driver to make multiple attempts and educated guesses to achieve a level position for both pitch (front-to-back) and roll (side-to-side) orientation (’925 Patent, col. 1:50-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that solves this problem by using a sensor device (containing a digital accelerometer) secured to the vehicle to measure pitch and roll inclination. This sensor wirelessly communicates with a "smart device," such as a smartphone, which runs a software application. The application processes the sensor data, calculates the precise height adjustments needed to level the vehicle, and displays this information to the user, often on a graphical representation of the vehicle, thereby eliminating the guesswork (’925 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:25-54).
• Technical Importance: The patented approach replaces a manual, iterative, and imprecise process with a guided, data-driven one, offering significant improvements in speed, accuracy, and user convenience for leveling vehicles (’925 Patent, col. 2:27-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system), 10 (a method), and 15 (a non-transitory computer readable medium).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A sensor device secured to a vehicle with a digital accelerometer and a processor.
  • A smart device in wireless communication with the sensor, including a display screen.
  • A configuration where the system determines "adjustment pairs" (height amount and direction) needed to level the vehicle.
  • The smart device's display is configured to show an image of the vehicle and "simultaneously display" the height adjustment amount and direction "adjacent to each respective section of the vehicle" shown in the image.
  • The smart device is configured to update the display "substantially in real time" as adjustments are made.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but reserves the right to assert other claims upon further investigation (Compl., p. 11, "Reservation of Rights").

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the "Beech Lane Wireless RV Leveling System" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused product is sold by the Defendant, directly competes with the Plaintiff's own product, and practices at least one claim of the '925 Patent (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation or features of the accused system beyond these general allegations.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only conclusory allegations of infringement, stating that the accused system infringes at least claims 1, 10, and 15 without mapping specific product features to the elements of those claims (Compl. ¶¶11, 13, 15). The complaint does not contain sufficient detail to construct a claim chart.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the asserted claims and the nature of the technology, the infringement analysis will likely focus on several key technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires displaying adjustment information "adjacent to each respective section of the vehicle shown in the at least one image." A central question may be whether the accused system's user interface meets this specific spatial arrangement requirement or displays the information in a different manner.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require updating the display "substantially in real time" (Claim 1) or "essentially in real time" (Claims 10, 15). A factual dispute may arise regarding the actual update frequency and latency of the accused system and whether it meets a legally sufficient definition of "real time" in this context. Another question is whether the accused product calculates and displays "adjustment pairs" (a height and a direction) as claimed, or if it provides leveling information in a functionally different way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "smart device"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in all asserted independent claims and is central to the system's architecture. The scope of this term will define the type of user-end hardware required to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides a specific, multi-part definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to cover any modern mobile electronic device capable of running an application, which aligns with the general understanding of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent defines "smart device" as "any mobile electronic device configured with imaging and/or computing capabilities that can process image and sensor data," and provides a list including "a mobile smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing tablet, a personal media player, or any like mobile electronic device" (’925 Patent, col. 5:4-11). A party could argue this definition, particularly the phrase "process image and sensor data," imposes specific functional requirements beyond simply being a computing device.

• The Term: "substantially in real time" / "essentially in real time"

• Context and Importance: This temporal limitation, appearing in Claims 1, 10, and 15, is critical to the user experience described by the patent. The dispute will likely center on how "real time" is measured and what degree of latency is permissible. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a term of degree that lacks a precise numerical definition in the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The terms could be argued to mean simply that the display updates without unreasonable delay from the user's perspective.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses how accelerometer data can be "choppy" and cause the display to "flicker," and how display resolution can be configured to create a more stable reading (’925 Patent, col. 10:55-66). This discussion suggests that "real time" is not instantaneous but is tied to the technical goal of providing a stable, usable, and responsive display, which may support a more functionally limited definition.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant actively induces its end-users to infringe by instructing them to use the Beech Lane Wireless RV Leveling System as intended (Compl. ¶38).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported pre-suit knowledge of the '925 Patent "through direct or indirect communications with Plaintiff and/or because of its participation and sale... in the same marketplace" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint also asserts that notice was provided via a certified letter sent contemporaneously with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶25).

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

1. A core issue will be one of claim scope and interpretation: Does the accused system's user interface meet the specific claim requirement to "simultaneously display the height adjustment amount and corresponding adjustment direction... adjacent to each respective section of the vehicle," and what is the proper construction of the temporal limitation "substantially / essentially in real time"?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming a construction is reached, discovery will be needed to determine the precise functionality of the "Beech Lane Wireless RV Leveling System," specifically how it calculates and presents leveling data and with what degree of latency, to assess whether it performs the functions required by the asserted claims.
3. A third question will relate to willfulness: The complaint's allegations of pre-suit knowledge based on "communications" and "marketplace participation" are fact-intensive. The court will need to evaluate what specific evidence, if any, supports the claim that Defendant had the requisite knowledge of its alleged infringement prior to the lawsuit's filing.