DCT
1:25-cv-00090
Aero Tech Pty Ltd v. Friction Sweepers Intl Pty Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aero-Tech Pty Ltd. (Australia)
- Defendant: Friction Sweepers Intl Pty Ltd. (Australia); Eagle & Myslik, Inc. (Colorado / New Hampshire)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hayes Soloway, PC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00090, D.N.H., 03/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted against Defendant FSI, a foreign corporation, in any judicial district. Venue is asserted against Defendant E&M based on its alleged commission of infringing acts and maintenance of a regular and established place of business in the District of New Hampshire.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ tow coupling products, sold for use with mechanical friction sweepers, infringe a patent related to adjustable and stabilized tow coupling mechanisms.
- Technical Context: The technology involves specialized tow hitches designed to connect implements like airfield debris sweepers to vehicles, aiming to improve operational stability and efficiency compared to conventional ball hitches.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history between the parties, noting that a director and co-founder of Defendant FSI is a former employee and shareholder of Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant FSI with a notice letter regarding potential infringement on May 12, 2021, and filed a prior complaint against both defendants in the District of Colorado on October 1, 2024.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-06-26 | Priority Date for ’326 Patent |
| 2018-01-25 | Defendant FSI first registered in Australia |
| 2020-05-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,654,326 Issues |
| 2021-05-12 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant FSI |
| 2022-12-06 | Earliest date alleged for infringing sales by Defendant E&M |
| 2024-10-01 | Plaintiff files prior complaint in D. Colo. |
| 2025-03-04 | Complaint filed in D.N.H. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,654,326, “Tow Coupling” (Issued May 19, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in conventional ball-type tow couplings, which permit "free relatively free rotational movement" of a towed trailer or implement (’326 Patent, col. 1:29-32). For certain applications, such as towing ground-sweeping debris collectors, this freedom of movement can reduce the efficiency of the device (’326 Patent, col. 1:49-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a tow coupling designed to attach to a standard, vertically-oriented tow ball but which restricts unwanted movement. It achieves this through a combination of an engagement part that couples to the tow ball, a "latching means" to secure it, and a "positioning structure" that connects the engagement part to the towed load (’326 Patent, Abstract). This positioning structure allows the vertical height of the towed implement to be selectively set and resiliently biased, enabling it to ride over obstacles and return to its preset position, thereby maintaining consistent ground contact and operational efficiency (’326 Patent, col. 8:1-14).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a method for improving the performance of towed implements by controlling their vertical position and stability, which is particularly relevant for devices that must maintain a specific orientation relative to the ground surface to function effectively (’326 Patent, col. 1:52-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 29, and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶42-43).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) includes:
- an engagement part for engagement with the tow ball,
- a load coupling for coupling to a load to be towed,
- a tow element interconnecting the engagement part and the load coupling,
- latching means for latching the engagement part to the tow ball to substantially confine movement,
- interconnections permitting pivoting about transverse axes, and
- a positioning structure for setting the tow element in a settable pivotal position to control the upright orientation of the load coupling.
- Independent Claim 17 (Apparatus) includes:
- a tow coupling with an engagement part for engaging an upright ball coupling to substantially confine movement to an upright axis,
- a tow element pivotally connected to both the engagement part and an engagement structure for the load, and
- a positioning structure for setting the engagement structure at a selectable vertical position.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "FSI Tow Coupling," which is advertised, offered for sale, and sold with FSI’s products, including the "FOD Commander" mechanical friction sweeper (Compl. ¶38-39).
Functionality and Market Context
- The FSI Tow Coupling is an industrial product used to connect the FOD Commander sweeper to a vehicle (Compl. ¶39). These sweepers are marketed for cleaning debris on sensitive surfaces like airports and military bases (Compl. ¶38). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant FSI's website showing the FOD Commander sweeper attached to a vehicle via the accused tow coupling (Compl. ¶41, Ex. C). A brochure, allegedly from Defendant E&M's website, also shows the FOD Commander and FSI Tow Coupling being offered for sale (Compl. ¶70-71, Ex. I).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filing. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the body of the complaint.
’326 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an engagement part for engagement with the tow ball | The FSI Tow Coupling includes an engagement part for engagement with the tow ball. | ¶45 | col. 4:42-43 |
| a load coupling for coupling to a load to be towed | The FSI Tow Coupling includes a load coupling for coupling to a load to be towed. | ¶46 | col. 6:9-11 |
| a tow element interconnecting the engagement part and the load coupling and pivotally connected to the engagement part and to the load coupling | The FSI Tow Coupling includes a tow element that interconnects the engagement and load couplings and is pivotally connected to both. | ¶47 | col. 6:7-9 |
| latching means for latching the engagement part in said engagement with the tow ball whereby to substantially confine movement of the coupling part when engaged with the tow ball to movement about said axis | The FSI Tow Coupling includes latching means for latching the engagement part to the tow ball, which substantially confines movement of the coupling part. | ¶48-49 | col. 5:9-11 |
| interconnections between the load coupling and the tow element and between the engagement part and the tow element permitting pivoting, about transverse axes… | The FSI Tow Coupling includes interconnections that permit pivoting about transverse axes between the load coupling, tow element, and engagement part. | ¶50 | col. 6:18-24 |
| a positioning structure for positioning the tow element in a settable pivotal position with respect to the engagement part such that… the pivotal position of the interconnection between the tow element and the load coupling is settable in the upright direction | The FSI Tow Coupling includes a positioning structure for setting the tow element in a pivotal position to make the load coupling's position settable in the upright direction. | ¶51 | col. 6:62-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the scope of the phrase "substantially confine movement" (Claim 1). The parties may dispute how much pivotal movement is permissible before it is no longer "substantially confined" as the patent requires to distinguish over conventional hitches.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused FSI Tow Coupling contains a "positioning structure" that meets the claim limitations. The complaint alleges its presence in a conclusory manner (Compl. ¶51), but the analysis will depend on whether the accused product’s mechanism for adjusting height operates in a manner consistent with the structure described in the patent, including its ability to set a pivotal position that in turn sets the load coupling in an "upright direction."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "positioning structure" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term appears to capture the novel aspect of the invention—the mechanism for setting and maintaining the vertical orientation of the towed implement. Whether the accused product's adjustment mechanism falls within the scope of this term will be a central point of the infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the claim language itself is broad, covering any structure that performs the recited function of "positioning the tow element in a settable pivotal position."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue the term is limited by the specific embodiment disclosed in the specification, which describes a distinct two-arm assembly (arms 222, 224) that is pivotally interconnected and resiliently biased by a spring (260) to achieve the positioning function (’326 Patent, col. 6:62–col. 7:20; Fig. 3).
The Term: "latching means" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This limitation is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is therefore not defined by the words alone, but is statutorily limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will require a direct comparison of the accused product's latch to the specific structure in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Equivalents): Plaintiff will argue that the accused product's latching mechanism, even if not identical, is structurally equivalent to the one described in the patent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (The Disclosed Structure): The corresponding structure disclosed in the patent is a "removable transverse latching element 140," which is described as a pin or a shank that passes through aligned openings (143) in the walls of the engagement part to retain the tow ball (’326 Patent, col. 5:9-24). The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused product uses this specific pin-based structure or its structural equivalent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges both contributory and induced infringement against Defendant FSI (Compl., Counts II & III). The claims are based on allegations that the FSI Tow Coupling has no substantial non-infringing use and that FSI instructs customers on how to use the product in an infringing manner via its product manuals (Compl. ¶97-98, ¶101).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint pleads willfulness against both defendants.
- Against FSI, the allegations are based on asserted pre-suit knowledge, stemming from its co-founder’s prior employment with Plaintiff, its status as a direct competitor, and a notice of infringement letter sent in May 2021 (Compl. ¶84-88).
- Against E&M, the allegations are based on knowledge of the patent and infringement as of the filing of a prior lawsuit in October 2024 (Compl. ¶91-92).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court construe the term "positioning structure"? Will it be limited to the two-arm, resiliently biased mechanism detailed in the patent's primary embodiment, or will it encompass any structure that adjusts the vertical position of the towed load? The resolution of this question could be dispositive of infringement.
- A second central question will be one of structural equivalence: as the "latching means" limitation is governed by § 112(f), the infringement analysis will require a factual determination of whether the accused product’s latching mechanism is the same as, or structurally equivalent to, the removable pin-and-hole system disclosed in the patent specification.
- Finally, a key issue for damages will be willfulness, particularly concerning Defendant FSI. The court will need to evaluate the evidence of alleged pre-suit knowledge, including the co-founder’s history and the 2021 notice letter, to determine if any infringement was "willful" and thus subject to potential enhancement.