RSA Protective Tech LLC v. Clark County

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RSA Protective Technologies, LLC (Los Angeles, California)
  • Defendant: Clark County (Clark County, Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kolesar & Leatham
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00143, D. Nev., 01/21/2020
• Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada, presumably because the defendant, Clark County, resides and operates within this judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to shallow-mount, anti-ram vehicle bollard systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns physical security barriers designed to protect buildings and infrastructure from vehicle-ramming attacks, a market driven by counter-terrorism and public safety needs.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 8,215,865 has undergone two ex parte reexaminations. The second reexamination (Certificate C2, issued Nov. 17, 2022) resulted in the cancellation of independent claim 1, the broadest claim of the patent. This action narrows the potential scope of infringement, as any allegation must now meet the more specific limitations of the remaining independent claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-07-26	Earliest Priority Date ('865 Patent)
2012-07-10	'865 Patent Issue Date
2020-01-21	Complaint Filing Date
2020-07-23	'865 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issue Date
2022-11-17	'865 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issue Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,215,865 - Anti-Ram System and Method of Installation, issued July 10, 2012 (’865 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional anti-ram bollard systems as requiring "rather deep excavations, several feet or more," to anchor the bollards ('865 Patent, col. 1:55-57). In developed urban areas, such deep digging is costly, disruptive, and often impossible due to the presence of underground utilities like gas, water, and electrical lines ('865 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "shallow mount" bollard system that requires "very little or no excavation" ('865 Patent, col. 2:12-13). Instead of a deep foundation, it uses a wide, heavy base pad constructed from a framework of structural members (a "grillage") that is placed in a shallow trench and typically filled with concrete ('865 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). This shallow base is designed to resist the rotational forces of a vehicle impact by distributing the load over a large surface area of the underlying soil ('865 Patent, col. 2:45-54).
• Technical Importance: This shallow-mount approach is intended to enable the rapid and less-disruptive installation of vehicle barriers in complex urban environments where subsurface conditions preclude traditional deep-foundation methods ('865 Patent, col. 4:32-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint was filed before the reexamination that cancelled independent claim 1. Analysis focuses on the independent claims that survived reexamination, as they define the current enforceable scope of the patent. The surviving independent claims are 2 (as amended), 16, and 33.
• Independent Claim 2 (as amended, based on cancelled Claim 1): Essential elements include:
  • At least one bollard.
  • A base with opposed ends and a plurality of intersecting and tied-together structural members.
  • The base is configured for mounting in a "shallow excavation" with the bollard extending above grade.
  • The structural members are configured to retain supporting media (e.g., concrete) to resist rotation from an impact.
  • A structural member forms at least one of the opposed ends, to which another structural member is secured.
• Independent Claim 16: Essential elements include:
  • A plurality of bollards.
  • A base with opposed ends and a plurality of intersecting and tied-together structural members.
  • The base is configured for mounting in a "shallow excavation" with the bollards extending above grade.
  • The structural members are configured to retain supporting media to resist rotation from an impact.
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to identify the specific accused instrumentality or its functionality. The cause of action is for patent infringement, and the defendant is Clark County, which suggests the accused instrumentalities may be physical security barriers, such as bollards, installed on public property within the county.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific infringement allegations or claim charts for analysis. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "shallow excavation"

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the invention's departure from the prior art. Its construction will define the boundary between the patented technology and conventional deep-foundation systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses qualitative descriptions like "very little or no excavation" ('865 Patent, col. 2:12-13) and requiring only "a simple replacement of area near the surface" ('865 Patent, col. 4:55-57), which could support a more flexible, relative definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific quantitative examples, stating the shallow mount pad is "5" to 14" in depth" ('865 Patent, col. 2:42-43) and describing an embodiment with an overall pad height of "only 6 and 1/2 inches" ('865 Patent, col. 7:41-42). This could support an argument to limit the term to these explicit numerical ranges.

• The Term: "base"

  • Context and Importance: The structure and function of the "base" are central to every independent claim. Defining what structures constitute the claimed base will be critical for comparing it to the accused systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims broadly recite a base comprising "a plurality of structural members which intersect and are tied together" ('865 Patent, col. 9:19-21), suggesting any framework meeting this description could qualify.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently depict the base as a "grillage" made of "structural tubes" ('865 Patent, col. 4:40-42; Figs. 3, 5). A party may argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to mean a grid-like framework, as distinguished from other foundation types like a solid reinforced slab.

• The Term: "configured or tied together to retain...supporting media...such that the rotation is resisted"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language describes how the invention achieves its purpose. An infringement dispute may turn on whether an accused product's foundation, even if shallow, achieves stability through the same mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be argued to cover any shallow foundation that, once filled with a material like concrete, becomes heavy and wide enough to resist tipping.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with deep trench systems by explaining that the shallow pad is "pushed down onto the soil" rather than rotating "into the soil" ('865 Patent, col. 2:45-49). This suggests a specific load-transfer dynamic that a party could argue is a required functional aspect of the claimed configuration.

VI. Other Allegations

The provided documents do not contain sufficient detail to analyze allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A central question of claim scope: Following the cancellation of the broadest independent claim (Claim 1) during reexamination, the viability of the lawsuit will depend on whether the accused Clark County barriers meet the more detailed limitations of the surviving independent claims, such as Claim 2 or Claim 16.
• A key definitional issue: The case will likely involve a dispute over the meaning of "shallow excavation." Whether the court construes this term according to the specific numerical ranges disclosed in the patent (e.g., 5-14 inches) or as a broader, more functional concept will be critical in determining infringement.
• An evidentiary question of technical function: The litigation may focus on whether the accused barriers achieve stability using the specific mechanism described in the patent. A core factual dispute could be whether the defendant's foundations resist impact by distributing force across a wide, shallow base to primarily counter rotation, as claimed, or if they rely on a different principle of engineering.