DCT
2:25-cv-02539
8082464 Canada Inc v. Elko Wire Rope Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: 8082464 Canada Inc. (Quebec, Canada)
- Defendant: Elko Wire Rope, Inc. (Utah); ELKO WIRE ROPE AND MINING SUPPLY, INC. (Nevada); Elko Wire Rope of Arizona, LLC (Arizona); Elko Wire Rope of Phoenix, LLC (Arizona)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP
Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00377, D. Utah, 05/12/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendant Elko Wire Rope, Inc. has its principal place of business in the district, and the common owners of all defendant entities reside in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' heavy-lifting services for open-pit mining shovels infringe a patent related to a specific method for safely lifting such equipment for maintenance.
Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for raising massive mining shovels to perform undercarriage maintenance, a process that presents significant logistical and safety challenges due to the equipment's size and weight.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff, through its related company, provided Defendants with notice of the asserted patent and allegations of infringement on April 12, 2024, approximately one year prior to filing suit. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-05-03 | U.S. Patent No. 11,851,309 Priority Date |
| 2023-12-26 | U.S. Patent No. 11,851,309 Issues |
| 2024-04-12 | Plaintiff Allegedly Notifies Defendant of Infringement |
| 2025-05-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,851,309 - "Shovel Lifting System and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,851,309, "Shovel Lifting System and Method," issued December 26, 2023 (’309 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the risks and difficulties associated with lifting large mining shovels for maintenance. Prior methods of lifting the entire shovel were considered risky due to the machine's small main frame relative to its overall size, creating a risk of imbalance ('309 Patent, col. 4:56-65). Alternative "one-side lifts" are described as time-consuming and introducing additional risks ('309 Patent, col. 5:32-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to lift the shovel as a whole while intentionally keeping its "dipper" (the shovel's bucket and handle) on the ground ('309 Patent, Abstract). This action shifts the machine's center of gravity rearward, which, when combined with a coordinated lifting system using multiple jacking points under both the main body (carbody) and the rear counterweight, is intended to create a more stable and safer lift ('309 Patent, col. 5:1-8). The lift is managed by a control unit, such as a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), which monitors the jacking points to maintain a level plane throughout the operation ('309 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
- Technical Importance: The method purports to provide a safer "integral lift" that avoids the instability of prior lifting techniques by using the dipper as a stabilizing anchor point ('309 Patent, col. 5:40-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('309 Patent, col. 10:1-14; Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- a) configuring the shovel and a lifting system including lifting units on a lifting site... the set of lifting units being operatively connected to a control unit;
- b) extending the set of lifting units in contact with the corresponding force applying points on the car body and the counterweight;
- c) lowering the dipper mounted to the shovel onto a supporting surface; and
- d) starting a lifting operation to raise the shovel to a desired height while the dipper... remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendants' heavy-lifting services provided to mining customers in the United States, specifically for undercarriage repair or maintenance of mining shovels (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants are competitors with Plaintiff's related company in providing heavy-lifting solutions to the open-pit mining industry (Compl. ¶17). The accused service involves the physical process of lifting mining shovels at customer sites, such as an operation depicted at the Arturo mining site in Carlin, Nevada (Compl. ¶21-22). The complaint includes a photograph of a large mining shovel elevated by a system of jacks, which purports to show Defendants' infringing service in operation (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of the accused service to the claim elements. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the general allegations.
'309 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) configuring the shovel and a lifting system including lifting units on a lifting site in a relative position... the set of lifting units being operatively connected to a control unit; | Defendants' service of setting up lifting equipment under a mining shovel at a customer site (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 10:1-5 |
| b) extending the set of lifting units in contact with the corresponding force applying points on the car body and the counterweight; | The process by which Defendants' lifting equipment makes contact with the shovel's undercarriage and counterweight prior to the lift (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 10:6-9 |
| c) lowering the dipper mounted to the shovel onto a supporting surface; | The preparatory step in Defendants' service where the shovel's bucket is rested on the ground before the main lift begins (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 10:10-11 |
| d) starting a lifting operation to raise the shovel to a desired height while the dipper, mounted to the shovel, remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation. | The act of lifting the main body of the shovel for maintenance while its bucket remains on the ground, as depicted in the complaint's photograph (Compl. ¶22). | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 10:12-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no factual allegations regarding the "control unit" required by claim 1(a). A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that Defendants' lifting units are "operatively connected to a control unit" that coordinates the lift, as opposed to being independent, manually operated jacks. The provided photographs depict the result of a lift but do not offer insight into the control method used during the process (Compl. ¶22).
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether Defendants' service performs the specific sequence of steps in claim 1. For example, does the service invariably include "lowering the dipper... onto a supporting surface" before "starting a lifting operation," and does the dipper remain on that surface for the entire lift, as the patent specification suggests is critical for stability?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "operatively connected to a control unit"
- Context and Importance: This term appears central to patentability and infringement. The patent distinguishes itself from prior art by describing a systemized, controlled approach to lifting. Whether Defendants' service infringes may depend on whether their equipment meets the definition of a "control unit."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the type of "control unit," which could support an argument that it covers any centralized control mechanism, even a manual one.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently describes the control unit as a "Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)" that uses "field data" from sensors to "make calculations and adjustments for each jacking point" in an "automated lift program" ('309 Patent, col. 2:58-63, col. 6:27-30). This context may support a narrower construction requiring automation and sensor feedback.
The Term: "remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core stability feature of the patented method. The infringement determination will require evidence of whether the dipper in the accused service stays on the ground throughout the lift.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "a duration" does not necessarily mean the entire duration, but merely a portion of it.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract states the "dipper remain[s] on the ground," and the detailed description explains that this configuration is intentional to shift the center of gravity and stabilize the load ('309 Patent, col. 5:1-8). This technical purpose suggests the dipper must remain on the surface for the entire lifting phase to achieve the inventive benefit, supporting a construction that requires the condition to be met for the full duration.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful since at least April 12, 2024, the date Plaintiff allegedly provided Defendants with notice of the '309 Patent and the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused service utilize lifting units that are "operatively connected to a control unit" as required by Claim 1? The complaint lacks specific factual allegations on this point, making it a central issue for discovery.
- The case will also present a question of procedural fact: Does the accused lifting method consistently practice the claimed sequence of lowering the dipper to the ground before initiating the lift and ensuring it "remains on the supporting surface" for the full duration of the operation?