8082464 Canada Inc v. Elko Wire Rope Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: 9539-7337 Quebec Inc. (Quebec, Canada)
  • Defendant: Elko Wire Rope and Mining Supply Inc. (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Snell & Willmer L.L.P.; Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00756, D. Nev., 02/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada because the Defendant is a Nevada corporation that resides and regularly transacts business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s heavy-lifting services for mining equipment infringe a patent related to a specialized system and method for safely lifting large mining shovels.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the complex and hazardous process of lifting multi-ton mining shovels for undercarriage maintenance, an essential but high-risk operation in the open-pit mining industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details pre-suit correspondence, beginning with a notice letter sent by Plaintiff’s affiliate to Defendant on April 12, 2024. Defendant responded on May 17, 2024, with non-infringement arguments. This exchange, which continued through September 2024, is cited by Plaintiff as establishing pre-suit knowledge for its willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,851,309 - "Shovel Lifting System and Method"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the significant risks and inefficiencies associated with lifting massive mining shovels for maintenance Compl. Ex. 1, p. 2 Traditional methods can create an unstable center of gravity, risking catastrophic failure, and often rely on manual coordination between jack operators, which is prone to human error (’309 Patent, col. 5:1-4; ’309 Patent, col. 5:51-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and apparatus for an "integral" lift of the entire shovel body using a coordinated set of hydraulic jacks ’309 Patent, col. 6:1-3 A key aspect of the method involves lowering the shovel’s heavy front attachment (the “dipper”) to rest on the ground during the lift ’309 Patent, abstract This strategically shifts the machine’s center of gravity rearward, which, when combined with specifically placed jacks under the carbody and counterweight, is intended to create a more stable lifting configuration ’309 Patent, col. 5:5-12 ’309 Patent, Fig. 9 The entire process is managed by a control unit, such as a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), which monitors level detectors and jack pressures to automate the lift and maintain the shovel in a level plane, thereby mitigating the risks of manual operation ’309 Patent, col. 2:57-65
• Technical Importance: The patented approach aims to enhance safety and reduce equipment downtime by providing a systemized, automated solution to a complex and dangerous maintenance task critical to mining operations ’309 Patent, col. 4:54-58

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’309 Patent Compl. ¶20
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • configuring a shovel and a lifting system with a set of lifting units matching force applying points on the shovel’s carbody and counterweight, connected to a control unit;
  • extending the lifting units into contact with the shovel;
  • lowering the shovel’s dipper onto a supporting surface; and
  • starting a lifting operation to raise the shovel while the dipper remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the operation.
• The complaint does not explicitly assert dependent claims but may implicitly reserve the right to do so.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s service of providing heavy-lifting solutions for mining customers Compl. ¶20 The complaint specifically identifies the lifting of a mining shovel for undercarriage repair at the Arturo mining site in Carlin, Nevada Compl. ¶¶25-26

Functionality and Market Context

• Defendant advertises and performs heavy-lifting services for mining equipment, such as the lifting of a Hitachi 5500 shovel as depicted in an Instagram post referenced in the complaint Compl. ¶¶11-12 The complaint provides photographs of a lift allegedly performed by the Defendant, showing a large mining shovel elevated by lifting equipment underneath its chassis Compl. p. 3 The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant are direct competitors in the industry of providing heavy-lifting solutions for the open-pit mining industry Compl. ¶13

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’309 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: The primary point of contention appears to be factual and centers on element (d). Pre-suit correspondence cited in the complaint indicates that Defendant argued it “does not consistently perform this claimed method” Compl. ¶24 This raises the evidentiary question of whether, for the specific lifts accused of infringement, the Defendant actually raised the shovel while its dipper remained on a supporting surface. The images in the complaint depict a shovel being lifted at night, which Plaintiff alleges is an infringing operation Compl. ¶21 Compl. p. 5
• Scope Questions: The complaint does not describe the specific nature of Defendant's "control unit." The ’309 Patent specification emphasizes the use of an automated Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) to overcome the deficiencies of manual operation ’309 Patent, col. 2:57-65 A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant's control system, if it is less automated or differs technologically from a PLC, falls within the scope of the term "control unit" as used in claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "while the dipper... remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the central point of the infringement dispute, as it was specifically contested in pre-suit correspondence Compl. ¶24 The patent distinguishes its method from prior art in part by leveraging the stability gained from keeping the dipper grounded, so the interpretation of this phrase is critical.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the phrase "a duration," which may be argued to mean any non-zero amount of time during the lift, not necessarily the entire lifting process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes leaving the dipper on the ground as a foundational step for the entire lift to achieve a specific, stable center of gravity ’309 Patent, col. 5:5-12 A defendant might argue that "duration of the lifting operation" implies the entire active lifting phase to achieve the patented method's technical benefits, rather than a brief or incidental period.

The Term: "control unit"

• Context and Importance: The capabilities of the "control unit" are central to the patent's purported solution to the problem of human error in manual lifting operations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of Defendant's actual control equipment is not detailed in the complaint, and a mismatch could form a basis for a non-infringement defense.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the term functionally as being "operatively connected" to the lifting units to perform the method steps, without requiring a specific technology like a PLC.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly highlights a "Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)" as the preferred embodiment that enables the automated, coordinated, and safe lift that solves prior art problems ’309 Patent, col. 2:57-65 ’309 Patent, abstract A defendant may argue that the term should be construed to require a level of automation and sensor-based feedback consistent with the specification's teachings, not merely a manifold of manual valves.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s continued performance of the accused lifting services after receiving actual notice of the ’309 Patent and Plaintiff's infringement allegations on April 12, 2024 Compl. ¶¶23, 27-28, 31 The subsequent correspondence between the parties is cited as further evidence of Defendant's knowledge.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of performance: does the factual record show that in the accused lifting services, Defendant raised the mining shovel while its dipper remained on a supporting surface for a legally sufficient duration, as required by claim 1? The pre-suit correspondence suggests this is a central factual dispute.
• A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "control unit," which the patent specification exemplifies as a sophisticated Programmable Logic Controller, be construed broadly enough to read on the specific control system Defendant actually uses to operate its lifting equipment?