DCT
2:22-cv-01095
Sterling Tackle LLC v. JB Custom Offshore Rigging Fishing Tackle Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sterling Tackle LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: JB Custom Offshore Rigging and Fishing Tackle Inc. d/b/a Chatter Lures (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-01095, E.D.N.Y., 03/01/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has engaged in business, advertised, offered for sale, and sold infringing products within the Eastern District of New York.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s spreader bar fishing lure products infringe a patent related to a trolling lure assembly that uses a keel to track laterally in the water.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns trolling spreader bars, which are fishing lure assemblies designed to mimic a school of baitfish and increase the area covered by a fishing vessel.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement of the asserted patent via letters dated August 29, 2021, October 11, 2021, and November 15, 2021. This history is presented to support the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-06-20 | ’897 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-01-01 | Plaintiff Sterling introduces its "Tracker Bar" product |
| 2018-05-05 | Date of Defendant's YouTube videos cited in complaint |
| 2021-06-29 | ’897 Patent Issued |
| 2021-08-29 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2021-10-11 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant |
| 2021-11-15 | Plaintiff sends third notice letter to Defendant |
| 2022-03-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,044,897 - "FISHING LURE TROLLING SPREADER BAR"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional trolling methods limit the width of the lure spread, as lures tend to follow directly behind the boat. Existing solutions like outriggers are costly, and planer boards can be ineffective in rough ocean conditions (’897 Patent, col. 2:1-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trolling spreader bar assembly featuring an elongated central body with an angled keel on its ventral (bottom) surface. When trolled, hydrodynamic pressure on the keel guides the entire assembly laterally outward, away from the boat's wake and into undisturbed "clean water." This allows an angler to increase the width of their trolling spread without separate outriggers or planer boards (’897 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:55-61).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a more cost-efficient and accessible means for recreational anglers to achieve a wider trolling spread, a technique previously reliant on more expensive and complex equipment (’897 Patent, col. 9:57-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1:
- A trolling spreader bar comprising:
- an elongated central body;
- a spreader bar (with a first and second rod) extending laterally from the central body;
- a keel extending from the ventral surface of the central body at an angle to guide the body laterally;
- two first bait lures, each attached by its head end to a distal end of one of the rods;
- a plurality of bait lures interconnected to each of the two first bait lures by a line; and
- at least one of the two first bait lures further comprises a counterweight carried within its body.
- Independent Claim 13:
- A trolling spreader bar comprising:
- an elongated central body;
- a spreader bar (with a first and second rod) extending laterally from the central body;
- a keel extending from the ventral surface of the central body at an angle to guide the body laterally;
- two first bait lures, each attached by its head end to a distal end of one of the rods;
- a plurality of bait lures interconnected to each of the two first bait lures by a line; and
- at least one of the two first bait lures is a teaser bait lure having two wings and comprising dense plastic material.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41; Prayer for Relief (a)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "spreader bar product" sold by Chatter Lures (Compl. ¶1, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a trolling spreader bar that is "substantially the same" as Plaintiff's own "Tracker Bar" product (Compl. ¶26). The infringement allegations center on the accused product's inclusion of an elongated central body with an angled keel, a spreader bar with attached lures, and specific features on the outer lures alleged to function as a counterweight or a teaser bait (Compl. ¶23, ¶24). An annotated image in the complaint shows the accused product's central body with an angled keel designed to guide the lure assembly laterally. (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’897 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A trolling spreader bar comprising: an elongated central body; a spreader bar that extends laterally outward from the elongated central body... | The accused product is identified as a trolling spreader bar with an elongated central body and a spreader bar extending laterally. | ¶23 (p. 6) | col. 4:50-54 |
| a keel that extends from a ventral surface of the elongated central body at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the elongated central body... | The accused product has a keel extending from its ventral surface at an angle relative to its longitudinal axis. | ¶23 (p. 8) | col. 4:55-61 |
| two first bait lures, each of the two first bait lures having a head end and a tail end, wherein one first bait lure...is attached to a distal end of the first rod... | The accused product has two first bait lures, each with a head and tail end, attached to the distal ends of the spreader bar rods. | ¶23 (p. 9) | col. 5:24-27 |
| a plurality of bait lures interconnected to each of the two first bait lures by a line... | The accused product has multiple bait lures interconnected by a line to each of the two first bait lures. | ¶23 (p. 10) | col. 5:27-32 |
| wherein at least one of the two first bait lures further comprises a counterweight, wherein the counterweight is carried within a body of the at least one... | At least one of the first bait lures on the accused product is alleged to comprise a counterweight carried within its body. | ¶23 (p. 11) | col. 5:42-45 |
’897 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 13)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A trolling spreader bar comprising: an elongated central body; a spreader bar that extends laterally outward... a keel that extends from a ventral surface... | The preamble and elements related to the body, spreader bar, and keel are alleged in the same manner as for Claim 1. | ¶24 (p. 12-13) | col. 4:50-61 |
| two first bait lures...attached to a distal end of the first rod... and another...attached to a distal end of the second rod... | The accused product has two first bait lures attached to the distal ends of the spreader bar rods. | ¶24 (p. 14) | col. 5:24-27 |
| and a plurality of bait lures interconnected to each of the two first bait lures by a line... | The accused product has multiple bait lures interconnected by a line to each of the two first bait lures. | ¶24 (p. 15) | col. 5:27-32 |
| wherein at least one of the two first bait lures is a teaser bait lure having two wings extending laterally from the body...wherein the teaser bait lure comprises dense plastic material. | At least one of the first bait lures on the accused product is alleged to be a teaser bait with two lateral wings and to be made of dense plastic material. | ¶24 (p. 15) | col. 7:60-63, 8:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the body of one of the accused lures "comprises a counterweight" (Compl. ¶23, p. 11). A potential dispute is whether the inherent weight of the lure body itself satisfies the "counterweight" limitation of Claim 1, or if the claim requires a distinct, added component. The complaint also alleges one of the accused lures is a "teaser bait lure" made of "dense plastic material" (Compl. ¶24, p. 15). The definition of "dense plastic material" may become a central issue of claim construction and factual infringement.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question may be whether the material of the accused "teaser bait lure" factually meets the "dense plastic material" limitation of Claim 13. The patent provides some objective weight metrics for this element (’897 Patent, col. 8:4-7), which may frame the factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "counterweight...carried within a body of the...bait lures" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is critical for Claim 1. The infringement allegation relies on the body of the accused lure itself serving as the counterweight. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if an integral part of a lure can be a "counterweight," or if a separate, discrete weight is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the counterweight's purpose is to "act against this pressure and keeps the lure level" (’897 Patent, col. 5:38-40). This functional language may support an interpretation where any feature performing this function, including an integrally weighted lure body, meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrasing "carried within a body" could suggest the counterweight is a component held by the body, rather than being the body itself. A defendant may argue that if the inventors meant the lure body itself, they would have claimed it differently.
The Term: "dense plastic material" (Claim 13)
- Context and Importance: This term distinguishes Claim 13 from Claim 1 and appears to be a point of novelty. The infringement case for this claim depends on the accused product's "teaser bait lure" being made of a material that qualifies as "dense."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which might support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning relative to other plastics used in fishing lures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific weight ranges for the teaser bait, stating it "weigh(s) about 0.5 ounces to about 2.0 ounces, preferably about 0.75 ounces to about 1.5 ounces, more preferably about 1.0 ounce" (’897 Patent, col. 8:4-7). Plaintiff will likely argue this language provides objective boundaries for what the patent considers "dense," while a defendant may argue these are merely preferred embodiments and not definitional.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides promotional and instructional videos on its YouTube channel that "encourage customers to buy and use Chatter's spreader bar products to infringe the '897 patent" (Compl. ¶32, ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It explicitly references three pre-suit notice letters sent to Defendant on August 29, October 11, and November 15, 2021 (Compl. ¶29-30, ¶45). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's conduct was performed with knowledge that it "copied Sterling's products" (Compl. ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and factual proof: can the term "counterweight...carried within a body," as required by Claim 1, be met by the inherent weight of the accused lure's molded body, or does it require a discrete component? Similarly, for Claim 13, does the material of the accused "teaser bait lure" possess the properties of a "dense plastic material" as understood in light of the patent's specification?
- A second central question will concern willfulness and damages: given the explicit allegations of copying and the multiple pre-suit notice letters cited in the complaint, if infringement is found, the court will need to determine if Defendant's conduct was sufficiently egregious to declare the case "exceptional" and award enhanced damages and attorney's fees.