DCT

3:23-cv-01704

Parker Hannifin Corp v. Faster Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Faster, Inc., 3:23-cv-01704, N.D. Ohio, 08/30/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Faster, Inc. based on its residence and regular place of business within the district. Venue over Faster Srl, an alien corporation, is asserted to be proper in any judicial district. Venue over Helios Technologies, Inc. is based on its alleged inducement of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hydraulic multi-coupling products infringe two patents related to mechanisms for connecting and disconnecting multiple fluid lines, including features for pressure relief and independent coupler operation.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves hydraulic multi-couplings, which are mechanical devices used in industrial and agricultural machinery to quickly connect or disconnect multiple hydraulic lines at once.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of the asserted patents and their alleged infringement via counsel for Helios Technologies, Inc. The complaint also alleges a competitive dynamic where Plaintiff Parker-Hannifin lost a customer bid to Defendant Faster, Inc., with that customer now allegedly purchasing one of the accused products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-06-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,568,502 Priority Date
2009-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,568,502 Issued
2018-05-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,435,018 Priority Date
2022-09-06 U.S. Patent No. 11,435,018 Issued
2023-08-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,568,502 - "Coupling For A Hydraulic or Pneumatic Assembly," issued August 4, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in "see-saw lever" multi-couplers, where it was difficult to achieve "pre-coupling pressure relief" (’502 Patent, col. 2:61-68). Releasing trapped fluid pressure before connecting a male coupler is desirable to reduce the required connection force, but prior designs did not effectively facilitate this.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "stop member" that is positioned to hold a pressure relief valve's plunger in an open position when the female coupler is moved into its coupling position. This allows the cam member, which actuates the coupler, to "move away from the plunger" while pressure is being relieved, decoupling the two functions (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-18). This arrangement is designed to enable pressure release before the final connection is made.
  • Technical Importance: This design enabled pre-coupling pressure relief within a see-saw lever system, which allows for easier manual connection of hydraulic lines that may contain residual pressure, while preserving the ability of the lever to actuate couplers independently (’502 Patent, col. 2:15-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites, in part:
    • a housing, a female coupler, a pressure relief valve with a plunger, and a cam member;
    • the cam member is movable to move the valve plunger and then move the female coupler from its operating position to its release position;
    • a "stop member" for moving the plunger to its open position when the female coupler is moved to its coupling position;
    • wherein the "cam member can move away from the plunger" while the female coupler is in the coupling position and the plunger is held open by the stop member.
  • Independent Claim 11 recites a "female coupler assembly" with a similar combination of a cam member, a pressure relief valve plunger, and a stop member configured to allow the cam member to move away from the plunger while the stop member holds the plunger in an open position.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 11,435,018 - "Hydraulic Multi-Coupling with Independent Single Handle Rotational Disconnect," issued September 6, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon prior multi-coupler designs, including push-pull see-saw levers, which can require significant operating clearance and be difficult to use in certain mounting orientations (’018 Patent, col. 2:40-50). The goal was to achieve independent coupler disconnection using a more compact, rotational lever.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a single rotational lever attached to a shaft that holds two cams. The cams are configured such that rotating the lever in one direction causes one cam to engage and move its associated female coupler to a release position, while the other cam rotates away from its coupler, leaving it in its connected state. Rotating the lever in the opposite direction reverses the action for the other coupler (’018 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:17-col. 6:6). The lever's axis of rotation is perpendicular to the fluid flow axes of the couplers, providing a compact mechanical advantage.
  • Technical Importance: This configuration provides the functionality of independent coupler disconnection using a single rotational handle, which is presented as being more suitable for applications with limited space compared to push-pull lever designs (’018 Patent, col. 3:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 12 (Compl. ¶36).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites, in part:
    • a housing with a first and second female coupler;
    • a "rotational lever" whose rotation moves one female coupler from a coupling to a release position "without affecting a connection state of the other";
    • first and second cams configured such that rotation of the lever moves one coupler without affecting the other;
    • an "axis of rotation of the rotational lever is perpendicular to an axis of the first and second female couplers" and extends parallel to a plane created by the couplers' axes.
  • Independent Claim 11 adds limitations requiring a "first stop member" and a "second stop member" that interact with the first and second cams, respectively, to move the female couplers.
  • Independent Claim 12 describes the independent operation by reciting that when one cam rotates to interact with its coupler, "the other of the first or second cams is positioned to not act to move its respective female coupler by rotating away from its respective female coupler."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-8 (Compl. ¶36).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two lines of accused products: the "Accused Parallel Coupling" and the "Accused Perpendicular Coupling" (Compl. ¶22, ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are hydraulic quick-release couplings manufactured, imported, and sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). The "Accused Parallel Coupling" is alleged to infringe the ’502 Patent, and the "Accused Perpendicular Coupling" is alleged to infringe the ’018 Patent (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). The complaint provides a visual reference for each accused product line; EXHIBIT 3 is described as being prepared using photographs of the "Accused Parallel Coupling" (Compl. ¶22), and EXHIBIT 4 is described as being prepared using photographs of the "Accused Perpendicular Coupling" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint alleges that sales of the Accused Parallel Coupling have "hindered, if not eliminated, Parker's sales in the relevant product market" and that a customer for whom Parker developed a prototype is now purchasing the Accused Perpendicular Coupling from Faster (Compl. ¶27, ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products have "features/characteristics consistent with the elements of" the asserted independent claims but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of accused product features to claim limitations (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint's text.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’502 Patent: The core of the infringement dispute will likely concern the claimed "stop member." A primary technical question is whether the Accused Parallel Coupling contains a structure that meets the claim limitation of a "stop member" that holds the pressure relief plunger open while the "cam member can move away from the plunger" (’502 Patent, cl. 1). The case may turn on whether the accused product has a physically distinct stop member or a multi-function component, and whether the latter falls within the scope of the claims.
    • ’018 Patent: The infringement analysis for the ’018 Patent will likely focus on the requirement of independent operation. A key technical question is whether the operation of the Accused Perpendicular Coupling's rotational lever to disconnect one coupler occurs "without affecting a connection state of the other" (’018 Patent, cl. 1). Evidence of any corresponding movement or change in force on the non-selected coupler could raise a question of non-infringement. Further, the geometric relationship requiring the lever's axis of rotation to be "perpendicular" to the couplers' axes presents a potential point of contention that will depend on the precise mechanical configuration of the accused device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’502 Patent, Claim 1:

    • The Term: "stop member"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's described point of novelty over prior art see-saw lever designs. The construction of "stop member" will be critical, as a narrow definition may require a structurally separate component, while a broader one might encompass a functional surface of another component, such as the cam.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly require the "stop member" and "cam member" to be separate, unattached components. Language in the specification stating the stop member can be "movable with the cam member" may suggest they can be integrated or connected (’502 Patent, col. 2:49-51).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims recite "a cam member" and "a stop member" as distinct elements, which supports an interpretation that they are structurally separate. The claim language describing the cam member moving "away from the plunger" while the stop member "hold[s]" the plunger open suggests two different components performing separate functions simultaneously (’502 Patent, cl. 1). Patent figures appear to show them as separate parts (e.g., Fig. 6, elements 126 and 136).

  • ’018 Patent, Claim 1:

    • The Term: "without affecting a connection state"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the scope of the "independent" operation, a key feature of the invention. The dispute will likely focus on how much, if any, interaction with the non-selected coupler is permissible.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "connection state" refers only to the binary status of being fully connected and locked versus being released. Minor movements, vibrations, or changes in internal pressure that do not result in unlatching might be argued to not "affect" the "connection state."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's focus on independent operation could support a stricter definition. Language stating that when one cam acts, the other "does not rotate or rotates away from its respective female coupler" suggests a complete lack of actuating force or movement on the non-selected side (’018 Patent, col. 4:3-6).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants Faster Srl and Helios actively induced infringement by Faster, Inc (Compl. ¶55). The factual allegations in support include that they promote the accused product designs, make "Internet publications and other promotions with the specific intent to encourage infringing importation and sales," and supply the products to the direct infringer (Compl. ¶47, ¶50, ¶54).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported actual knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶44-45). The complaint alleges this knowledge arises from pre-suit notice letters sent by Parker to counsel for Helios, as well as on "information and belief" from the Defendants' status as competitors in the relevant market (Compl. ¶43, ¶52).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of structural scope: does the Accused Parallel Coupling embody a distinct "stop member" that functions as claimed in the ’502 Patent by holding a pressure-relief plunger open while the cam member moves away, or is its mechanism sufficiently different to fall outside the literal claim scope?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional independence: does the Accused Perpendicular Coupling’s rotational lever operate "without affecting a connection state" of the non-selected coupler as required by the ’018 Patent, or is there a degree of mechanical interaction that places it outside the claim?
  3. The viability of the willfulness and inducement claims will likely depend on evidence of intent: can the Plaintiff prove that the pre-suit notice and the defendants' corporate relationships and market positions establish the specific intent required for inducement and the level of culpability needed for enhanced damages?