DCT

1:20-cv-00918

Hall v. Cullinan

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00918, S.D. Ohio, 12/20/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Ohio because Defendant Lynx is an Ohio corporation that conducts business and allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' ROLLNJACK vehicle hardtop lift infringes a patent on a mobile device for removing and storing hardtops, with the dispute arising from a prior manufacturing relationship that allegedly involved misappropriation of Plaintiffs' designs.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the automotive aftermarket accessory industry, specifically addressing mechanical devices that enable a single person to remove, store, and reinstall the removable hardtops common on vehicles like the Jeep Wrangler.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs engaged Defendants for manufacturing services, during which Plaintiffs disclosed confidential designs for a new product. The complaint further alleges that Defendants were aware of the patent-in-suit, having discussed a potential license, before launching the accused competing product. This history forms the basis for parallel claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, and it underpins the patent-specific allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-01-27 '823 Patent Priority Date
2017-05-09 '823 Patent Issued
2017-05-10 Alien Technologies Corp. becomes exclusive licensee of the '823 Patent
2018-02-06 Plaintiffs and Defendant Lynx enter into a Confidentiality Agreement
2018-12-06 Meeting where Plaintiffs allegedly showed Defendants designs for a new tool
2018-12-06 Defendants allegedly became aware of the '823 Patent and discussed a license
~2019-11-01 Defendants allegedly began selling the accused ROLLNJACK product
2022-12-20 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,643,823 - Sport Utility Vehicle Mobile Hard Top Removal, Store, and Install Device

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the difficulty of removing and installing heavy and bulky SUV hardtops, which typically requires multiple people ('823 Patent, col. 1:35-45). It also notes the limitations of existing solutions like fixed, garage-mounted hoists, which are not portable and require a suitable support structure for installation ('823 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a freestanding, mobile apparatus on wheels designed to be operated by a single person ('823 Patent, col. 2:8-12). As described in the detailed description, it features a "C" shaped frame that allows a lifting platform to be positioned under the vehicle's hardtop ('823 Patent, col. 4:5-13). A user can then engage a lever and ratcheting mechanism to lift the top off the vehicle and roll the entire assembly away for storage ('823 Patent, col. 2:46-58).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention offers a portable, single-operator solution, which untethers the process of hardtop removal from a fixed location like a garage with a pre-installed hoist system ('823 Patent, col. 2:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A movable base unit sufficient to support the apparatus with and without the hardtop.
    • A vertical support structure affixed to the base.
    • A means for vertical lifting attached to the vertical support to lift, sustain, and lower the hardtop.
    • A platform structure, attached to the lifting means, that interfaces with and secures the hardtop.
    • Wherein the apparatus can be positioned to the hardtop on the vehicle for lifting and lowering.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "ROLLNJACK" hardtop removal product (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the ROLLNJACK as a wheeled device for removing, storing, and installing Jeep hardtops (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 29). Its functionality is alleged to rely on a "TurnNGo Handle" and a "Safe self-braking lifting/installation Jack" to raise and lower the hardtop (Compl. ¶53, p. 13). The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison, alleging the ROLLNJACK's design was misappropriated from a confidential hand-sketched drawing of Plaintiff's "One Leg Removal Tool" (Compl. ¶28, p. 8). The product is marketed as a more effective and easy-to-use alternative to other lifts on the market (Compl. ¶31, p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'823 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality - Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a movable base unit which is sufficiently long and wide to support the apparatus from longitudinal and axial moments with and without the hardtop Installed; The ROLLNJACK product has a movable base with casters, which the complaint alleges provides the necessary support. A marketing image shows the base unit of the accused product. (Compl. ¶53, p. 12). - ¶53 col. 4:8-13
a vertical support structure having a lower and upper ends, wherein said lower end is affixed to said movable base and said upper end is attached to a means for vertical lifting; The ROLLNJACK product features a vertical support structure connected to the base. A photograph in the complaint shows this vertical mast. (Compl. ¶53, p. 13). - ¶53 col. 4:51-54
a means for vertical lifting which is connected to said vertical support structure and allows the apparatus to exert force vertically for removing the hardtop from the automobile, sustaining the hardtop at a fixed height...and allowing the hardtop to be controllably lowered... The accused product's "Safe self-braking lifting/installation Jack" and "TurnNGo Handle" are alleged to perform the claimed vertical lifting function. A complaint image depicts this jack and handle assembly. (Compl. ¶53, p. 13). ¶53 col. 6:15-51
a platform structure attached to said vertical lifting means which interfaces with the hardtop to distribute lifting forces evenly...and is capable of securing and supporting the hardtop... The ROLLNJACK product has a structure with horizontal arms that attaches to the lifting mechanism and is alleged to interface with and support the hardtop. A product image shows this upper support structure. (Compl. ¶53, p. 14). ¶53 col. 5:26-34
wherein the apparatus may be positioned to the hardtop while is installed on the automobile and selectively raised or lowered by said vertical lifting means. The complaint alleges the ROLLNJACK product is positioned relative to the vehicle so its lifting means can raise and lower the hardtop. An image shows the device positioned behind a Jeep for this purpose. (Compl. ¶53, p. 14). ¶53 col. 8:30-38

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the "means for vertical lifting" limitation, which is a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The patent discloses a ratcheting assembly with a pawl and gear, as well as an electric motor alternative ('823 Patent, col. 6:52-col. 7:21; col. 9:6-24). The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether the accused product's "self-braking lifting/installation Jack" is structurally equivalent to the patent's disclosed structures.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question concerns whether the accused product's base meets the "sufficiently long and wide" limitation. This term of degree raises the question of what evidence, such as engineering analysis or expert testimony on force dynamics, will be required to prove that the accused base provides the claimed support against "longitudinal and axial moments."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "means for vertical lifting"

  • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation, and its construction is critical to the infringement analysis. The central question is what structure, or class of structures, is covered by this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the difference between the patent's disclosed pawl-and-ratchet system and the accused "self-braking jack" could be a dispositive issue in the case.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses an alternative embodiment using an "electric gear motor" ('823 Patent, col. 9:6-24). A party may argue this disclosure broadens the scope of corresponding structures beyond a simple manual ratchet to include other known lifting mechanisms.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment describes in detail a "ratcheting lift assembly" that includes a "lift gear 27" and a "pawl 28" ('823 Patent, col. 6:52-col. 7:21; Fig. 3). A party may argue that the scope of the term should be narrowly construed to cover only this specific mechanical arrangement and its direct structural equivalents.

  • The Term: "platform structure"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine what types of hardtop-engaging assemblies are covered by the claim. The complaint alleges that the accused T-bar shaped assembly meets this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself describes the structure functionally as that which "interfaces with the hardtop to distribute lifting forces" ('823 Patent, col. 10:55-56). This functional language could support an interpretation covering any structure that achieves this result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment comprising a "rectangular shaped" "SUV top platform 17" with "removable grip rails 18" that slide into sleeves ('823 Patent, col. 5:26-51). A party could argue that this specific embodiment limits the scope of the term to platform-like structures, rather than the simpler T-bar assembly of the accused device.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide the ROLLNJACK product to customers and "encourage and instruct them" on how to use it in a manner that directly infringes Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 58-59).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the '823 patent. The complaint alleges that Defendants were made aware of the patent during a meeting on December 6, 2018, where they discussed a license, were subsequently denied one, and were notified that their product infringes (Compl. ¶¶ 34-37).

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim scope and structural equivalence: can the means-plus-function term "means for vertical lifting," which corresponds to a disclosed pawl-and-gear ratchet system in the patent, be construed to cover the accused product's "self-braking...Jack" mechanism? The resolution will depend on a detailed comparison of the function, way, and result of the respective structures.
  • The case will also present a key evidentiary question tied to the allegations of bad faith: what evidence will be presented to substantiate the alleged 2018 meeting where confidential designs were shared and a patent license was discussed? The facts surrounding this business relationship will be pivotal not only for the trade secret and contract claims but also for establishing the knowledge and intent required for willful patent infringement.