DCT
1:23-cv-00436
Talos Engineered Products v. Stock Mfg & Design Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Talos Engineered Products, LLC (Indiana)
- Defendant: Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Frost Brown Todd LLP; Allen, Dyer, Doppelt + Gilchrist, P.A.
- Case Identification: Talos Engineered Products, LLC v. Stock Mfg. & Design Co., Inc., 1:23-cv-00436, S.D. Ohio, 07/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is an Ohio corporation with its headquarters in the district, has transacted business and sold accused products in the district, and the acts complained of occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modular material handling chute infringes a patent related to the construction of modular, field-serviceable chute systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns modular chutes used in logistics and distribution centers to transport articles, designed for easier assembly, modification, and repair compared to traditional welded or molded systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit via actual notice from Plaintiff's counsel in July 2020, more than a year before the patent issued and three years before the complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-04-07 | '489 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-07-XX | Plaintiff allegedly provided Defendant with actual notice |
| 2021-12-21 | U.S. Patent No. 11,203,489 Issued |
| 2023-07-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,203,489 - "Modular chute for the transport of articles"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,203,489, "Modular chute for the transport of articles," issued December 21, 2021 (the “’489 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art chutes (e.g., metal, fiberglass, polymer) as being difficult to adapt, expensive, and time-consuming to install or repair. Metal chutes often require on-site welding for assembly and repair, while molded chutes lack adaptability for different configurations ('489 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular chute system designed for rapid and flexible assembly. The system is based on a central vertical support post, or "stanchion," with pre-formed connection points. Ribs, which form the chute's structural framework, are removably attached to the stanchion, and lining sections are then placed on the ribs to form the transport surface. This modularity is intended to allow for easier shipping, installation, and replacement of individual components ('489 Patent, col. 2:1-14; FIG. 8).
- Technical Importance: This modular approach offers "substantially cheaper and faster assembly, disassembly, repairs, and modification" compared to traditional, less-adaptable chute systems ('489 Patent, col. 2:64-col. 3:1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 15.
- The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
- A modular chute for transporting articles.
- A stanchion configured for vertical positioning, which includes a plurality of apertures spaced in a downward pattern.
- A plurality of ribs, each with a first end and a second end.
- The first end of each rib has a "projection" that is at least partially inserted through a corresponding aperture in the stanchion.
- The second end of each rib extends away from the stanchion, forming a "downward framework."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶9, ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "EZ-Flo Modular Chute" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the EZ-Flo Modular Chute is a modular system sold primarily to shipping and distribution centers (Compl. ¶10). Based on the complaint's allegations and visual evidence, the product consists of a central stanchion to which a series of rib-like supports are attached, forming a helical or curved framework for a chute surface (Compl. ¶11). A screenshot from a marketing video titled "Stock MHS Introduces the patented EZ-FLO Chute System" depicts the assembled product (Compl. ¶11, p. 3). The complaint alleges the accused product is sold for customers or installers to assemble on-site (Compl. ¶13, ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'489 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a stanchion configured to be positioned vertically relative to a ground surface and comprising a plurality of apertures spaced along the stanchion in a downward pattern; | The accused product includes a stanchion with a plurality of apertures, identified as element 110 in the provided drawing, that are spaced along the stanchion in a downward pattern (Compl. ¶11, p. 4). | ¶11 | col. 4:58-62 |
| a plurality of ribs, each rib having a first end and a second end, | The accused chute includes a plurality of ribs, such as element 100 in the provided drawing, each having a first and second end (Compl. ¶11, pp. 4-5). | ¶11 | col. 3:65-col. 4:1 |
| the first end of each rib comprising a projection at least partially inserted through a respective aperture of the stanchion | The first end of the accused rib includes a projection, identified as element 108 in a provided drawing, which is inserted at least partially into an aperture (element 110) of the stanchion (Compl. ¶11, p. 5). | ¶11 | col. 10:35-39 |
| and the second end extending away from the stanchion to form a downward framework from the stanchion. | The second end of the accused ribs extend away from the stanchion, forming a downward framework for the chute (Compl. ¶11, p. 7). | ¶11 | col. 10:39-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the accused EZ-Flo Chute's physical structure and connection mechanism operate as described in the complaint. The complaint uses diagrams, including what appears to be a patent-style figure labeled "FIG. 5A," to identify infringing elements like the "projection" (Compl. ¶11, p. 5). The court will need to determine if these diagrams accurately represent the accused product and if its components function in the manner required by the claims.
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory rests on its characterization of certain parts of the accused product as meeting claim limitations like "projection" and "downward framework". The defense may challenge whether the specific design of the accused product's rib-to-stanchion connection constitutes a "projection" as that term is understood in the context of the '489 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "projection"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the mechanism by which each rib connects to the stanchion. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the specific connecting part of the Defendant's rib (identified as "element 108" in a complaint diagram) falls within the scope of this term (Compl. ¶11, p. 5).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support giving it a plain and ordinary meaning. The patent describes the connection more generally as "inner ends [of the ribs] may be removably inserted into and secured to the apertures" ('489 Patent, col. 4:38-39), suggesting the key function is insertion and securing, without limiting the specific form of the inserted part.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term should be limited by the embodiments disclosed. For example, dependent claim 9 further defines the connection by reciting a "flange extending from a lower surface of a respective first end of a rib" ('489 Patent, col. 10:9-12). This could be used to argue that the "projection" must be a specific type of load-bearing structure, rather than any piece that simply fits into the aperture.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that STOCK induced infringement by instructing "customers and installers orally and/or in writing to assemble parts in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint further alleges that STOCK knew these encouraged acts would constitute infringement (Compl. ¶21, ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that STOCK received "actual notice from counsel in July 2020," followed by discussions, putting it on notice of the technology even before the '489 patent issued (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges that STOCK continued its infringing activity with knowledge of the patent and lacked a justifiable belief of non-infringement or invalidity (Compl. ¶17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "projection," which defines the key connection point between rib and stanchion, be broadly construed to cover the mechanism used in the accused EZ-Flo chute, or will its scope be narrowed by the patent's disclosed embodiments?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: do the complaint's diagrams accurately depict the accused product, and does the physical product's connection mechanism function as a "projection" that "is at least partially inserted" to form the claimed "downward framework"?
- A central question for damages will be one of willfulness: given the allegation of actual notice in July 2020, well before the suit was filed, the case will likely scrutinize what steps, if any, the Defendant took to assess infringement and validity, and whether it formed a good-faith belief that its product did not infringe.