Stabil Loc Arkansas LLC v. Robertson Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stabil-Loc Arkansas LLC (Arkansas)
  • Defendant: ROBERTSON HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A PIERMAN FOUNDATION REPAIR (Oklahoma)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Crowe & Dunlevy; AVEK IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00230, E.D. Okla., 07/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having its principal place of business in the district, as well as maintaining a regular and established business and committing acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Utility Pier foundation repair system and installation methods infringe patents related to adjustable, concentrically loaded piering systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns foundation repair systems used to stabilize buildings constructed on unstable soil, a significant market in civil engineering and construction.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant's founder was previously employed as a sales representative for Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, where he became familiar with the patented technology. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement on October 28, 2024, to which Defendant responded by denying infringement and citing its own patent. The ’800 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to the ’073 Patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-12-30	Earliest Priority Date ('073 & '800 Patents)
2012-09-01	Defendant's founder begins employment with Plaintiff's predecessor
2014-09-02	U.S. Patent No. 8,821,073 Issues
2014-10-07	U.S. Patent No. 8,851,800 Issues
2024-10-28	Plaintiff sends Notice Letter to Defendant
2024-11-08	Defendant responds to Notice Letter
2025-07-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,851,800 - Concentrically Loaded, Adjustable Piering System (Issued Oct. 7, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art foundation piering systems, including their susceptibility to breakage from "off-set loads" caused by imperfect installation and the use of loose adjusting components ("shims") that can be dislodged if the foundation heaves, requiring subsequent readjustment (’800 Patent, col. 1:28-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus for a piering system that provides a robust, adjustable connection between a foundation and a pier driven to bedrock. The system features a "heave plate" anchored to the foundation, which is supported by a "shim block" via a stud-and-socket connection. This assembly allows for adjustability without loose parts and permits the heave plate to tilt relative to the shim block, accommodating foundation movement while maintaining support (’800 Patent, col. 2:49-63; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described system aims to provide a piering solution with increased "side-load" strength and an adjustable leveling mechanism that is permanently locked together, preventing the loss of components and support if the structure moves after installation (’800 Patent, col. 2:3-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, with Count I directed to the '800 Patent (Compl. ¶32). Independent Claim 1 is representative:
• Independent Claim 1: A piering system for supporting a foundation, comprising:
  • a pier comprising a starter segment and alternating overlapping larger and smaller diameter segments;
  • a head plate supported by the pier;
  • a shim block residing on the head plate, itself comprising an outer pipe, an inner pipe, a base, and a rotationally fixed nut;
  • a threaded stud screwed into the shim block nut;
  • a heave plate residing on the threaded stud, having a socket to receive the stud; and
  • at least two attachments for permanently connecting the heave plate to the foundation.
• The complaint's general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 8,821,073 - Concentrically Loaded, Adjustable Piering System (Issued Sep. 2, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as its continuation-in-part, the ’800 Patent: concentrically loaded piers breaking from off-set loads and the use of loose shims that can fall out if the foundation moves, compromising the repair (’073 Patent, col. 1:32-45).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method for constructing the piering system. The method includes building a pier from overlapping inner and outer steel pipe sections until bedrock is reached. The pier is completed by using a house jack on a head plate to lift the foundation, then replacing the jack with an adjustable coupling assembly that connects to a heave plate, which is then anchored to the foundation (’073 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:32 - col. 6:8).
• Technical Importance: The patented method provides a process for installing an adjustable piering system that remains attached to the foundation, can tolerate movement, and avoids the use of loose adjustment components common in prior systems (’073 Patent, col. 2:5-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, with Count II directed to the '073 Patent (Compl. ¶41). Independent Claim 1 is representative:
• Independent Claim 1: A method for constructing a pier system, comprising:
  • constructing a pier: forming a hole, placing a pier base, placing a first outer pier section, inserting a first inner pier section butting against the base, repeating with overlapping sections, and advancing the pier downward with a hydraulic ram until bedrock is reached.
  • completing the piering system: positioning at least one house jack on top of the pier and using it to apply a vertical lifting force to the foundation.
• The complaint's general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Utility Pier" product and the associated methods for its installation (Compl. ¶1, ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Utility Pier as a "foundation piering system" (Compl. ¶1). It alleges that Defendant's founder incorporated the patented technologies into the Utility Pier product and its installation procedures (Compl. ¶27). The complaint asserts that Defendant manufactures, uses, sells, and installs the Utility Pier, and that these activities fall within the scope of the claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶21, ¶22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibit C, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶23). As such, the specific mapping of accused product features to claim limitations is not available for analysis. The infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations.

’800 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’800 Patent by making, using, and selling the Utility Pier, which allegedly "has each of the limitations of one or more claims of the ‘800 Patent" (Compl. ¶32). The theory is that the physical Utility Pier product is an embodiment of the claimed system.

’073 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’073 Patent by using a method to install the Utility Pier that "has each of the limitations of one or more claims of the ‘073 Patent" (Compl. ¶41). The theory is that Defendant's installation process directly practices the steps of the patented method.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions (’800 Patent): A central dispute may concern whether the components of the "Utility Pier" meet the specific structural definitions of the asserted claims. For instance, does the accused product contain a component that qualifies as a "shim block" with an "outer pipe," an "inner pipe," and a "rotationally fixed nut," as recited in Claim 1? Defendant's denial of infringement and reference to its own patent suggests it will argue its design is structurally distinct (Compl. ¶19).
  • Methodological Questions (’073 Patent): For the method patent, the dispute will likely focus on the specific sequence of steps performed during the installation of the Utility Pier. The analysis will question whether Defendant’s process includes each claimed step, such as "inserting a first inner pier section inside a recess in the first outer pier section" and "butting [it] against the pier base," or if its assembly method differs in a meaningful way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’800 Patent:

• The Term: "shim block" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the adjustable component that sits between the head plate and the heave plate. Its construction is central to the invention's claimed adjustability without loose parts. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue that its corresponding component, if any, is not a "shim block" as specifically defined in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The brief summary describes the component's function more generally as supporting a "coupling assembly" and being part of a "fully adjustable leveling mechanism" (’800 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a detailed, multi-part definition, requiring "an outer pipe; an inner pipe inside the outer pipe...; a shim block base...; and a shim block nut rotationally fixed inside the top of the outer pipe" (’800 Patent, col. 8:19-25). Figure 8 and its detailed description provide further structural specificity that could be used to argue for a narrow construction (’800 Patent, col. 5:46-65).

For the ’073 Patent:

• The Term: "inserting a first inner pier section inside a recess in the first outer pier section" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This phrase describes a key step in assembling the pier itself. The physical relationship it implies ("inside a recess") is what purportedly creates a "solid inner pipe link" and provides strength against side-loads. Whether Defendant's method includes this specific step will be critical to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background section emphasizes the goal of creating a "solid inner pipe link between segments" to prevent breakage, suggesting a functional aspect to the claim language (’073 Patent, col. 2:9-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 2 illustrate a specific structural arrangement where an inner cylinder (25) fits inside an outer cylinder (23) to form the pier, with the inner cylinder butting against the cylinder portion (21b) of the pier base (’073 Patent, col. 4:6-10). Parties may argue this specific embodiment defines the scope of the claimed step.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's factual allegations focus on Defendant's own direct acts of making, using, and selling the accused systems and methods (Compl. ¶32, ¶41). While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "indirectly committing further acts of infringement," the complaint body does not plead specific facts to support claims of inducement or contributory infringement, such as instructing third parties or selling non-staple components for an infringing use (Compl. ¶62, ¶63).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is supported by two primary sets of facts: 1) Defendant's founder was allegedly "intimately familiar" with the patented technology from his prior employment at Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest (Compl. ¶3, ¶25); and 2) Defendant was put on notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated October 28, 2024, and allegedly continued its infringing conduct thereafter (Compl. ¶18, ¶20, ¶29, ¶37, ¶46).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and equivalence: Does the Defendant's "Utility Pier" system contain components that meet the specific structural limitations of the '800 patent’s claims (e.g., the multi-part "shim block"), and is its installation process functionally identical to the specific sequence of steps recited in the '073 patent’s claims? The outcome may depend heavily on claim construction.
• A second central question will concern willfulness and intent: Given the founder's alleged prior knowledge and the exchange of pre-suit notice letters, what evidence will be presented to establish whether Defendant's alleged infringement, if any, rose to the level of objective recklessness required for enhanced damages? Defendant's reliance on its own patent will likely be a key part of its defense against this charge.