DCT

5:09-cv-00634

A To Z Machining Service LLC v. Aloha Pools & Spas Of Jackson Union City Paducah LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:09-cv-00634, W.D. Okla., 06/16/2009
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint asserts that jurisdiction and venue are proper but does not provide a specific factual basis for venue in the Western District of Oklahoma beyond citing the relevant federal statutes.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ storm shelters infringe a patent related to in-ground shelters with a sliding lid mechanism.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns in-ground storm shelters, particularly those with a large opening and a sliding lid designed to be flush with the ground, making them suitable for installation in residential garages.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Defendants were distributors for Plaintiff's shelters. This relationship allegedly ended after a dispute over compliance with industry association guidelines. Plaintiff alleges that after it refused to sell more shelters to Defendants, it learned in February 2009 that Defendants had begun to sell "copies" of its shelters. Plaintiff claims it provided Defendants with notice of the patent and the alleged infringement prior to filing suit. The complaint also alleges Defendants knew the product was "patent-pending" even before the patent issued.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-06-17 ’800 Patent Priority Date
2008-02-01 Plaintiff advises Defendants of NSSA guideline requirements
2008-09-30 ’800 Patent Issue Date
2008-10-31 Approximate date Plaintiff refused to sell more shelters (Late fall 2008)
2009-01-01 Approximate date Plaintiff again refused to sell shelters (First of 2009)
2009-02-01 Approximate date Plaintiff learned of alleged copying and gave notice of infringement
2009-06-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,800 - “In-Ground Shelter,” Issued Sep. 30, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art in-ground shelters as having several drawbacks. These include access openings that are too small, which can be difficult for some individuals to use, and doors that roll or fold into the shelter, taking up valuable interior space (’800 Patent, col. 1:47-59). Additionally, some prior art shelter lids are not flush with the ground, creating a potential tripping hazard or preventing vehicles from parking over them in a garage setting (’800 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an in-ground shelter where the lid covers substantially the entire top opening, providing a larger entry point. The lid is designed to be "substantially flush with the surrounding ground level" when closed (’800 Patent, col. 2:27-29). To open, a roller mechanism allows the lid to slide horizontally. A key feature is a sloped rail section that interacts with a roller, causing the lid to lift slightly as it begins to move, allowing it to pass over the surrounding ground surface rather than sliding on it (’800 Patent, col. 2:54-61; Fig. 9A-9C). The invention also discloses rotatable stairs that can be deployed for entry or stored against a wall (’800 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This design seeks to maximize the usable opening of an in-ground shelter while maintaining a minimal, non-obstructive profile when closed, thereby improving accessibility and making it more practical for installation in locations like a garage floor (’800 Patent, col. 1:13-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claims 1 and 8 appear to cover the core invention.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • An underground shelter comprising a box-like structure with a top opening.
    • The opening is defined by "substantially, the entire top of the box."
    • A lid is "adapted to be substantially flush with the surrounding ground level in a closed position."
    • A "roller means" that includes a track, an upper track roller, and a "support means."
    • The "support means" itself comprises a rail roller, a lower track roller, and at least one rail affixed to the lid's underside with a "sloped section" that displaces the lid upwardly as it opens.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "storm shelters" made, used, and sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide any specific technical details about the design or operation of the accused storm shelters. The core allegation is that Defendants "copied Plaintiff's shelters" (Compl. ¶5). The complaint alleges that Defendants sell these shelters from at least four retail locations and provide installation services (Compl. ¶3).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. It makes a general allegation that Defendants have "made, used and/or sold storm shelters that infringe the ‘800 Patent" (Compl. ¶8) and that these shelters are "copies" of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶5), but it does not map specific features of the accused products to the elements of any asserted claim.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Questions: The central issue will be evidentiary. Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused shelters sold by Defendants are, in fact, "copies" that practice every element of an asserted claim? The lack of detail in the complaint suggests this will be a primary focus of discovery.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the court will be whether the accused shelters incorporate the specific multi-part "roller means" recited in Claim 1. This includes the cooperative action of an upper roller, a lower roller, a rail roller, and a rail with a "sloped section" that lifts the lid. Infringement will depend on whether the accused products contain this specific, complex mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "support means for supporting a leading edge of the lid as it slides over the surrounding ground level" (from Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is drafted in a means-plus-function format pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). Its scope is not defined by its plain meaning, but is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the recited function, and its equivalents. The infringement analysis for this element will be a two-step process of first identifying the corresponding structure and then comparing it to the accused device.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Function: "supporting a leading edge of the lid as it slides over the surrounding ground level" (’800 Patent, col. 7:35-37).
    • Corresponding Structure: The structure for performing this function is identified in the claim itself as the combination of "(1) at least one rail roller adjacent to the back wall... (2) a lower track roller attached to the lid near the trailing edge... [and] (3) at least one rail affixed to the underside of the lid between the rail roller and the lid, each rail having a sloped section..." (’800 Patent, col. 7:38-47). The specification further describes this structure and its cooperative action (’800 Patent, col. 2:48-61).

  • The Term: "substantially flush with the surrounding ground level" (from Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining the scope of the claim relative to the accused product. A defendant may argue its product has a slightly raised profile that is not "substantially flush," thereby avoiding infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s background criticizes prior art that presents a "tripping hazard" (’800 Patent, col. 2:4). A patentee could argue "substantially flush" should be interpreted broadly to mean any profile that does not create such a hazard.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states the lid is "substantially flush with the surrounding ground level in a closed position," and Figure 3 depicts a lid that appears perfectly level with the ground surface (’800 Patent, Fig. 3). A defendant could argue this implies a very strict, minimal tolerance for any part of the lid rising above the ground level.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that "Defendants induced and/or contributed to ongoing infringement... by means of use of installed shelters that Defendants copied from Plaintiff's patented design" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide further specific facts to support the knowledge and specific intent required for inducement or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that "Defendants' actions have been willful" (Compl. ¶9). The alleged factual basis includes Defendants' knowledge that Plaintiff's shelters were "patent-pending," their prior business relationship with Plaintiff providing access to the product, and Plaintiff's alleged act of giving direct notice of the issued ’800 Patent and the infringement in February 2009, before the lawsuit was filed (Compl. ¶5, ¶9).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of factual proof: given the complaint's allegation of "copying," can the Plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused storm shelters sold by Defendants incorporate every limitation of an asserted claim, especially the highly specific, multi-component lifting and roller mechanism?
  2. The case will likely involve a critical question of claim construction: is the "support means" limitation governed by means-plus-function principles, and if so, does the accused device contain the precise structural combination disclosed in the patent (or its legal equivalent) for lifting and supporting the shelter lid?
  3. A central question for damages will be willfulness: did the Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patent-pending status, combined with the alleged direct notice of infringement from the Plaintiff, rise to the level of objective recklessness required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages?