Ala Holdings LLC v. DMD Offroad LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ALA Holdings, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: DMD-Offroad, LLC (Oklahoma)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McAfee & Taft A Professional Corporation
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00678, W.D. Okla., 06/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Oklahoma because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including the defendant's acts of making, using, and selling an allegedly infringing device, occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a vehicle modified by Defendant infringes two patents related to adjustable vehicle suspension systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mechanical linkages that allow for significant adjustment of a vehicle's ride height, a feature particularly relevant for off-road vehicles that require both high ground clearance on rough terrain and lower, more stable profiles for on-road travel.
• Key Procedural History: The inventor assigned the patents to the Plaintiff on February 9, 2017. Plaintiff alleges it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on April 18, 2025, notifying Defendant of the alleged infringement, which Defendant purportedly refused.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-04-10	Priority Date for ’705 and ’992 Patents
2015-10-20	’705 Patent Issued
2017-02-09	Patents-in-Suit Assigned to Plaintiff
2017-12-19	’992 Patent Issued
2025-04-15	Plaintiff Alleges Awareness of Infringement
2025-04-18	Plaintiff Sent Cease-and-Desist Letter
2025-06-18	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,162,705 - Adjustable Ride Height, Vehicle, System and Kit (Issued Oct. 20, 2015)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional methods for adjusting a vehicle's ride height as suffering from limitations, including requiring significant time and effort for modification and causing detrimental effects on ride quality and steering geometry, such as "axle wrap" and "bump steer" (’705 Patent, col. 1:40-42, col. 3:16-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "adjustable suspension mount linkage" comprising a first and second mount link that are pivotally connected to the vehicle frame, to each other, and to a load-bearing device like a coilover shock. This linkage geometry is designed to raise and lower the vehicle's frame while keeping the load-bearing device vertical, thereby providing a wide range of adjustment without the negative side effects of prior art systems (’705 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:3-12). The ability of the linkage to rotate between a lowered position (Fig. 12A) and a raised position (Fig. 12B) illustrates the core mechanical action.
• Technical Importance: The technology seeks to provide a simple and reliable mechanism for achieving significant, and potentially remote-controlled, ride height adjustment, which is valuable for vehicles used in varied on-road and off-road environments (’705 Patent, col. 1:26-34, col. 8:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15 (Compl. ¶21).
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (a vehicle claim):
  • A vehicle comprising a frame and at least two wheels.
  • An adjustable suspension mount linkage that includes:
    • A first mount link pivotally attached to a frame mount feature and extending to a "device used to support a load on a first wheel" (e.g., a coilover).
    • A second mount link pivotally attached to a frame mount feature and the first mount link.
  • The linkage rotates between a raised and lowered position, raising the frame relative to the device.
  • The device remains vertical relative to the frame in both positions.
  • At least one of the first or second mount links is "telescopic." (Compl. ¶12; ’705 Patent, col. 13:43-63).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 9,844,992 - Adjustable Ride Height, Vehicle, System and Kit (Issued Dec. 19, 2017)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’705 patent, the ’992 patent addresses the same technical problems of prior art vehicle suspension adjustment systems (’992 Patent, col. 1:42-45, col. 3:20-31).
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a mechanically similar two-link adjustable suspension system. The key distinction in the asserted claims is the specific mechanism for adjustment. Instead of the broader "telescopic" requirement of the ’705 Patent, the independent claims of the ’992 Patent specify that one of the mount links "comprises a hydraulic cylinder" (’992 Patent, col. 14:15-17). This points directly to a powered, hydraulic actuation method for changing the ride height.
• Technical Importance: This patent claims a more specific embodiment of the adjustable suspension concept, focusing on hydraulic actuation which allows for remote and potentially dynamic control over the vehicle's ride height (’992 Patent, col. 8:52-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶22).
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (a vehicle claim):
  • A vehicle comprising a frame and at least two wheels.
  • An adjustable suspension mount linkage with a first and second mount link connected to the frame and each other, similar to the ’705 Patent's linkage.
  • The linkage rotates between a raised and a lowered position with similar functional results.
  • Crucially, "the first mount link or the second mount link comprises a hydraulic cylinder." (Compl. ¶14; ’992 Patent, col. 14:1-25).
• The complaint makes general allegations of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is a "modified Dodge Ram 3500 truck" that was allegedly modified by Defendant and sold to a third party (Compl. ¶20).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the infringing vehicle was displayed on social media, providing a URL to a Facebook video post (Compl. ¶¶18-19). An image from this post is referenced as Exhibit 3, but the exhibit itself is not included in the filing (Compl. ¶19). The complaint does not provide further technical details about the specific modifications made to the truck's suspension system or its market context, stating only that it is a "modified vehicle" (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of both the ’705 and ’992 patents but does not provide claim charts or a detailed narrative of its infringement theory in the body of the complaint. Instead, it incorporates by reference external exhibits that were not filed with the initial complaint.

• ’705 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint states that the modified truck infringes at least independent claims 1 and 15 for reasons identified in a "’705 Claim Chart attached as Exhibit 4" (Compl. ¶21). As this exhibit is not available for analysis, the specific factual basis for the allegation—in particular, how the accused suspension meets the "telescopic" link limitation—is not specified in the provided documents.
• ’992 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint similarly alleges that the truck infringes at least independent claims 1 and 12 for reasons identified in a "’992 Claim Chart attached as Exhibit 5" (Compl. ¶22). This exhibit is also not available. Therefore, the complaint does not specify the evidence for its allegation that the accused suspension contains a "hydraulic cylinder" as required by the claims of the ’992 Patent.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The primary issue will be evidentiary. The complaint's infringement allegations for a single accused product rely entirely on external, non-public documents. A central question for the court will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the specific suspension system on the modified truck meets every limitation of the asserted claims.
  • Technical Question (’705 Patent): The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused suspension includes a link that is "telescopic." The evidence supporting that a link on the modified truck is designed to change length will be critical.
  • Technical Question (’992 Patent): For the ’992 Patent, the dispute will likely focus on the "hydraulic cylinder" limitation. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove the presence and function of such a component within the accused vehicle's adjustable linkage.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "telescopic" (’705 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the adjustment mechanism in the asserted claims of the ’705 Patent. Its construction will determine whether the accused device infringes, as the dispute may center on whether the specific adjustable link used by the defendant falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that various adjustment mechanisms are contemplated, listing "other adjustable link art (e.g. a turnbuckle or air spring)" as alternatives in certain embodiments, which may support a construction not strictly limited to sliding concentric tubes (’705 Patent, col. 8:60-62).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "telescopic." A party could argue for its plain and ordinary meaning, which often implies a specific structure of nested components sliding relative to one another, potentially narrowing the claim's scope.

• The Term: "device used to support a load on a first wheel" (’705 Patent, Claim 1; ’992 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the claimed linkage is defined by its interaction with this "device." The infringement read requires identifying a corresponding component in the accused truck, such as a coilover or shock assembly.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides multiple examples of what this device could be, including a "coilover," a "separate coil and shock," or an "air spring and shock," supporting a construction that encompasses a variety of standard load-bearing suspension components (’705 Patent, col. 6:32-37).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and figures consistently depict the linkage as a separate system that is pivotally attached to the load-bearing device, suggesting the two are structurally distinct (’705 Patent, Fig. 12A). An argument could be made that a system where the adjustment mechanism is fully integrated into the shock absorber itself might not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that Defendant induced its customer (the third-party purchaser) to use the infringing modified truck (Compl. ¶28, ¶36). The alleged basis for knowledge and intent is, at a minimum, the cease-and-desist letter sent on April 18, 2025 (Compl. ¶27, ¶35).
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a finding that infringement was "willful and exceptional" (Compl. p. 10, ¶G). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be knowledge of the patents acquired no later than the date of the cease-and-desist letter, suggesting the claim is for post-notice willfulness.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence to support its allegations. With the infringement theory detailed only in non-public exhibits concerning a single modified vehicle, the case will hinge on what proof is offered to show the accused suspension has the specific structures required by the patent claims.
2. Claim Scope vs. Accused Technology: The core of the technical dispute will likely be one of definitional scope and structural correspondence. Can the term "telescopic" from the ’705 Patent be construed to read on the specific adjustment mechanism of the accused truck? Further, does the accused system contain a distinct "hydraulic cylinder" that is part of the claimed linkage, as explicitly required by the ’992 Patent, or is there a technical mismatch?