DCT
2:25-cv-02285
Barreto Mfg Inc v. Toro Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Barreto Manufacturing, Inc. (Oregon)
- Defendant: The Toro Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
- Case Identification: Barreto Manufacturing, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 2:25-cv-02285, D. Or., 12/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Barreto alleges venue is proper in the District of Oregon because Defendant Toro markets and sells products in the state, maintains an interactive website soliciting customers there, and directed communications threatening patent infringement to Barreto in Oregon.
- Core Dispute: This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiff seeks a declaration that its stump grinder products do not infringe, and that the claims are invalid, for three of Defendant’s patents related to stump grinders with laterally offset arms and joystick controls.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the mechanical design of stump grinders, specifically the configuration of the grinding arm, the bearing support for the grinding wheel, and the functionality of the operator controls.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by pre-suit correspondence initiated by Toro. Toro sent a letter to Barreto alleging infringement and demanding Barreto cease and desist selling the accused products. The complaint details subsequent communications in which Barreto requested claim charts to understand Toro's infringement theories, which Toro allegedly refused to provide, creating the controversy underlying this declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-01-10 | Earliest Priority Date Asserted for ’542 Patent |
| 2011-01-10 | Earliest Priority Date Asserted for ’341 and ’210 Patents |
| 2019-05-21 | ’341 Patent Issued |
| 2021-09-07 | ’542 Patent Issued |
| 2023-06-13 | ’210 Patent Issued |
| 2024-12-04 | Toro's counsel sends demand letter to Barreto |
| 2025-12-09 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,292,341 - "Stump Grinder with Laterally Offset Grinding Arm Operated by Single Joystick," Issued 05/21/2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes several problems with conventional stump grinders: the operator's view of the grinding wheel can be obstructed by a centrally mounted grinding arm; the multiple controls can be confusing for unskilled operators, such as those in the rental market; and the hydraulic motors used to directly drive the grinding wheel are subject to high loads that can cause premature failure (Compl. ¶1; ’341 Patent, col. 1:12-2:19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems through a three-part design. First, it uses a "laterally offset" grinding arm, which keeps the arm's structure to one side, providing the operator an unobstructed view of the grinding wheel's point of contact (’341 Patent, col. 2:32-50). Second, it simplifies operation by using a single joystick for both up-and-down and side-to-side pivoting of the arm (’341 Patent, col. 3:10-32). Third, to improve durability, it provides a more robust support for the grinding wheel by using a motor with two internal bearings on one side and a "third radial bearing" that supports a stub shaft on the opposite side, thereby distributing the operational loads (’341 Patent, col. 2:51-3:6; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This combination of features was intended to create a stump grinder that is easier to operate, particularly for non-professionals, while enhancing durability and operator visibility (’341 Patent, col. 7:24-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as being asserted by Toro (Compl. ¶16, ¶47).
- Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A frame supported for movement over the ground.
- A substantially flat, planar, and rotatable grinding wheel.
- A drive hub attached to a first side of the grinding wheel.
- A grinding arm with first and second spaced-apart side walls.
- A motor with a housing "secured to an exterior surface of the first side wall of the grinding arm," with the motor having a drive shaft and a pair of internal radial bearings for indirectly supporting the grinding wheel.
- A "stub shaft" secured to the grinding wheel and protruding toward the second side wall.
- A "third radial bearing" secured to an "interior surface of the opposite second side wall" for receiving the stub shaft and additionally supporting the grinding wheel.
U.S. Patent No. 11,109,542 - "Stump Grinder with Laterally Offset Grinding Arm Operated by Single Joystick," Issued 09/07/2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’341 Patent, the background section identifies the problems of obstructed operator views and overly complex controls on traditional stump grinders (’542 Patent, col. 1:12-2:4).
- The Patented Solution: This patent describes the overall configuration of a walk-behind stump grinder. The solution centers on a frame with a traction drive system, a power source, a movable grinding arm, and a specific arrangement of "hand operated controls" at the rear of the machine designed for a forward-facing operator standing behind it (’542 Patent, Claim 1). The specification reiterates the benefit of the laterally offset grinding arm for improving the operator's line of sight across the machine's full width of operation (’542 Patent, col. 7:24-38).
- Technical Importance: The claimed configuration seeks to provide an ergonomic and intuitive walk-behind stump grinder where the operator has both clear visibility of the work area and accessible controls (’542 Patent, col. 7:1-6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claims 1 and 10 as being asserted by Toro (Compl. ¶77).
- Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A frame with a traction drive system for self-propelling the frame.
- A rotatable grinding wheel.
- A grinding arm movable relative to the frame that mounts the grinding wheel.
- A power source for powering the traction drive system and the pivoting of the grinding arm.
- The frame having a rear end that "carries various hand operated controls" for the traction system and grinding arm, with the controls located for an operator standing behind the machine.
U.S. Patent No. 11,672,210 - "Stump Grinder with Laterally Offset Grinding Arm Operated by Single Joystick," Issued 06/13/2023
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims specific configurations for the hand-operated controls of a stump grinder. The claims are directed to a control that includes features like a depressible trigger and a depressible button, where the control itself is limited to a single degree of freedom (e.g., side-to-side movement but not fore-and-aft) (’210 Patent, Claim 10; Abstract). This design purports to further simplify machine operation by isolating distinct functions to specific, intuitive user inputs on a single control handle.
- Asserted Claims: Toro has allegedly asserted dependent claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶¶134-142). These claims depend from independent Claims 1 and 10.
- Accused Features: The allegations target the control lever on the accused products, which the complaint describes as including both a depressible trigger and a thumb button and being movable only side-to-side (Compl. ¶132). A photograph in the complaint shows the accused control lever, its various inputs, and accompanying operational instructions (Compl. ¶133).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Barreto Model 30SG and 37SG stump grinders (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges several key technical features of the accused products in support of its non-infringement arguments. It states the motor housing is bolted to a separate bearing housing, which is then bolted to the interior surface of the cutter arm (Compl. ¶50). It further alleges the design uses two bearings located outside the motor housing to support the entire radial load from the grinding wheel, which enables the use of a lighter-duty motor (Compl. ¶54). The complaint also asserts that the accused products' grinding arms are not "laterally offset" in the manner required by the patents (Compl. ¶78). Finally, the complaint provides a visual of the accused control lever, describing it as movable side-to-side but not fore-and-aft, and including a thumb button and trigger for starting the cutter wheel (Compl. ¶133).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following charts summarize the plaintiff's key arguments for why its products do not meet certain claim limitations.
’341 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per Barreto) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a motor having a housing secured to an exterior surface of the first side wall of the grinding arm... | The accused products' motor housing is bolted to a separate bearing housing, which is in turn bolted to an interior surface of a side wall of the cutter arm. | ¶50 | col. 8:19-27 |
| the motor having a pair of radial bearings internally mounted within the motor housing for directly supporting the drive shaft... and thus for indirectly supporting the grinding wheel from the first side... | The accused products' design includes a first and second bearing outside the motor housing that function to support the entire radial load from the grinding wheel, thereby using a non-radial-load-bearing motor that serves a different function. | ¶54 | col. 8:36-44 |
| a third radial bearing secured to the opposite second side wall of the grinding arm... the third bearing being mounted to an interior surface of the opposite second side wall... | The complaint alleges a different radial-load-bearing design in general but does not specifically state whether the accused products lack this element entirely or have a different configuration. | ¶55 | col. 8:51-60 |
’542 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per Barreto) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a grinding arm that is movable relative to the frame... | The complaint argues this term must be construed to mean "laterally offset" to provide the touted benefit of operator visibility. It alleges the accused products lack a "grinding arm" as properly construed. | ¶78 | col. 7:49-54 |
| wherein the frame has a rear end which carries various hand operated controls for operating the traction drive system and for moving the grinding arm relative to the frame... | The complaint does not contest this element directly but focuses its non-infringement argument for this patent on the construction of "grinding arm." | ¶78 | col. 8:4-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be whether the term "grinding arm," which is not explicitly defined as "offset" in the claims themselves, should be limited by the specification's repeated emphasis on the "laterally offset" embodiment and its visibility benefits (Compl. ¶41-42, ¶56). Another scope question concerns the ’210 Patent: whether the term "hand operated control" has adequate written description in the priority documents to cover a one-degree-of-freedom lever, when the complaint alleges those documents only disclose a two-degree-of-freedom joystick (Compl. ¶97, ¶114). The complaint includes a figure from a priority application showing a joystick with arrows indicating movement in four orthogonal directions to support this argument (Compl. ¶121).
- Technical Questions: For the ’341 patent, a key factual question is whether the accused products' method of supporting the grinding wheel—allegedly using two bearings external to the motor to bear the full radial load—is technically distinct from the claimed invention, which requires a motor with internal bearings for "indirectly supporting the grinding wheel" (Compl. ¶51, ¶54). The interpretation of "secured to an exterior surface" will also be a point of contention, as the complaint alleges the accused motor connects via an intermediate housing to an interior surface (Compl. ¶50).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "secured to an exterior surface" (’341 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to Barreto's non-infringement argument for the ’341 patent. Barreto alleges its motor is bolted to a bearing housing, which is in turn bolted to an interior surface of the arm (Compl. ¶50). The definition of "secured to" and "exterior surface" will determine if this configuration is outside the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes that "A motor is secured to one side wall of the grinding arm" without detailing the precise method of attachment, which may support an argument that the term encompasses any functional attachment that places the motor housing outside the arm's structure (’341 Patent, col. 2:60-61).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific, requiring the motor housing itself to be secured to an "exterior surface." The figures appear to show the motor housing (66) directly bolted to the outside of side wall (40) (’341 Patent, Fig. 5). This may support an interpretation requiring direct, not indirect, attachment to an outer face.
The Term: "grinding arm" (all patents)
- Context and Importance: Barreto's non-infringement argument for all three patents hinges on construing this term to require a "laterally offset" configuration. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the court adopts Barreto's proposed construction, it could be dispositive of non-infringement (Compl. ¶57, ¶78, ¶95).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "grinding arm" is not explicitly modified by "laterally offset" in the language of the asserted independent claims. An argument could be made that the plain and ordinary meaning should apply, without importing limitations from the specification.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues that the patent repeatedly and exclusively describes the invention in terms of its offset nature. The abstract states, "The grinding arm is laterally offset on the frame," and the Summary of the Invention describes the rear section as "laterally offset relative to the frame" (’341 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-35). The complaint asserts that the patent discloses only a single, laterally offset embodiment, which may support an argument that the claims should be read in light of this consistent disclosure (Compl. ¶40-41).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Barreto has not induced or contributorily infringed any valid claim of the disputed patents (Compl. ¶59, ¶79, ¶98). The complaint does not allege facts supporting indirect infringement, as it is seeking a judgment of non-infringement.
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of Willful Infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "grinding arm," which appears without that modifier in the independent claims, be construed to require the "laterally offset" configuration that is consistently described in the patents’ specifications as a key feature of the invention?
- A second central question will be one of technical distinction: Does the accused products' alleged use of bearings external to the motor to support the grinding wheel's radial load constitute a fundamentally different and non-infringing design compared to the ’341 patent's claim requiring a motor with internal bearings for "indirectly supporting" that load?
- A key validity question for the ’210 patent will be one of written description: Do the priority patent applications, which the complaint alleges only disclose a two-degree-of-freedom joystick, provide adequate support for claims covering a "hand operated control" with only a single degree of freedom?