DCT
2:25-cv-02285
Barreto Mfg Inc v. Toro Co
Key Events
Amended 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: 2:25-cv-2285, D. Or., 01/14/2026
- 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 Oregon customers, and directed communications threatening patent infringement to Barreto in Oregon.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its stump grinder products do not infringe three of Defendant’s patents and that those patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the design and operation of stump grinders, specifically focusing on the mechanical configuration of the grinding arm, its bearing supports, and its operator control systems.
- Key Procedural History: The action follows a cease-and-desist letter from Toro dated December 4, 2024, and subsequent correspondence in which Barreto requested claim charts to understand Toro's infringement theories, which Toro allegedly refused to provide. The complaint also references Toro’s licensing of the patents-in-suit to a third party, Vermeer Corporation, and raises issues of patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-11-10 | Toro marketing material for Dingo loaders allegedly published |
| 2011-01-10 | Earliest priority date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2019-05-21 | U.S. Patent No. 10,292,341 issues |
| 2021-09-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,109,542 issues |
| 2023-06-13 | U.S. Patent No. 11,672,210 issues |
| 2024-12-04 | Toro sends cease-and-desist letter to Barreto |
| 2026-01-14 | Barreto files First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |
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 May 21, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes three problems with conventional stump grinders: (1) the operator’s view of the grinding wheel is often obstructed by the centrally located grinding arm; (2) multiple, non-intuitive controls can be confusing for unskilled operators; and (3) hydraulic motors directly supporting the grinding wheel are subjected to high loads, leading to premature wear and failure (’341 Patent, col. 1:36-2:19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a stump grinder with a grinding arm that is "laterally offset" relative to the frame, which keeps the arm out of the operator's line of sight as it sweeps across the stump (’341 Patent, col. 2:25-30, 7:25-38). To address durability, the grinding wheel is supported on both sides: a motor with two internal bearings supports one side, while a separate "third radial bearing" secured to the opposite side of the grinding arm supports a stub shaft extending from the other side of the wheel, thereby distributing the operational loads (’341 Patent, col. 2:52-col. 3:6). Operation is simplified by a single joystick that controls both up/down and side-to-side movements (’341 Patent, col. 3:7-20).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to improve operator visibility and safety while increasing the durability of the grinding head's drive and support mechanism (’341 Patent, col. 7:25-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement and invalidity of independent Claim 1, which is the only claim in the patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 48).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A frame, a rotatable grinding wheel, and a movable grinding arm with first and second side walls.
- A motor with a housing "secured to an exterior surface of the first side wall of the grinding arm."
- The motor having a "pair of radial bearings internally mounted within the motor housing" for directly supporting the motor's drive shaft and "indirectly supporting the grinding wheel from the first side."
- A stub shaft secured to the grinding wheel.
- A "third radial bearing secured to the opposite second side wall" for receiving the stub shaft and "additionally supporting the grinding wheel from the opposite second side."
- The third bearing is mounted to an "interior surface" of the second side wall.
U.S. Patent No. 11,672,210 - *Stump Grinder with Laterally Offset Grinding Arm Operated by Single Joystick* (Issued June 13, 2023)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’210 Patent shares its specification with the ’341 Patent and addresses the same problems of operator visibility and control complexity in conventional stump grinders (’210 Patent, col. 1:36-2:4).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that described in the ’341 Patent, focusing on the combination of a laterally offset grinding arm for improved line-of-sight and simplified, consolidated hand controls for operating the machine (’210 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The claims of this patent focus more on the control system and its relation to the overall machine configuration.
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to make powerful stump grinding equipment safer and more accessible to a wider range of operators, including those in the rental market, by simplifying its operation (’210 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint challenges claims asserted by Toro, which include independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶¶17, 118-126).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
- A frame with a traction drive system, a grinding wheel, a movable grinding arm, and at least one power source.
- The frame has a rear end with "various hand operated controls" for the traction drive and grinding arm.
- The controls are located on the rear end "substantially proximate to the back end" for operation by a user standing behind the machine.
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 10:
- A frame with a traction drive system, a grinding wheel, a movable grinding arm, and at least one power source.
- "various hand operated controls" for the traction drive system and for moving the grinding arm.
- One of the controls includes a "depressible trigger that can be squeezed against the one control to start the rotation of the grinding wheel," where rotation stops when the trigger is released.
Multi-Patent Capsule
- U.S. Patent No. 11,109,542: Stump Grinder with Laterally Offset Grinding Arm Operated by Single Joystick (Issued September 7, 2021)
- Technology Synopsis: The ’542 Patent, part of the same family, discloses the same stump grinder technology. The invention combines a laterally offset grinding arm to improve the operator's view of the cutting action with a simplified single-joystick control system to make the machine easier to operate (’542 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶140).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges non-infringement based on the accused products lacking a "grinding arm" that is laterally offset as properly construed and lacking the claimed "hand operated controls," which Barreto argues are limited to a two-degree-of-freedom joystick as disclosed in the specification (Compl. ¶¶141-142).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Barreto Model 30SG and 37SG stump grinders ("Accused Products") (Compl. ¶5).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Accused Products as having a distinct design for supporting the grinding wheel's radial load. It alleges that Barreto's design uses a "first and second bearing outside the motor housing" to support the "entire radial loads from the grinding wheel" (Compl. ¶55). This configuration allegedly eliminates the load from the motor, allowing a "lighter-duty motor to be used" and serving a "different radial-load-bearing function" than the system claimed in the ’341 Patent (Compl. ¶¶35, 55-56). With respect to the ’210 Patent, the complaint provides a visual of an accused control lever that is "movable side-to-side but not fore-and-aft" and includes a trigger and thumb button (Compl. ¶117).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,292,341 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (per Barreto's non-infringement theory) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a motor having a housing secured to an exterior surface of the first side wall of the grinding arm... | The motor housing is bolted to an intermediate bearing housing, which is in turn bolted to the interior surface of the cutter arm's side wall (Compl. ¶51). | ¶49, ¶51 | col. 8:20-28 |
| the motor having a pair of radial bearings internally mounted within the motor housing for directly supporting the drive shaft of the motor and thus for indirectly supporting the grinding wheel from the first side of the grinding wheel | The Accused Products use a "non-radial-load-bearing motor" and instead rely on two bearings located outside the motor housing to support the entire radial load from the grinding wheel (Compl. ¶55-56). | ¶52, ¶55 | col. 8:36-44 |
| a third radial bearing secured to the opposite second side wall of the grinding arm... for receiving the stub shaft... additionally supporting the grinding wheel | Barreto’s design uses a first and second bearing, one on each side of the grinding wheel and both outside the motor housing, which together support the entire radial load (Compl. ¶55). | ¶55 | col. 8:51-58 |
11,672,210 Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart but outlines its non-infringement theories in prose, which are summarized below for independent claims 1 and 10.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claims 1 & 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (per Barreto's non-infringement theory) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a grinding arm... [and] various hand operated controls for moving the grinding arm relative to the frame | The patent family discloses a single embodiment with a "laterally offset" grinding arm, a feature the Accused Products allegedly lack (Compl. ¶¶42-43, 79). The complaint asserts that the term "grinding arm" must be construed as laterally offset to provide the patent's touted benefit of improved operator line-of-sight (Compl. ¶57, ¶79). | ¶79, ¶81 | col. 12:49-62 |
| [Claim 10] one of the controls includes a depressible trigger that can be squeezed against the one control to start the rotation of the grinding wheel... | The complaint argues that the patent's disclosure of "hand operated controls" is limited to a two-degree-of-freedom joystick (Compl. ¶81). A photograph in the complaint shows the accused control lever moves only side-to-side, not fore-and-aft, suggesting it is a one-degree-of-freedom control and thus differs from the disclosed invention (Compl. ¶117). | ¶80-81, ¶117 | col. 16:9-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be whether the claims are limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the shared specification. This includes whether the term "grinding arm" requires a "laterally offset" configuration and whether "hand operated controls" is limited to the two-degree-of-freedom joystick shown. For the ’341 patent, a question is whether securing a motor housing to an intermediate part, which is then secured to an "interior" surface, meets the claim limitation of being "secured to an exterior surface."
- Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’341 patent is how the radial loads on the grinding wheel are supported. The case may turn on evidence of whether Barreto's design, which allegedly uses two external bearings for the full load, functions in a substantially different way from the patent's claimed three-bearing system where the motor's internal bearings share the load. The complaint presents an image of an accused product's control lever, which it alleges is a one-degree-of-freedom control, in contrast to the two-degree-of-freedom joystick disclosed in the patents' priority documents (Compl. ¶105, ¶117).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’341 Patent:
The Term: "a motor having a housing secured to an exterior surface of the first side wall of the grinding arm"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because Barreto alleges its motor is not secured directly to an exterior surface, but rather to a bearing housing that is then secured to an interior surface (Compl. ¶51). The definition will determine if this indirect, internally-mounted arrangement falls within the claim scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not explicitly forbid intermediate components. A party could argue that "secured to" only requires a fixed connection, regardless of the exact mounting point or intermediate parts.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently depicts the motor housing (66) bolted directly to the outside of side wall (40) (’341 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 6:56-58). An argument for a narrower construction may rely on this consistent depiction as defining the scope of the claim term.
The Term: "a pair of radial bearings internally mounted within the motor housing for... indirectly supporting the grinding wheel"
Context and Importance: Barreto's non-infringement defense hinges on its allegation that its motor is "non-radial-load-bearing" and that external bearings support the entire load (Compl. ¶55-56). The construction of "indirectly supporting" will be pivotal in determining whether a motor that is allegedly isolated from radial loads still meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Any motor connected to a drive shaft that turns the wheel could be argued to "indirectly support" it, as the motor housing provides the reaction force for the drive torque.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states the motor's internal bearings support the drive shaft "against radial loads on drive shaft 62" (’341 Patent, col. 6:65-67). This language suggests the "supporting" function is specifically for bearing radial loads, potentially excluding a motor designed to be isolated from them.
For the ’210 Patent:
- The Term: "hand operated controls"
- Context and Importance: Barreto contends this term, as used in the patents, should be limited to the two-degree-of-freedom joystick that is the only control mechanism disclosed for moving the grinding arm in the specification (Compl. ¶81). Toro's infringement allegation appears to cover Barreto's one-degree-of-freedom lever, making the scope of this term a central issue. An image of a prior art joystick with two degrees of freedom is used to support this argument (Compl. ¶105).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "controls" is plural and generic. A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any combination of hand-operated levers, buttons, or joysticks, not just the specific joystick shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and exclusively describes a "single joystick" for controlling both up/down and side-to-side motions (’210 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:11-20). Barreto argues that since the patent family discloses only this two-degree-of-freedom embodiment, the claims should not be construed to cover one-degree-of-freedom controls, which it alleges the inventors did not possess at the time of filing (Compl. ¶¶95-101).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Claim Scope vs. Disclosure: A core issue will be whether the claims are limited to the sole embodiment described in the shared specification. Can the term "grinding arm" be construed to cover non-offset designs, and can "hand operated controls" read on one-degree-of-freedom levers when only a two-degree-of-freedom joystick is disclosed? This raises a fundamental question of whether the patentee can claim more broadly than the invention described.
Technical and Functional Distinction: For the ’341 patent, the case will likely involve a detailed technical analysis of the bearing arrangements. A key question is one of functional difference: does Barreto's alleged use of two external bearings to support the entire radial load constitute a distinct technical solution that avoids the specific load-sharing arrangement required by Claim 1?
Written Description and Priority: The complaint raises a significant validity challenge based on written description. A central question for the court will be whether the priority applications provide adequate written description support for claims broad enough to cover one-degree-of-freedom controls. If not, the ’210 and ’542 patents could lose their 2011 priority date, exposing them to a wider range of invalidating prior art (Compl. ¶¶93, 134-135, 155).