DCT

6:15-cv-01393

Loch v. Engineered Storage Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:15-cv-01393, D. Or., 07/25/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant doing business nationwide, marketing products to Oregon citizens, and placing products into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase by residents of the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Skateboard Rack products infringe three patents related to physical security racks for skateboards and other wheeled boards.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for dedicated, secure storage for skateboards in public areas, providing a purpose-built alternative to general-use bike racks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful, asserting that the accused product is a "counterfeit of the products of a Loch licensee," which may suggest a basis for pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-19 Earliest Priority Date for '902, '530, and '247 Patents
2005-12-27 U.S. Patent No. 6,978,902 Issue Date
2008-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,318,530 Issue Date
2010-09-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,789,247 Issue Date
2015-07-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,978,902 - Skateboard Security Rack

Issued Dec. 27, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a "convenient, simple, readily accessible" apparatus to secure skateboards and similar "board type" equipment when left unattended in public places, noting that prior designs had not been widely accepted in the marketplace (ʼ902 Patent, col. 1:15-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a security rack comprising a pair of spaced-apart support members that form a slot. A skateboard's deck is inserted into this slot. A key feature is that one of the support members has a width that is smaller than the skateboard's wheelbase, allowing the board's wheels to straddle that member. This prevents the board from being pulled out laterally. A separate locking structure, such as a padlock connecting loops on the members, is then used to constrain the board vertically, preventing its removal from the slot (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-68).
  • Technical Importance: This design leverages the unique geometry of a skateboard (deck, trucks, and wheels) to create a purpose-built security solution, distinguishing it from general-purpose racks that may not effectively secure such equipment (’902 Patent, col. 1:15-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17.a).
  • Claim 1 Essential Elements:
    • A pair of spaced-apart support members, each with a base for mounting.
    • A first support member having a maximum width dimension smaller than the skateboard wheelbase.
    • The support members are mounted in parallel at a distance greater than the skateboard deck thickness but less than the skateboard's total height (including wheels).
    • A slot is defined between the members for receiving the skateboard deck.
    • A locking structure with loops on both support members, joined by a lock, to constrain a skateboard whose wheels are on both sides of the first support member.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claim 9 (Compl. ¶17.a).

U.S. Patent No. 7,318,530 - Skateboard Security Rack

Issued Jan. 15, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’530 Patent addresses the same need for a cost-effective, durable, and simple method for securing skateboards in public areas as its parent patent (ʼ530 Patent, col. 1:20-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The technology described is functionally similar to the ʼ902 Patent, involving a rack with at least two support members of differing widths to create a slot. The narrower member is designed to fit between the wheels of a skateboard, which is then secured by a locking mechanism (’530 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-32). A key distinction in the claims is that this patent claims the rack in combination with the skateboard itself.
  • Technical Importance: This patent builds on the earlier disclosure by claiming the complete system of the rack and the secured skateboard, framing the invention as an integrated security solution (’530 Patent, Claim 1).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17.b).
  • Claim 1 Essential Elements:
    • A combination of a skateboard (with a deck, axles, wheels, and wheelbase) and a security rack.
    • A first member with a base and a width dimension smaller than the skateboard wheelbase.
    • A second member with a base.
    • The members are mounted to provide a slot for receiving the skateboard.
    • A locking structure to constrain the skateboard within the slot, with its wheels on both sides of one of the members.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claim 11, which pertains to a rack array (Compl. ¶17.b).

U.S. Patent No. 7,789,247 - Wheeled Board Security Rack

Issued Sep. 7, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same inventive concept, the ’247 Patent describes a security rack for "wheeled boards," a broader term than skateboard. The asserted independent claim is directed to a rack array comprising at least three parallel members that form multiple slots, with a "cable locking structure" specified for securing the boards (’247 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 and dependent claim 10 (Compl. ¶17.c).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "Skateboard Rack" but does not specify how the product meets the limitations of requiring at least three members or a "cable locking structure" (Compl. ¶14, ¶17.c).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused product is identified as the "Skateboard Rack" sold by Defendant Engineered Storage Systems, Inc. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the structure or operation of the accused Skateboard Rack. It makes the conclusory allegation that the product is "materially identical to products covered by the technologies of the Loch Patents" and is used for the "same purpose" (Compl. ¶15-16). The complaint alleges the product is marketed nationwide and within the District of Oregon (Compl. ¶7, 11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide element-by-element infringement allegations or a claim chart. The infringement theory is articulated at a high level, alleging that the accused "Skateboard Rack" is "materially identical" to products covered by the patents (Compl. ¶15) and "infringes or induces others to infringe" one or more claims (Compl. ¶17). Due to the lack of specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim limitations, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint alone.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions:
      • A central issue for the ʼ530 and ʼ247 patents, which claim a combination of a rack and a board, is the theory of liability. The court will have to determine whether Defendant's sale of only the "Skateboard Rack" can constitute direct infringement of the combination claims, or if Plaintiff's case will depend on proving indirect infringement.
      • For the ʼ247 Patent, a question of fact will be whether the accused "Skateboard Rack" meets the specific limitations of Claim 1, which requires "at least three equally spaced members" and a "cable locking structure" (’247 Patent, col. 8:3-12).
    • Technical Questions:
      • Given the complaint’s general allegations, a foundational question for the court will be to determine the precise structural and functional characteristics of the accused rack. The analysis will focus on whether the accused product has features corresponding to each element of the asserted claims, particularly the "locking structure" and the critical dimensional relationship between the support members and a skateboard's wheelbase as taught in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "locking structure" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to how the skateboard is secured. Its construction will define what components are required to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because Claim 1 recites the structure as "including loops coupled to both support members wherein a lock is used to join the loops," raising the question of whether "loops" are a mandatory component or merely an example.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting that in some cases "only a lock may be used coupled to both support members" (’902 Patent, col. 2:4-6) or that a standard "U-shape lock" could secure the board (’902 Patent, col. 3:60-64), potentially supporting an interpretation where separate loops are not strictly required.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit language of Claim 1—"including loops"—provides a strong basis for a narrower reading. The specification describes specific embodiments with "freely slideable" loops or "fixed eyelets" that are distinct components from the lock itself, which could be used to argue that such features are integral to the claimed "locking structure" (’902 Patent, col. 6:3-12).

  • The Term: "a first one of the support members having a maximum width dimension smaller than the skateboard wheelbase" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This geometric relationship is the core technical insight for preventing lateral removal of the skateboard. The interpretation of "width dimension" and how it is measured relative to the "wheelbase" will be critical to the infringement analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description of the function—to ensure the wheels are "located on both sides of the first support member" to "interfere" with its lateral removal—could support a functional interpretation where any structure achieving this result meets the limitation (’902 Patent, col. 5:56-64).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a "particularly preferred configuration" with specific numerical dimensions for the support member widths and spacing (’902 Patent, col. 5:11-20). A party could argue these specific examples inform and limit the scope of the broader claim term.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of inducement (Compl. ¶17). This theory may be necessary for the ʼ530 and ʼ247 patents, which claim a combination of the rack and a board. The complaint does not, however, allege specific facts to support inducement, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that instructs customers to create the infringing combination.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the grounds that Defendant's activity is "willful and deliberate" and that its product is a "counterfeit of the products of a Loch licensee" (Compl. ¶20). This allegation suggests a theory of pre-suit knowledge based on the asserted copying of a licensed product already in the market.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: as the complaint lacks specific technical details, the case will likely turn on whether discovery reveals that the accused "Skateboard Rack" has the precise structural elements and dimensional relationships—particularly the claimed "locking structure" and the "smaller than the skateboard wheelbase" limitation—recited in the asserted patents.
  • A key legal question will be the theory of infringement for combination claims: for the ’530 and ’247 patents, which claim the rack in combination with a board, the case will test whether the sale of the rack alone can constitute direct infringement or if Plaintiff must prove all the elements of indirect infringement, including showing Defendant's specific intent to induce its customers to create the patented combination.