DCT

2:23-cv-03220

Pearl Musical Instrument Co Co Ltd v. Hoshino Gakki Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-03220, E.D. Pa., 08/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant Hoshino (U.S.A.) Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business within the district, and both defendants are alleged to have committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TAMA Fieldstar line of musical instrument carriers infringes a patent related to body-supportable frames for marching percussion instruments.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns ergonomic support harnesses designed to allow musicians to carry and play heavy instruments, such as marching band drums, while maintaining comfort and stability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Hoshino Japan had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit because the USPTO cited it as relevant prior art during the prosecution of one of Hoshino's own patent applications in 2012. It further alleges Hoshino discussed the patent in a separate patent application filed in 2022. Plaintiff also states it sent formal written notice of alleged infringement to Defendants on two occasions in 2023 prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-12-24 '261 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2010-03-02 '261 Patent Issue Date
2010-05-01 Plaintiff's CX Airframe Carrier ("Patented Drum Carrier") launched
2012-08-07 '261 Patent cited by USPTO examiner against a Hoshino application
2022-02-15 Hoshino files patent application that discusses the '261 Patent
2023-02-08 Accused TAMA Fieldstar Carrier marketed at TMEA Conference
2023-04-10 Plaintiff sends first written notice of infringement to Defendants
2023-05-18 Plaintiff sends second written notice of infringement to Defendants
2023-08-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,671,261 - "Musical Instrument Carrier and Related Methods"

  • Issued: March 2, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional carriers for musical instruments, particularly heavy percussion instruments, can be uncomfortable and may not provide adequate stability for the instrument while the musician is mobile (e.g., marching) (’261 Patent, col. 1:21-32). The complaint echoes this, describing historical carriers as "heavy, uncomfortable metal contraptions" (Compl. ¶17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a body-supportable carrier featuring a lightweight "rigid tubular frame" that distributes the instrument's weight. The frame has a "substantially U-shaped" section that rests on the user's shoulders and upper back, with two end sections extending down the front of the torso. A separate "belly plate" attaches to these front sections, and the musical instrument is in turn mounted to the belly plate, allowing for adjustability and stability (’261 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:42-56).
  • Technical Importance: This configuration sought to provide a lightweight, adjustable, and structurally reliable solution for marching percussionists, enhancing comfort and performance (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 22 (method), as well as independent claim 21 (frame) (Compl. ¶60).
  • The essential elements of representative independent claim 1 are:
    • A body-supportable musical-instrument carrier, comprising:
    • a rigid tubular frame comprising a substantially U-shaped intermediate section and first and second end sections at opposite ends of the substantially U-shaped intermediate section, the substantially U-shaped intermediate section substantially conforming to shoulder and upper back regions of a user for resting on the shoulder regions and extending across the upper back region of the user in use, the first and second end sections extending downward substantially parallel to one another for resting in front of a front torso region, including along an abdomen region, of the user in use;
    • a belly plate;
    • first mounting members mountable on the belly plate and engageable with the first and second end sections, respectively, of the rigid tubular frame for securing the belly plate to the rigid tubular frame; and
    • second mounting members mountable on the belly plate and engageable with a musical instrument for securing the musical instrument to the body-supportable musical-instrument carrier.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims of the ’261 Patent (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "TAMA Fieldstar Carrier" line of marching drum carriers (Compl. ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The TAMA Fieldstar Carrier is a support harness used to carry marching snare drums, tenor drums, and bass drums (Compl. ¶30, ¶52). The complaint alleges the carrier is marketed as being "lighter, more adjustable, and better accommodate[s] athletic movement during performances" (Compl. ¶45). The complaint positions the product as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's own carrier, which allegedly captures a 60-70% share of the U.S. market (Compl. ¶26, ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides annotated still images from a video showing the accused TAMA Fieldstar Carrier in use, which purports to map its components to the limitations of claim 1 (Compl. p. 12). This annotated image uses colored arrows to identify features alleged to meet claim limitations (Compl. ¶49).

'261 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a rigid tubular frame comprising a substantially U-shaped intermediate section and first and second end sections ... the substantially U-shaped intermediate section substantially conforming to shoulder and upper back regions of a user ... the first and second end sections extending downward substantially parallel to one another The accused carrier allegedly possesses a rigid tubular frame with a U-shaped section for the user's back and shoulders (red arrows) and parallel downward-extending end sections for the front torso (blue arrows). ¶49 col. 3:42-56
a belly plate The accused carrier allegedly includes a belly plate on the front of the user's torso (green arrows). ¶49 col. 4:38-40
first mounting members mountable on the belly plate and engageable with the first and second end sections ... for securing the belly plate to the rigid tubular frame The accused carrier is alleged to have mounting members that secure the belly plate to the rigid frame (yellow arrows). ¶49 col. 5:4-10
second mounting members mountable on the belly plate and engageable with a musical instrument for securing the musical instrument to the ... carrier The accused carrier is alleged to have members mounted on the belly plate for securing the instrument (purple arrows). ¶49 col. 5:61-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the proper construction of relative terms such as "substantially U-shaped" and "substantially parallel." The degree of conformance and parallelism in the accused product relative to the claim language and patent figures will likely be scrutinized.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations rely on high-level visual identification of components. A key technical question will be whether the accused product's hardware is appropriately categorized into two distinct sets of "mounting members" as claimed: one set for the plate-to-frame connection and a second set for the instrument-to-plate connection. The specific function and interaction of the accused hardware (identified by yellow and purple arrows) will be a central factual issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "rigid tubular frame"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core structural element of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical construction of the accused product's frame (e.g., its material, cross-sectional shape, and whether it is hollow) will be compared against the definition of "tubular."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions the frame may be a "monolithic member" or a "plurality of segments" and can be made of "metal or composite material," suggesting flexibility in its precise form beyond a single, uniform tube (’261 Patent, col. 4:11-15, col. 3:25-26).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The doctrine of claim differentiation may suggest "tubular" implies a hollow structure, as separate independent claim 12 recites a "non-hollow, solid rod" (’261 Patent, col. 11:19-21). This distinction could be used to argue that "tubular" as used in claim 1 is limited to hollow constructions.

  • The Term: "belly plate"

    • Context and Importance: This element serves as the interface between the frame and the instrument. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused carrier's front assembly constitutes a "belly plate."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the belly plate may have "alternative shapes, such as a rectangle ... an oval, etc.," indicating the term is not limited to the specific shape shown in the figures (’261 Patent, col. 4:41-43).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in the drawings depicts a "substantially pentagonal shape" (Fig. 5; ’261 Patent, col. 4:39-41). A party could argue that this preferred embodiment narrows the term's scope to a single, contiguous plate-like structure, as opposed to a multi-part assembly.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by encouraging customers, such as the Bluecoats drum and bugle corps, to use the accused carriers in a manner that performs the patented method (Compl. ¶74). It further alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the accused carriers are especially adapted for an infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶77).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is supported by allegations of both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on Defendant's patent prosecution history, where the ’261 Patent was cited by the USPTO in 2012 and discussed by the Defendant in a 2022 application (Compl. ¶37-38). The complaint also alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities after receiving two written notices of infringement from Plaintiff in April and May 2023 (Compl. ¶39, ¶50).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can terms like "rigid tubular frame" and "belly plate," which are described with some specificity in the patent's embodiments, be construed broadly enough to read on the particular design and construction of the accused TAMA Fieldstar Carrier?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: does the accused carrier, as a matter of fact, possess two distinct sets of mounting members that separately perform the two distinct functions recited in claim 1 (securing the plate to the frame, and securing the instrument to the plate), or is there a technical and functional distinction in how the accused product is assembled and operates?