Tait Towers Mfg LLC v. Wicreations BVBA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tait Towers Mfg, LLC (Delaware / Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Wicreations, BVBA (Belgium)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAXTON & STUMP, LLC
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-01720, E.D. Pa., 04/24/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly committing acts of infringement within the district, including the use of the accused system at a concert in Philadelphia, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "WIDECK" staging system infringes three utility patents and one design patent related to portable, interlocking support structures for live event staging.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for portable live event stages that can be assembled and disassembled rapidly with minimal labor, while providing a stable, monolithic surface capable of bearing significant weight.
• Key Procedural History: Three of the asserted utility patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,703,401; 7,922,416; and 8,793,876) belong to the same patent family. The '416 patent is a divisional of the application that led to the '401 patent, and the '876 patent is a continuation of the '416 patent's application lineage. This shared specification may lead to overlapping claim construction issues across the patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-12-07	Priority Date for ’401, ’416, and ’876 Patents
2010-04-27	’401 Patent Issued
2011-04-12	’416 Patent Issued
2013-01-29	’343 Design Patent Issued
2014-08-05	’876 Patent Issued
2014-08-05	Alleged Issue Date for '343 Design Patent (per Complaint ¶36)
2024-04-19	Alleged Infringing Use (Bad Bunny Concert)
2024-04-24	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,703,401 - Portable Locking Support Structure (Issued Apr. 27, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional portable stages as being difficult to assemble, prone to misalignment, and structurally unstable, requiring significant time, cost, and technical skill to erect (Compl., Ex. A, ’401 Patent, col. 1:11-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable support structure featuring a novel connection system. It comprises vertical primary supports and angled secondary supports. A key aspect is the connection between the primary support leg and the stage platform, which uses a male connector with a tapered portion and an alignment channel that mates with a female platform connector having an alignment pin. This design is intended to create a stable, rotationally fixed, and easily assembled connection (’401 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:14-18; Fig. 15).
• Technical Importance: This system of self-aligning and locking connectors purports to significantly decrease assembly time and labor costs while increasing the structural rigidity and safety of temporary stages (’401 Patent, col. 2:31-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific claims of the ’401 Patent as being asserted (Compl. ¶17). Independent Claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • An elongate primary support with a first end comprising a male primary connector (which itself has a flange, a flared end, and a tapered portion) and a hook projecting from its side.
  • The flared end of the male connector has an alignment channel.
  • A platform comprising a female primary connector with a connector cavity and an alignment pin.
  • The male and female connectors connect when rotationally oriented to allow the alignment channel to engage the alignment pin.
  • An elongate secondary support that connects to the platform and engages the hook on the primary support.

U.S. Patent No. 7,922,416 - Portable Locking Support Structure (Issued Apr. 12, 2011)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the ’401 patent, this patent addresses the same problems of instability, misalignment, and difficult assembly in prior art portable stages (Compl., Ex. B, ’416 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
• The Patented Solution: This patent focuses specifically on the connector system itself. It claims a system comprising a male support connector and a female platform connector. The male connector has a flared end with an alignment channel, and the female connector has a tapered cavity with an alignment pin. The core of the invention is that the components are configured to "detachably engage... only when the male support connector is rotationally oriented such that the alignment channel is engaged by the alignment pin" (’416 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:30-46).
• Technical Importance: The invention isolates the novel connector as the key to achieving proper orientation, stability, and ease of assembly, which are critical in the time-sensitive live event industry (’416 Patent, col. 2:47-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific claims of the ’416 Patent as being asserted (Compl. ¶24). Independent Claim 1 is the broadest system claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A male support connector with a flange, a flared end, and a tapered portion, where the flared end has an alignment channel.
  • A female platform connector with a tapered connector cavity and an alignment pin.
  • The system is configured so the two connectors can only engage when the alignment channel and alignment pin are properly oriented and engaged.

U.S. Patent No. 8,793,876 - Method of Assembling a Portable Support Structure (Issued Aug. 5, 2014)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,793,876, "Method of Assembling a Portable Support Structure," issued August 5, 2014 (Compl. ¶29).
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family, this patent claims the method of assembling the portable stage. The claimed steps include positioning a first platform member, securing a support member to it, and then securing another platform member to form a continuous surface, with an emphasis on the assembler being able to perform these actions from a standing position, thereby increasing efficiency and safety (Compl., Ex. C, ’876 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:15-31).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶31). Claim 1 is the broadest independent method claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the act of "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing... methods encompassed by the '876 Patent, including, for example, the 'WIDECK' staging system" constitutes infringement, which implicates the assembly process of the accused system (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Design Patent No. D675,343 - Staging Support Structure (Issued Jan. 29, 2013)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D675,343, "Staging Support Structure," issued January 29, 2013. The complaint is internally inconsistent regarding this patent, listing it as No. D675,643 in one paragraph (Compl. ¶6) and No. D675,343 in another (Compl. ¶35), while also incorrectly stating its issue date as August 5, 2014 (Compl. ¶36). The '343 number and its associated title "Staging Support Structure" align with the subject matter of the lawsuit.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design of the staging support structure. The claimed design encompasses the overall visual appearance of the support leg assembly, including its specific shapes and configuration as depicted in the patent figures.
• Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in the drawings.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the Defendant's "WIDECK" staging system is substantially the same as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "WIDECK" staging system (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the WIDECK system as a "competing staging system" used in the live event industry (Compl. ¶8). A specific instance of its use in the United States is alleged to have occurred at a performance by the musical artist Bad Bunny in Philadelphia on April 19, 2024 (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide any specific technical details regarding the structure, components, or assembly method of the WIDECK system.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of infringement. It makes only conclusory allegations that the "WIDECK" staging system infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶17, 24, 31, 38). No claim charts are provided or referenced, and no specific features of the accused system are mapped to any claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: Given the lack of detail, the central dispute will be factual and dependent on discovery. Key questions will include:
  • Does the WIDECK system's connector mechanism employ a tapered male connector with a flared end and alignment channel that engages a female connector with an alignment pin, as required by the claims of the '401 and '416 patents?
  • Does the WIDECK system utilize secondary diagonal braces that engage with a "hook" on the primary vertical legs in the manner claimed by the '401 patent?
  • Is the method of assembling the WIDECK system substantially the same as the steps claimed in the '876 patent?
  • Is the overall ornamental appearance of the WIDECK system substantially similar to the design claimed in the '343 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not offer a basis for claim construction analysis. However, based on the technology, the following terms from the independent claims of the '401 and '416 patents may become focal points of a dispute.

The Term: "alignment channel"

• Context and Importance: This feature is central to the claimed invention's method of ensuring proper rotational orientation between the support leg and the platform. The scope of this term will be critical for determining whether the WIDECK system's connectors infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not provide an explicit definition, which may support an interpretation covering any slot, groove, or keyway that performs a rotational alignment function ('416 Patent, col. 13:43-46).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show a distinct channel cut across the end face of the male connector's flared end ('401 Patent, Fig. 11, 12). A party may argue the term should be limited to this specific structural configuration, as it is the only embodiment disclosed.

The Term: "hook"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the connection point for the secondary support brace on the primary leg. Its construction will determine what types of connection points for secondary supports fall within the scope of the '401 patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim simply recites "a hook projecting from a location between the first end and the second end," which could be argued to encompass a wide variety of projecting members that can be engaged ('401 Patent, col. 14:21-22).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific structure that provides a "locking engagement" where the secondary support is retained by a "curved portion" and can only be disengaged through rotation ('401 Patent, col. 8:31-43; Fig. 9). This detailed description could be used to argue that the term "hook" is implicitly limited to a structure that provides this specific rotational locking function.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges indirect infringement, including inducement and contributory infringement, for all asserted patents (Compl. p. 5, ¶(a)-(d)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and specific intent, such as alleging that Defendant provides instructions or user manuals that encourage its customers to assemble the WIDECK system in an infringing manner.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement "is and continues to be willful and deliberate," based on Defendant's alleged "knowledge" of the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶18, 25, 32, 39). The complaint does not, however, allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents or their infringement.

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As a "bare bones" complaint, the case hinges entirely on facts to be developed in discovery. The primary question is whether discovery will reveal that the accused WIDECK system's mechanical connectors and assembly methods actually practice the specific structures and steps recited in the asserted claims.

2. A second key issue will be one of claim scope: The litigation will likely involve a dispute over the proper construction of key claim terms. A core question for the court will be whether terms like "alignment channel" and "hook" should be interpreted broadly based on their plain meaning or narrowly limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the shared patent specification.

3. An initial question may be one of pleading sufficiency: Given the lack of specific factual allegations mapping the accused product to the patent claims, a threshold issue could be whether the complaint meets the plausibility pleading standards required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal.