DCT

1:17-cv-01118

JM Enterprises Inc v. Ames Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: JM Enterprises, Inc. (Iowa)
- Defendant: The Ames Companies, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Zarley Law Firm, P.L.C.
Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01118, S.D. Iowa, 04/24/2017
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant conducts business and has committed, and continues to commit, acts of patent infringement within the Southern District of Iowa.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s snow shovels infringe a patent related to a single-piece bracket used to connect a shovel's shaft to its blade.
Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical design of hand tools, specifically improving the structural integrity and manufacturing efficiency of snow shovels.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of infringement in August 2016, approximately eight months prior to filing suit. The complaint also references a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant to support its allegation of willful infringement, suggesting that Defendant lacks a competent opinion of non-infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-24	'907 Patent Priority Date
2007-05-15	'907 Patent Issue Date
2016-08-XX	Plaintiff allegedly discovers infringement
2016-08-22	Plaintiff notifies Defendant of infringement
2016-10-XX	Plaintiff observes continued infringement
2017-04-24	Complaint Filing Date

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,216,907, "Bracket for a Snow Shovel," issued May 15, 2007.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional snow shovels as requiring multiple parts to connect the shaft to the blade—typically a primary bracket and a separate, secondary brace. This multi-component design is said to increase assembly time and manufacturing costs (’907 Patent, col. 1:8-18).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a single-piece, molded plastic bracket that integrates the functions of shaft holder and blade brace. The bracket combines a hollow cylinder to receive the shovel shaft with a support member and a support plate that attach directly to the blade, creating a unified, reinforced connection point (’907 Patent, col. 1:57-60; Fig. 2). This consolidated design is intended to be more economical to manufacture and easier to assemble than prior art multi-part systems (’907 Patent, col. 2:29-32).
Technical Importance: The design's stated contribution is reducing the part count for a shovel, which simplifies the supply chain and assembly process, thereby lowering production costs (’907 Patent, col. 1:16-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’907 Patent, col. 2:37-61; Compl. ¶13).
The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- an elongated shaft;
- a bracket having a hollow cylinder formed to receive the shaft, a support member, and a support plate;
- the support member having a concave arcuate bottom surface formed to receive a curved portion of a blade and a vertical edge that extends along the support plate;
- the support plate being connected to the blade at a bottom edge;
- the support plate having a plurality of support fins that extend from the hollow cylinder;
- the support plate having a plurality of slots positioned between the fins; and
- the support member receiving the blade at the concave arcuate bottom surface and being connected to the support plate at the vertical edge such that the support member is disposed between the support plate and blade in wedge fashion.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the Ames snow shovel products GUH30FKDU, GUH24FKDU, and GUH36FKDU (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products as snow shovels sold in the state of Iowa through retailers including Farm & City Supply and Ace Hardware (Compl. ¶10-11). The complaint alleges that these products infringe Claim 1 of the ’907 Patent but does not provide a detailed technical description of their construction or operation beyond this allegation (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that an example of how the accused products infringe Claim 1 is set forth in its Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13). As that exhibit was not included with the complaint, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The complaint’s narrative infringement theory is limited to the assertion that the accused Ames products embody the invention claimed in the ’907 patent (Compl. ¶13).

Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions:
- Structural Questions: A key factual dispute may be whether the accused products’ brackets contain all the specific structural features recited in Claim 1, such as a "plurality of support fins," a "plurality of slots positioned between the fins," and a "support member" with both a "concave arcuate bottom surface" and a "vertical edge." The absence of any one of these elements could be fatal to the infringement claim.
- Scope Questions: A central legal dispute may concern the interpretation of the final limitation, which requires the support member to be "disposed between the support plate and blade in wedge fashion." The precise meaning of this spatial and geometric relationship will be a critical point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "disposed between the support plate and blade in wedge fashion"
Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 and describes the final structural arrangement of the bracket's key components. The outcome of the infringement analysis may hinge on whether the geometry of the accused product's bracket can be characterized as being arranged in a "wedge fashion."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term does not require a specific angle or taper, but rather describes a general arrangement where the support member fits snugly between the support plate and the blade to brace them against one another.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures illustrate a specific triangular or wedge-like configuration where the support member (22) forms a bracing structure between the cylinder and the support plate (24) (’907 Patent, Fig. 2). A party may argue that this specific embodiment defines and limits the scope of "wedge fashion."
The Term: "support member"
Context and Importance: This is a primary structural element of the claimed bracket. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is crucial for determining if a corresponding component exists in the accused products that performs the functions required by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that any structural element connecting the cylinder to the support plate qualifies as a "support member."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the preferred embodiment states that the "support member 22 has a pair of spaced members 32 that are connected to the support plate 24 and extend along the length of the cylinder 20" (’907 Patent, col. 2:62-64). A party may argue that this more detailed description limits the term "support member" to a structure comprising two such spaced elements.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against contributory and inducing infringement (Compl. p. 4, ¶2). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations required to support these claims, such as allegations of intent to induce or the sale of a component lacking substantial non-infringing uses. The sole count is for direct infringement (Compl. ¶12-13).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement, entitling the plaintiff to enhanced damages (Compl. ¶20). This allegation is based on the claim that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’907 patent via a notice letter sent on August 22, 2016, and continued to sell the accused products despite this notice (Compl. ¶8, ¶16-17). The complaint further alleges that Defendant "lacks a reasonable basis for believing it has a right to engage in the infringing activities" (Compl. ¶19).

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

This case appears to center on the specific structural details of a mechanical invention. The key questions for the court will likely be:

A central issue will be one of claim construction: Can the phrase "disposed... in wedge fashion" be interpreted broadly to cover various bracing geometries, or is it limited to the specific triangular structure depicted in the patent's figures?
A key evidentiary question will be factual: Do the accused Ames shovels incorporate every distinct structural element recited in Claim 1, including the specific arrangement of support fins, slots, and the concave surface of the support member? The plaintiff will bear the burden of proving the existence of each element.
A third question concerns willfulness: Did the Defendant, after receiving notice of the patent in August 2016, have an objectively reasonable basis for continuing to sell the accused products, or was its conduct egregious enough to warrant enhanced damages?