DCT
1:23-cv-01377
Hanover Prest Paving Co v. Greenrise Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hanover Prest-Paving Co. t/a Hanover Architectural Products (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: Greenrise Technologies, LLC (Tennessee)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barley Snyder
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01377, M.D. Pa., 08/18/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including Defendant's advertising and sale of products, occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s paver pedestal products infringe patents related to adjustable pedestals used for constructing elevated decks and surfaces.
- Technical Context: The technology involves modular, height-adjustable pedestal systems used in construction to support pavers or tiles, creating level, elevated surfaces over underlying structures like rooftops.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents and infringement allegations via correspondence beginning in January 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-11-02 | Earliest Priority Date ('805 and '059 Patents) |
| 2011-04-05 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,918,059 |
| 2013-05-14 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 8,438,805 |
| 2023-01-XX | Alleged first notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2023-08-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,438,805 - "Pedestal for Ballast Block Decking"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,438,805, "Pedestal for Ballast Block Decking," issued May 14, 2013. (Compl. ¶11)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a stable and readily adjustable pedestal for use in rooftop deck systems that can support pavers, permit proper drainage, and facilitate the installation of bracing between adjacent pedestals. ('805 Patent, col. 1:33-42)
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a pedestal system featuring a support plate with upstanding walls that define quadrants for receiving paver corners. A key element is a "sound-deadening pad" that is secured within a recessed "fitting section" of the support plate via a "boss and recess connection arrangement," creating a "self locking connection" to prevent relative movement and reduce noise. ('805 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-56, col. 3:10-28)
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution seeks to improve the stability, acoustic properties, and durability of elevated paver systems by integrating a non-movable, shock-absorbing pad directly into the pedestal support head. ('805 Patent, col. 2:61-67)
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, 11, 13, and 14. (Compl. ¶16, 32)
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A support including a support plate with upstanding walls to define quadrants and a recessed fitting section.
- A sound-deadening pad wholly positioned and secured in the fitting section, extending into different quadrants, and being non-movable.
- A "boss and recess connection arrangement" between the support plate and the pad that cooperates to provide a "self locking connection."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,918,059 - "Pedestal for Ballast Block Decking"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,918,059, "Pedestal for Ballast Block Decking," issued April 5, 2011. (Compl. ¶11)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its continuation ('805 Patent), this patent addresses the need for a stable, height-adjustable pedestal system for constructing elevated surfaces that allows for proper drainage and enables easy installation of bracing. ('059 Patent, col. 1:33-42)
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part, height-adjustable pedestal comprising a base, a support, and an intermediate coupler. The solution specifically claims structural features designed for stability and bracing, including a "reinforcement wall" on the base with a "first eyelet," and a flange on the coupler with a "plurality of spaced-apart second eyelets" to facilitate the attachment of cross-bracing wires between pedestals. ('059 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:33-55)
- Technical Importance: The design's contribution is the inclusion of dedicated, integrated connection points (eyelets) on the pedestal components to allow for the systematic installation of bracing, thereby increasing the lateral stability of a large-scale deck assembly. ('059 Patent, col. 4:46-55)
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 7, and 9. (Compl. ¶23, 32)
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A base with a plate extending outward from a post.
- A "reinforcement wall" extending between the plate and the post, having a first eyelet.
- An adjustably mounted support.
- An adjustably located coupler between the support and the base.
- A flange extending circumferentially about the coupler.
- A plurality of spaced-apart second eyelets extending through the flange.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "GRO Fixed Head Pedestals." (Compl. ¶13)
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are pedestals used for supporting blocks, pavers, or tiles to create an elevated surface spaced above an underlying surface. (Compl. ¶15, 22)
- The complaint alleges that Greenrise "recently began to manufacture and sell" the accused products and has offered them for sale and sold them within the United States. (Compl. ¶13-14)
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides notice pleading, reciting the language of the asserted claims and alleging that the accused product infringes, but does not map specific product features to claim elements.
'805 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a support including a support plate having an upper major surface with a plurality of upstanding walls...and a fitting section recessed... | The complaint alleges the Infringing Product possesses this feature without providing specific factual detail. | ¶17 | col. 2:49-55 |
| a sound-deadening pad wholly positioned and secured in the fitting section...the pad being non-movable within the support... | The complaint alleges the Infringing Product incorporates a pad with these characteristics, but does not describe its structure or means of attachment. | ¶17 | col. 3:10-19 |
| wherein the support plate and the pad are connected by a boss and recess connection arrangement...such that the...arrangement cooperate to provide a self locking connection. | The complaint alleges the Infringing Product has a "boss and recess connection arrangement" that provides a "self locking connection," without describing the specific mechanism. | ¶17 | col. 3:23-28 |
'059 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base at a lower end thereof having a plate extending outward from a post; | The complaint alleges the Infringing Product possesses a base with a plate and post, without providing specific structural detail. | ¶24 | col. 4:30-33 |
| a reinforcement wall extending between the plate and the post and having a first eyelet formed therein... | The complaint alleges the Infringing Product has a reinforcement wall and first eyelet, but does not describe their specific form or location. | ¶24 | col. 4:33-40 |
| a coupler being adjustably located between the support and the base for further altering the overall height of the pedestal; | The complaint alleges the Infringing Product includes an adjustable coupler, without detailing its mechanism of adjustment. | ¶24 | col. 4:46-51 |
| a flange that extends circumferentially about the coupler; and, a plurality of spaced-apart second eyelets extending through the flange. | The complaint alleges the Infringing Product's coupler has a flange with multiple eyelets, without specifying their number or arrangement. | ¶24 | col. 4:14-24; 4:52-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint does not present factual evidence (e.g., annotated diagrams, technical specifications) to support its allegations that the GRO Fixed Head Pedestals contain the specific structures required by the claims. A central issue will be whether discovery reveals that the accused product actually embodies, for instance, a "boss and recess connection arrangement" ('805 Patent) or the specific "reinforcement wall" and "eyelet" structures ('059 Patent).
- Technical Questions: Does the accused product's top surface element function as a "sound-deadening pad" that is "non-movable" ('805 Patent)? Does the accused product contain structures that function as "eyelets" for bracing, as required by the '059 Patent, or are they openings for other purposes such as drainage or mold formation?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "self locking connection" ('805 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The meaning of this term is central to infringement of the '805 patent. The dispute will likely focus on the degree and nature of the "lock" required. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple friction fit infringes, or if a more specific mechanical interlock is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which may support giving it its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing a range of connections that resist separation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the connection is a "snap-fit connection" created by "bosses 38 and recesses 40." ('805 Patent, col. 3:23-28). A party could argue that "self locking" should be limited to this disclosed snap-fit mechanism.
Term: "reinforcement wall" ('059 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This structural term is critical for infringement of the '059 patent. The dispute will likely concern whether any supporting rib on the base of the accused product qualifies, or if a more specific structure is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of the term could be argued to cover any structural feature that strengthens the base.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and specification describe "a plurality of reinforcement walls 66 that extend radially-from an exterior 68 of the post 44" and "can extend integrally from both the plate 42 and post 44." ('059 Patent, col. 4:33-38; Fig. 1). A party could argue the term is limited to these distinct, fin-like structures shown in the drawings.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged conduct after receiving notice of its infringement. (Compl. ¶30, 34). The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Greenrise "several correspondences" beginning in January 2023, identifying the patents and the infringing products, and that Greenrise "willfully refused to take any action to abate its continuing infringements." (Compl. ¶28, 36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case, as presented in the complaint, will likely turn on fundamental questions of evidence and claim scope.
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the notice-pleading style of the complaint, can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused "GRO Fixed Head Pedestals" actually incorporate the specific structural elements recited in the asserted claims, such as the "boss and recess connection arrangement" of the '805 patent and the "reinforcement wall" and "eyelet" combination of the '059 patent?
- A second core issue will be one of claim construction: How will the court construe key limitations? Specifically, can the term "self locking connection" ('805 Patent) be read broadly to cover a variety of friction or interference fits, or will it be limited to the "snap-fit" embodiment disclosed in the specification? The resolution of such definitional questions may prove dispositive for infringement.