DCT
1:24-cv-00284
Inventive LLC v. Lift Tow LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Inventive, LLC (Idaho)
- Defendant: Lift and Tow, LLC; Lift & Tow Industries LLC; and Hidden Lift & Tow LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ference & Associates LLC; Michael P. Mazza, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00284, M.D. Pa., 02/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because the Defendant entities reside there and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle recovery dollies infringe a patent related to a towing dolly cradle assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical assemblies, known as towing dollies, used by tow truck operators to lift and transport disabled vehicles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that one of the Defendant entities was a dealer for Plaintiff's patented products until 2016. Plaintiff also alleges it sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant in December 2023 regarding the alleged infringement, which did not result in Defendant ceasing the accused activity. These allegations may be relevant to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-04-28 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,275,753 |
| 2007-10-02 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,275,753 |
| 2016-08-26 | Alleged date Defendant Hidden Lift & Tow LLC purchased Lift and Tow, LLC |
| 2023-11-15 | Plaintiff allegedly learned of infringement at trade show |
| 2023-12-01 | Plaintiff allegedly sent first cease-and-desist letter |
| 2023-12-19 | Plaintiff allegedly sent follow-up letter |
| 2024-02-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,275,753, “Towing Dolly Cradle Assembly,” issued October 2, 2007 (the “’753 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for a towing dolly cradle assembly that is useful in the recovery of disabled vehicles by a tow vehicle (׳753 Patent, col. 1:15-21). The background highlights the general process of using dollies to raise and support one end of a disabled vehicle for transport (׳753 Patent, col. 1:26-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a towing dolly cradle assembly composed of two parallel dolly units connected by two axle assemblies to form a rectangular frame (׳753 Patent, Abstract). Each dolly assembly features pivotable wheel mounts that can be actuated by a lever to raise the assembly from a ground-level position to a raised, locked position for transporting a vehicle. A key feature is a "camlock assembly" that locks the wheel mounts in the raised position, with the patent noting this provides an improved and more convenient locking mechanism for the operator (׳753 Patent, col. 2:59-65; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to offer ergonometric advantages for the tow vehicle operator by being lighter in weight and easier to manipulate into position than prior art devices (׳753 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A towing dolly cradle assembly comprising two towing dolly assemblies and two dolly axle assemblies.
- Each dolly assembly has a horizontal main tube, a left pivot mounting assembly, and a right pivot mounting assembly.
- The axle assemblies are interposed perpendicularly between the dolly assemblies to form a rectangular frame.
- Each left pivot mounting assembly comprises a "left camlock assembly" with a camlock engaging pin, a left camlock weldment, a left pivot weldment, a left pivot pin, a left pivot lock arm, and a wheel spindle.
- The left pivot lock arm has a "left raised position receiving hole" that aligns with the camlock engaging pin when the wheel is in a specific raised position.
- The right pivot mounting assembly comprises a corresponding "right camlock assembly" and associated components.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Dolly(ies)" manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendants Lift and Tow, LLC, Lift & Tow Industries LLC, and Hidden Lift & Tow LLC (Compl. ¶9, ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Dolly is a "virtual copy of every aspect of Inventive's In The Ditch® SPEED® Dolly" (Compl. ¶9). Plaintiff claims its own dolly is a "leading product in the towing marketplace" and that Defendant is a direct competitor (Compl. ¶7, ¶11). The complaint provides a photograph of the Accused Dolly on display at the American Towman Exposition. A photograph of the 'Accused Dolly' on display at a trade show illustrates its overall structure, including wheels, frame, and axle cradles (Compl. Ex. 9). Additionally, a screenshot from the Defendant's website shows the Accused Dolly advertised for sale (Compl. Ex. 12). The complaint asserts that the Accused Dollies perform the same function as the patented invention: they are used to lift and transport disabled vehicles (Compl. ¶17-18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’753 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A towing dolly cradle assembly comprising two towing dolly assemblies... [and] two dolly axle assemblies... interposed perpendicularly between said dolly assemblies... | The Accused Dolly is alleged to be a complete towing dolly cradle assembly that is a "virtual copy" of Plaintiff's product, which practices the patent. It possesses two dolly assemblies connected by axle assemblies. | ¶9, ¶18, Ex. 9 | col. 4:5-11 |
| each said dolly assembly having a horizontal main tube, each said main tube having a left end and a right end, a left pivot mounting assembly attached to said left end, a right pivot mounting assembly attached to said right end... | The Accused Dolly is alleged to have the same structure, including a horizontal main tube with pivot mounting assemblies for the wheels at each end. | ¶9, ¶18, Ex. 9 | col. 4:12-17 |
| wherein each said left pivot mounting assembly comprising a left camlock assembly, said left camlock assembly having a camlock engaging pin... | The complaint's allegation that the Accused Dolly is a "virtual copy" of a product that practices Claim 1 suggests the Accused Dolly contains a "camlock assembly" with an engaging pin for locking the dolly in a raised position. | ¶7, ¶9 | col. 5:32-34 |
| a left pivot lock arm... having a left raised position receiving hole... that selectively and coaxially aligns with said camlock engaging pin to selectively engage said left raised position receiving hole when said left wheel spindle is located below said main tube... | Based on the "virtual copy" theory, the Accused Dolly is alleged to have a pivot lock arm with a receiving hole that engages the camlock pin to lock the wheel assembly in the raised position for transport. | ¶7, ¶9 | col. 5:15-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on the construction of the term "camlock assembly" and its constituent parts as recited in Claim 1. A question for the court will be whether the specific arrangement of weldments, pivot pins, lock arms, and receiving holes is a strict requirement, or if the term can be construed more broadly to cover mechanically similar locking systems.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused product is a "virtual copy" of the plaintiff's commercial embodiment, which is asserted to practice the patent (Compl. ¶7, ¶9). A key evidentiary question will be what proof, beyond external visual similarity, Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that the internal mechanisms of the Accused Dolly meet every limitation of the asserted claim, particularly the detailed structural elements of the claimed "camlock assembly."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "camlock assembly"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 and describes the core locking mechanism of the invention. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the specific locking feature of the Accused Dolly contains all the structural and functional limitations of the claimed "camlock assembly." Practitioners may focus on this term because its detailed recitation in the claim provides a potential basis for a non-infringement argument if any sub-element is missing from the accused device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the objective of the invention is to provide an "improved locking mechanism" that is "easier and more convenient for a tow vehicle operator to use," suggesting the term should encompass any locking mechanism that achieves this functional goal through a cam-like action (׳753 Patent, col. 2:59-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly detailed description and specific figures for the "preferred camlock assembly" (׳753 Patent, Figs. 4-7; col. 8:22-65). A party could argue the term should be limited to an assembly containing all the disclosed components, such as the "camlock outer body" (72), the "cooperating angled face" (82), the "camlock cap" (84), and the specific "camlock engaging pin" (96).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect or contributory infringement. The claims focus on direct infringement through Defendant's alleged "manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of the Accused Dollies" (Compl. ¶18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶19). The factual bases for this allegation are Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’753 Patent, purportedly gained from its prior status as a dealer of Plaintiff's patented product, and alleged post-notice conduct after receiving cease-and-desist letters from Plaintiff in December 2023 (Compl. ¶11, ¶18). The complaint further alleges that Defendant continued its infringing activities and refused to stop selling the Accused Dolly after receiving notice (Compl. ¶11).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the plaintiff prove that the accused product contains every element of the detailed "camlock assembly" as recited in Claim 1? The case may turn on whether the court adopts a narrow construction limited to the specific embodiment in the patent's figures or a broader one covering similar locking mechanisms.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: beyond the allegation of being a "virtual copy," the plaintiff will need to present evidence, likely through expert testimony and technical analysis, demonstrating that the internal mechanics of the accused product meet the specific structural limitations of the asserted patent claim.
- The determination of willfulness will likely depend on factual findings regarding the defendant's state of mind, focusing on the alleged prior dealer relationship and the defendant's conduct after receiving explicit notice of the patent-in-suit.