DCT
2:23-cv-00567
Mazur v. Kravitch
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ivan Mazur (Alberta, Canada)
- Defendant: Nick C. Kravitch d/b/a Kravitch Machine Company (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Webb Law Firm
- Case Identification: Mazur v. Kravitch, 2:23-cv-00567, W.D. Pa., 04/04/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Service Tee Tooling" infringes a patent related to a tool assembly for safely servicing pressurized fluid lines, such as natural gas pipes.
- Technical Context: The technology provides a method and apparatus for service personnel to access, modify, or seal pressurized pipe connections without shutting down the main line or venting potentially hazardous fluids.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit interactions, including a meeting at a 2008 trade show, direct communications and patent identification in March 2022, and a cease and desist letter sent in June 2022. These allegations may be used to support claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-08-02 | ’481 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-04-01 | Plaintiff and Defendant allegedly meet at a trade show (approximate) |
| 2010-02-23 | ’481 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-03-01 | Defendant allegedly gained knowledge of the ’481 Patent |
| 2022-06-27 | Plaintiff sent cease and desist letter to Defendant |
| 2023-04-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,665,481 - Pressurized Fluid Line Servicing Tool
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of servicing natural gas service tee connections, a task which previously exposed personnel to escaping gas because a suitable tool for safely accessing the pressurized line was unavailable (’481 Patent, col. 1:11-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a tool assembly that creates a sealed, temporary working environment around a connection on a pressurized pipe. It features a main "tool insertion adaptor" with a valve that divides the interior into an upstream and downstream chamber, functioning like an airlock (’481 Patent, col. 2:28-34). This allows different tools—one for removing caps and another for setting plugs—to be attached and operated through the valve without releasing pressurized fluids to the atmosphere (’481 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables the safe removal, replacement, or sealing of components on live, pressurized fluid lines, obviating the need to shut down service or vent potentially dangerous gases (’481 Patent, col. 1:11-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent apparatus claim 1 and independent method claim 15.
- Independent Claim 1 requires a tool assembly with three main components:
- A "tool insertion adaptor" with a fluid-tight housing, an internal chamber divided by a valve, and couplings at both ends.
- A "removal tool" with a housing, a movable shaft, a "removal wrench" on one end, and a handle on the other for both axial and rotational movement.
- A "plug setting tool" with a housing, an axially movable outer shaft, a rotatable inner shaft, a "detachable torque settable plug" on the end, and a handle.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 9 and 10 are also asserted and reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as the "Kravitch Tooling," also marketed as "Service Tee Tooling" and "No-Blowing-Gas Tooling" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Kravitch Tooling is a pressurized fluid line servicing tool assembly sold as individual products and in kits (Compl. ¶25). It is comprised of a tool insertion adaptor, a removal tool, and a plug setting tool (Compl. ¶33). The image provided in the complaint shows three distinct tool components intended to be used in combination. (Compl. ¶33, p. 6).
- The accused tooling is allegedly used for processes such as "abandonment, installation, and renewal" of service tee connections on pressurized fluid lines for customers that include gas and utility providers (Compl. ¶28). Defendant also allegedly provides training to customers on how to use the tooling (Compl. ¶26, ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’481 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a tool insertion adaptor, comprising: a fluid tight housing having a first end and a second end, the housing having an elongated interior defining a tool insertion chamber which is divided into an upstream portion and a downstream portion by a valve; a tool to housing coupling at the first end...; and a fluid line to housing coupling at the second end... | The Kravitch Tooling allegedly includes a "tool insertion adaptor" with a fluid tight housing, a tool insertion chamber divided into upstream and downstream portions, a coupling for tools at one end, and a coupling for a fluid line at the other end. An image in the complaint depicts this component with color-coded borders highlighting its features (Compl. ¶34, p. 6). | ¶34, ¶35 | col. 2:25-34 |
| a removal tool, comprising a removal tool housing having a removal tool to adaptor coupling...; a shaft having a first end and a second end, the shaft extending through and being axially movable relative to a sealed opening...; a removal wrench secured to the second end of the shaft; and a handle secured to the first end...providing means for imparting both axial and rotational movement to the shaft... | The accused tooling is alleged to include a removal tool with a housing, an adaptor coupling, a shaft that is both axially and rotationally movable, a removal wrench at one end, and a handle (or equivalent, such as a ratchet) at the other end to impart movement. An image with demonstrative arrows illustrates the alleged axial and rotational movement of the shaft (Compl. ¶37, p. 8). | ¶36, ¶37, ¶38, ¶39 | col. 2:34-37 |
| a plug setting tool, comprising: a setting tool housing having a setting tool to adaptor coupling...; an outer shaft...extending through and being axially movable...; an inner shaft...extending through the outer shaft, the inner shaft being rotatable relative to the outer shaft; a detachable torque settable plug secured to the second end of the inner shaft; and a handle secured to the first end of the inner shaft... | The accused tooling is alleged to include a plug setting tool with a housing, an axially and rotationally movable outer shaft, a rotatable inner shaft, a detachable plug, and a handle. An image in the complaint shows the alleged plug setting tool with a detachable plug secured to one end (Compl. ¶44, p. 10). | ¶41, ¶42, ¶43, ¶44 | col. 4:4-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a "handle or handle equivalent" of the removal tool provides means for imparting both axial and rotational movement (Compl. ¶40). A key evidentiary question may be whether the accused tool's handle mechanism, which the complaint suggests can be a standard wrench or ratchet (Compl. ¶39), performs the specific sequence of operations described in the claim.
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that Defendant's counsel, in a pre-suit communication, indicated a "willingness to provide further information demonstrating alleged differences between Defendant’s products and the tooling claimed by the ’481 Patent" (Compl. ¶18). This suggests the existence of a non-infringement theory that may turn on how key claim terms are construed and whether the accused product falls within that scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "removal wrench"
Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1. Its scope is central because the complaint alleges infringement by a "removal wrench secured to an end of the shaft" (Compl. ¶38), while dependent claim 10 separately claims a "detachable" wrench. The defendant may argue that the term "removal wrench" in claim 1, when read in light of the specification, implies a permanently affixed wrench, and that a tool with a detachable wrench (a feature of the accused tool, per the complaint's reading of claim 10) does not infringe claim 1. Practitioners may focus on whether the detachability feature is an optional addition (as claim 10 suggests) or a fundamental distinction.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 recites "a removal wrench secured to the second end of the shaft" without specifying the method of securement, which could be read to encompass both permanent and detachable connections (’481 Patent, col. 8:19-20). The separate dependent claim for a "detachable" wrench (claim 10) may suggest that the base term in claim 1 is broader and does not exclude detachability.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described for the original tool shows a "cap removal wrench 40" that appears to be integral with the shaft 42 (’481 Patent, Fig. 1). The patent later introduces a "modified version of cap removal tool having a detachable cap removal wrench" as a specific improvement (’481 Patent, col. 2:41-43; col. 6:29-31), which could support an argument that the unmodified term in claim 1 refers to the non-detachable embodiment.
The Term: "detachable torque settable plug"
Context and Importance: This term in claim 1 is critical for the plug setting tool limitation. The dispute may focus on the meaning of "torque settable." Does this require a specific mechanism that sets the plug at a pre-defined torque value, or does it simply mean a plug that is set into place by applying torque? The answer will define the scope of infringing plug mechanisms.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a calibrated torque-limiting feature. It requires a "detachable torque settable plug," and the operational description states the inner shaft is rotated "until the torque settable plug is set" (’481 Patent, col. 8:54-56). This could be interpreted broadly to mean any plug set by the application of rotational force (torque).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "torque settable" may imply a level of precision beyond simple tightening. The specification describes an operation where an inner shaft is rotated "while restraining [the outer] shaft...to expand plug 50" (’481 Patent, col. 5:4-6). A defendant could argue this implies a specific expansion mechanism tied to a torque application, distinguishing it from a simple threaded plug.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis is that Defendant sells the Kravitch Tooling to customers and "teaches them how to assemble and use different modes of the tooling to carry out the method" of servicing a pressurized fluid line as claimed in method claim 15 (Compl. ¶59). The complaint also alleges Defendant constructed a "training facility" for this purpose (Compl. ¶27).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’481 patent. The asserted timeline of knowledge begins with a trade show meeting in 2008 where "patent pending" products were discussed, followed by explicit notice of the ’481 patent via email in March 2022 and a formal cease and desist letter in June 2022 (Compl. ¶15, ¶16, ¶17, ¶51).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Given Defendant’s pre-suit assertion of "differences" between the products, the case will likely turn on the court's interpretation of terms like "removal wrench" and "detachable torque settable plug". Can the plaintiff establish a construction broad enough to read on the accused tool's specific features, or will the defendant succeed in arguing for a narrower scope based on the patent's embodiments?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: The complaint provides a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis supported by annotated photographs. The primary challenge for the plaintiff will be to substantiate these allegations with evidence proving that the accused Kravitch Tooling, as sold and used, meets every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the functional requirements for how the handles and shafts operate.
- The viability of the willfulness and inducement claims will depend on evidence of Defendant's state of mind. A core question will be whether Defendant's continued sales and training activities after receiving explicit notice of the ’481 patent in March 2022 constitute the specific intent required for inducement and the "wanton" conduct required for willfulness.