DCT
2:24-cv-00691
Buckingham Mfg Co Inc v. Bashlin Industries Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Buckingham Mfg Co Inc (New York)
- Defendant: Bashlin Industries Inc (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00691, W.D. Pa., 05/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Pennsylvania and transacts business, solicits business, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s safety climbing belt infringes a patent related to an adjustable body belt assembly for linemen and other workers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns work positioning and fall protection equipment, specifically body belts used by linemen in the electric, telecommunications, and arborist markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a cease-and-desist letter on August 4, 2023, approximately nine months before filing suit. This allegation forms the basis for the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-02-28 | Earliest Priority Date ('303 Patent) |
| 2023-06-20 | U.S. Patent No. 11,679,303 Issues |
| 2023-08-04 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2024-05-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,679,303 - “Adjustable Body Belt Having D-Rings/Attachments”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,679,303, issued June 20, 2023 (’303 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional safety body belts for linemen as having certain drawbacks. These include an inability to achieve a precise fit due to fixed-space apertures for buckles and the crowding of ancillary safety equipment on a single pair of D-rings, which can complicate use. (’303 Patent, col. 2:7-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an improved body belt that incorporates an "adjustability section" into the "D-piece"—the component that holds the D-ring attachment points. This section is configured to change the effective length of the D-piece itself, thereby altering the distance between the D-rings to allow for a more customizable and secure fit. (’303 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:39-44). The design distinguishes between the main "belt strap" that encircles the user and the separate "D-piece" where the adjustment occurs.
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to enhance worker safety and convenience by providing a more precise fit than traditional belts and by potentially alleviating the operational difficulties associated with attaching multiple tools and safety lines to limited connection points. (’303 Patent, col. 1:55-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1:
- A body belt assembly with a body portion and a surface.
- A "belt strap" connected to the body portion, with a first end terminating in a buckle.
- A "D-piece" also connected to the body portion.
- First and second D-rings positioned at the ends of the D-piece.
- An "adjustability section" located on the D-piece, between the D-rings, which is "configured to change an effective length of the D-piece" to alter the distance between the D-rings.
- The "belt strap" extends through the first and second D-rings.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 and expressly reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "88FFX4D Flex-Fit Climbing Belt" product ("Accused Product"). (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a climbing belt marketed for its adjustability. (Compl. ¶15). According to marketing materials cited in the complaint, its "innovative design allows this belt to be adjusted to fit three different D-sizes" and "lets the user quickly adjust the belt to accommodate heavier clothing in inclement weather or for changes in the user’s weight over time." (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes an image from Defendant's website showing the product available for purchase. (Compl. ¶15, p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides annotated images to map elements of the Accused Product to the limitations of the asserted claims.
’303 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body portion comprising a surface | The Accused Product is alleged to include a body portion with a surface, as depicted in an annotated product image. An image shows the padded back support of the belt identified as the "body portion." (Compl. p. 6). | ¶17 | col. 11:26-26 |
| a belt strap connected to the surface of the body portion and extending between a first end terminating in a buckle and a second end | The Accused Product allegedly has a "belt strap" with a "buckle" at its "first end" and a "second end," as shown in an annotated photograph. (Compl. p. 6). | ¶18 | col. 11:27-30 |
| a D-piece connected to the surface of the body portion and extending between a first end and a second end | The Accused Product is alleged to have a separate component identified as a "D-piece" that is connected to the body portion and has two ends. An annotated image distinguishes this piece from the main belt strap. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶19 | col. 11:31-32 |
| a first D-ring positioned at the first end of the D-piece and a second D-ring positioned at the second end of the D-piece... | The Accused Product is alleged to have D-rings located at the ends of the component identified as the D-piece. | ¶20 | col. 11:33-35 |
| ...the D-piece further comprising an adjustability section positioned between the first and second ends of the D-piece and configured to change an effective length... | The complaint points to a feature on the Accused Product, labeled "Adjustability section," located between the D-rings on the D-piece. This section is alleged to be configured to alter the distance between the D-rings. (Compl. p. 8). | ¶20 | col. 11:35-39 |
| and wherein the belt strap extends through the first and second primary D-rings | An annotated image in the complaint purports to show the "Belt strap" passing through the "First D-ring" and "Second D-ring" of the Accused Product. (Compl. p. 8). | ¶20 | col. 11:39-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Accused Product's architecture embodies the claimed distinction between the "belt strap" and the "D-piece". The case may turn on whether the accused component identified as the "D-piece" is a structurally distinct element from the "belt strap," as the claim language appears to require.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the functionality of the accused "Adjustability section." The key question will be whether the mechanism that "allows this belt to be adjusted to fit three different D-sizes" (Compl. ¶15) operates by "chang[ing] an effective length of the D-piece," as specifically required by the claim, or if it achieves adjustment through a different, unclaimed technical method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "D-piece"
- Context and Importance: The claim structure defines the "D-piece" and the "belt strap" as two separate but connected components. The "adjustability section" is recited as a feature of the "D-piece", not the "belt strap". Therefore, establishing that the Accused Product contains a distinct "D-piece" is foundational to the infringement read. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the two claimed components are separately identifiable in the Accused Product or if they are integrated in a way that falls outside the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the D-piece simply as being "connected to the primary belt strap and extending along the first major axis." (’303 Patent, col. 2:34-36). This could support a reading that covers any secondary strap-like structure holding the D-rings.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the D-piece (e.g., 303 in FIG. 3) as a discrete component to which the D-rings are affixed, separate from the primary belt strap (302) that contains the main buckle (308). (’303 Patent, FIG. 3). This could support a narrower construction requiring a clearly demarcated, separate structural element.
The Term: "adjustability section ... configured to change an effective length of the D-piece"
- Context and Importance: This limitation captures the core inventive concept. Infringement will depend on whether the accused feature is structurally "configured to" perform this specific function on this specific component ("D-piece"). A dispute may arise over whether the accused adjustment mechanism, which is marketed as fitting different "D-sizes," actually works by altering the D-piece's length.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses broad functional language ("configured to change an effective length"). This could support a reading that encompasses any mechanism that achieves the stated result of altering the distance between the D-rings by acting on the D-piece.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of adjustability sections, such as a buckle assembly with webbing that can be passed back through a friction bar. (’303 Patent, col. 9:6-13; FIGS. 11A-B). A party could argue the term should be limited to these or structurally similar mechanisms.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The prayer for relief seeks judgment for inducing infringement. (Compl. ¶(b), p. 14). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations detailing acts of inducement, such as evidence of instructions or advertisements that encourage an infringing use. The allegations focus on Defendant's own acts of making and selling.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having "notice and actual knowledge of the '303 Patent and its infringement thereof at least as early as August 4, 2023, via a cease-and-desist letter from Plaintiff Buckingham." (Compl. ¶42). It is alleged that Defendant's continued infringement after this date has been knowing, intentional, and in disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights. (Compl. ¶42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural definition: Does the Accused Product contain both a "belt strap" and a distinct "D-piece" as separate components, or are these elements integrated in a manner that falls outside the scope of Claim 1? The court's interpretation of these terms will be critical.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused "Flex-Fit" mechanism, which allegedly adjusts the belt for different D-sizes, operate by changing the "effective length of the D-piece" itself, or does it achieve adjustability through an alternative technical means not covered by the claim language? The answer will likely require technical evidence beyond the marketing materials cited in the complaint.