DCT

1:25-cv-00046

Fecon LLC v. Tennessee Valley Equipment LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00046, M.D. Tenn., 06/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Tennessee because the Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aftermarket forestry mulcher teeth infringe three utility patents and two design patents related to specialized tool attachment interfaces, and further alleges trademark infringement.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical design of replaceable cutting tools used in heavy-duty land clearing equipment, focusing on the interface that secures the cutting tooth to a rotating drum.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on July 13, 2023, Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement regarding three of the five patents now asserted in this lawsuit (the D'124, D'195, and '094 Patents). This notice may form a basis for the willful infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-02-22 Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2016-05-24 U.S. Patent No. D757,124 Issues
2017-07-04 U.S. Patent No. D791,195 Issues
2018-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,943,037 Issues
2019-02-12 U.S. Patent No. 10,201,130 Issues
2020-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 10,806,094 Issues
2023-07-13 Plaintiff sends infringement notice to Defendant
2025-06-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,943,037 ("the '037 Patent") - "Land Preparation Tool", Issued April 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of securely fastening replaceable cutting tools to high-stress, high-vibration machinery like forestry mulchers. Such tools are subject to intense shock loading, which creates a risk of the fastening system loosening during operation ('130 Patent, col. 9:40-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a land preparation tool (a mulcher tooth) featuring a mounting surface with a non-planar, V-shaped profile. This V-shape is designed to mate with a corresponding inverse V-shape on a tool holder, creating an interference or friction fit that resists sliding and rotational forces more effectively than a simple flat-surface mount ('037 Patent, col. 7:29-35). The complaint includes Figures 4A and 4B from the patent, which show an exploded view of the tooth (66) and the corresponding adapter (62) to illustrate this V-shaped mating interface (Compl. ¶25).
  • Technical Importance: This V-shaped mounting interface provides a "locking advantage" by directing operational forces toward the center of the tool, thereby reducing the risk of the tool twisting or loosening from its holder under impact ('130 Patent, col. 9:39-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('037 Patent, col. 13:36-50; Compl. ¶51).
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A land preparation tool comprising a tool body with a longitudinal axis, a cutting surface, and an opposing mounting surface.
    • The mounting surface includes an "apex" extending along about half of its length, with first and second side mounting surfaces extending from the apex.
    • A first and second blade are positioned side-by-side on the same side as the cutting surface.
    • A channel is disposed into the mounting surface and extends into the tool body.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 10,201,130 ("the '130 Patent") - "Land Preparation Tool", Issued February 12, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related '037 Patent, the invention seeks to provide a robust and reliable method for attaching replaceable cutting teeth to land clearing equipment ('130 Patent, col. 1:19-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The '130 Patent, which is a continuation of the '037 Patent's application family, also claims a tool with a V-shaped mounting surface defined by an apex and two extending surfaces. It further specifies that the mounting surface includes a "recess" and that a "channel" extends from this recess "only partially into the tool body," explicitly defining a non-through-hole for a securing bolt ('130 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:58-67).
  • Technical Importance: This design combines the rotational stability of the V-shaped friction fit with a dedicated recess and blind channel for positive mechanical locking via a fastener, offering a multi-faceted approach to securing the tool ('130 Patent, col. 9:14-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('130 Patent, col. 13:46-61; Compl. ¶60).
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A land preparation tool comprising a tool body with a longitudinal axis, a cutting surface with blades at its distal end, and an opposing mounting surface.
    • The mounting surface includes an "apex" extending along about half its length, first and second mounting surfaces extending from the apex, and a "recess" disposed into the mounting surface.
    • A channel extends from the recess "only partially into the tool body."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. D757,124 ("D'124 Patent") - "Land Clearing Tool Interface", Issued May 24, 2016

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D757,124, "Land Clearing Tool Interface", Issued May 24, 2016 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a land clearing tool interface, protecting its visual appearance as depicted in the patent's figures (D'124 Patent, Claim).
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents have a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶31).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of Defendant's "V-Back" Infringing Teeth is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶¶27, 32-33).

U.S. Patent No. D791,195 ("D'195 Patent") - "Land Clearing Tool Interface", Issued July 4, 2017

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D791,195, "Land Clearing Tool Interface", Issued July 4, 2017 (Compl. ¶10).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the same design application family as the D'124 Patent, claims the ornamental design for a land clearing tool interface (D'195 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data).
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the visual design of the Infringing Teeth infringes the D'195 patent (Compl. ¶¶27, 41-42).

U.S. Patent No. 10,806,094 ("'094 Patent") - "Land Preparation Tool", Issued October 20, 2020

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,806,094, "Land Preparation Tool", Issued October 20, 2020 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This utility patent, part of the same family as the '037 and '130 patents, claims a land preparation tool with a specific mounting interface geometry. The invention involves a tool body with mounting surfaces that angle inwardly from the side surfaces and an opening located between these mounting surfaces ('094 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶68-69).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Infringing Teeth infringe by incorporating the claimed mounting interface features (Compl. ¶¶27, 68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are "aftermarket replacement teeth for mulchers," specifically those with a "V-Back design" intended to replace genuine Fecon teeth (Compl. ¶27). The complaint collectively refers to these as the "Infringing Teeth" (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these teeth are designed to be attached to adapters on a mulcher's rotating drum, where they perform the primary cutting and grinding of vegetation and other materials (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 27). Plaintiff Fecon is described as an "industry leader in forestry mulching attachments" and sells its own line of teeth, such as the "FGT Samurai Knife" depicted in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶19, 22). The complaint alleges that Defendant's products are sold as direct replacements for Fecon's, competing in the same aftermarket space (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, exemplary claim charts. As the exhibits containing the charts were not provided with the complaint, the infringement theories are summarized below in prose based on the complaint’s narrative allegations.

'037 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's "Infringing Teeth" directly infringe at least claim 1 of the '037 Patent (Compl. ¶50). The infringement theory is that the "V-Back design" of the accused teeth embodies the patented technology (Compl. ¶27). This includes having a tool body, a cutting surface, and a mounting surface with the claimed V-shaped geometry, including an "apex" and extending side surfaces (Compl. ¶26; '037 Patent, cl. 1). The complaint further alleges the accused teeth include the claimed blades and a channel for a securing bolt, thereby meeting all limitations of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶¶50-51). To illustrate the allegedly copied technology, the complaint presents Figures 4A and 4B from the patent, showing the tooth and its V-shaped mating interface (Compl. ¶25).

'130 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Infringing Teeth also directly infringe at least claim 1 of the '130 Patent (Compl. ¶59). The theory is based on the same "V-Back" design, which allegedly includes the key limitations of claim 1 of the '130 Patent: a tool body with blades, a V-shaped mounting surface with an apex, a "recess" in that surface, and a channel that extends "only partially" into the tool body from that recess ('130 Patent, cl. 1; Compl. ¶¶59-60).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the construction of "apex extending along about half of the mounting surface." The parties may contest whether the specific geometry and dimensions of the accused product's V-shaped interface fall within the scope of this limitation as defined in the patent specification and prosecution history.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question for the '130 Patent will be whether the channel in the accused teeth is a through-hole or a blind hole. The claim requires the channel to extend "only partially into the tool body," so evidence that the channel passes completely through the accused product could be a basis for a non-infringement argument as to that specific patent ('130 Patent, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "apex" (in claim 1 of the '037 Patent and claim 1 of the '130 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the V-shaped mounting interface that distinguishes the invention. Its definition will determine the precise geometry required for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue for a narrow definition requiring a sharp, distinct line, while Plaintiff may argue for a broader definition covering the region where surfaces meet, even if rounded.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification, when describing the apex, refers to it as a "joined surface region," which may support a construction that is not limited to a sharp, geometric line ('037 Patent, col. 6:52-53).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent drawings, such as element 1002 in Figure 4B, depict the apex as a relatively clear line formed at the junction of two distinct surfaces (1004, 1006), which may support a narrower construction requiring a more defined edge ('037 Patent, Fig. 4B).

The Term: "extending... only partially into the tool body" (in claim 1 of the '130 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is present in the '130 Patent but not the '037 Patent, creating a potential distinction in scope between the two patents. The infringement analysis for the '130 Patent will depend critically on whether the accused product's channel is a blind hole (stops within the body) or a through-hole.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim, with the explicit modifier "only partially," provides strong evidence that the channel must terminate within the tool body and cannot extend completely through it ('130 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "partially" could be construed in the context of the overall tool body length or depth, but the presence of the word "only" makes a significantly broader interpretation less probable. The primary contrast is with the '037 Patent, whose corresponding claim lacks this "only partially" limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. The factual basis asserted is that Defendant provides "oral and/or written instructions to end users" and encourages customers to use the Infringing Teeth with compatible Fecon equipment, with the specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶35, 44, 53, 62, 71).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. For the D'124, D'195, and '094 patents, the allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge derived from a written notice letter sent to Defendant on July 13, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶34, 43, 70). For the '037 and '130 patents, the allegation is based on knowledge acquired "at least as early as the filing of this complaint," suggesting a theory of post-filing willfulness for those two patents (Compl. ¶¶52, 61).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "apex," described in the specification as a "joined surface region," be construed broadly enough to read on the specific geometry of the Defendant's "V-Back" products, or will the court adopt a narrower construction requiring a more defined edge that the accused products may not possess?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional distinction: Does the channel in the accused teeth extend "only partially into the tool body," as required by claim 1 of the '130 Patent, or is it a through-hole? The answer will be fact-dependent and could create a scenario where the product is found to infringe one patent but not another.
  • A central question for damages will be the timing of knowledge for willfulness: Can Plaintiff establish that Defendant's alleged infringement was willful, particularly for the '037 and '130 patents, for which pre-suit knowledge is not alleged? The effect of the July 2023 notice letter on the willfulness claims for the other three patents will likely be a significant point of contention.