Surti v. Fleet Engineers Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tarun N. Surti (Tennessee), proceeding Pro Se
  • Defendant: Fleet Engineers, Inc., Division of Tramec Sloan (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-0122, M.D. Tenn., 02/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly committing acts of infringement within the district and Plaintiff residing in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s newly designed Aero-Flap brand mud flaps infringe a reissued U.S. patent related to aerodynamic mud flaps, constituting a continuation of infringing activity previously adjudicated between the same parties.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns aerodynamic mud flaps for large commercial vehicles, which are designed to reduce water spray while minimizing aerodynamic drag to improve fuel efficiency.
• Key Procedural History: This lawsuit follows extensive prior litigation between the same parties over the same patent. In the prior case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court judgment that found the patent valid and infringed by Defendant’s earlier products. The current complaint alleges that Defendant's "newly designed" products continue to infringe the patent willfully.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-09-02	’755 Patent Priority Date
2010-05-19	Fleet Engineers confirms its patent attorney is evaluating Plaintiff's design
2012-04-03	Original U.S. Patent No. 8,146,949 issues
2014-02-11	U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 44,755 issues
2017-06-08	District court upholds validity of '755 Patent claims in prior litigation
2019-02-25	CAFC affirms validity ruling in prior litigation
2021-10-19	District court finds infringement and awards damages in prior litigation
2023-08-15	CAFC affirms infringement judgment in prior litigation
2025-02-03	Complaint filed

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 44,755 - "Mudflap"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 44,755, "Mudflap", issued February 11, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the shortcomings of conventional solid rubber mud flaps on large vehicles, which create significant wind resistance and can be pushed into a less effective position by airflow, reducing vehicle efficiency. It also notes that prior attempts to create lighter, air-permeable flaps could still deflect water and debris sideways into the path of other vehicles (’755 Patent, col. 1:11-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mud flap with a series of vertically extending channels on its forward-facing side. These channels are designed to capture and direct water and debris downward toward the road. The rear walls of these channels contain vertically oriented slots that are sized to allow air to pass through the flap, reducing aerodynamic drag, while being narrow enough to block the passage of most water and debris. This structure aims to separate the air from the water spray, managing both problems simultaneously (’755 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-55; Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: The design represents an effort to create a mud flap that improves both safety, by controlling water spray, and fuel economy, by reducing drag, a combination of significant value in the commercial trucking industry (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint specifically asserts independent claim 19 (’755 Patent, col. 10:17-29; Compl. ¶23).
• The essential elements of independent claim 19 include:
  • A mudflap with a plurality of laterally spaced channels on its front side.
  • The channels have rear walls and spaced sidewalls.
  • The rear walls have slots that extend through them.
  • The slots have side edges that are spaced away from the channel sidewalls.
  • The structure is configured such that water flowing along the channel sidewalls strikes the rear walls at the slots' side edges and is deflected by those side edges.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, stating Defendant infringes "one or more claims of the ’755 Patent" (Compl. ¶43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant's "newly developed Aero-Flap brand mud flaps," identified by part numbers 033-0850, 033-08002, and 033-08004 (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products incorporate the patented "two-stage separation system" to permit air passage while preventing water and debris from passing through (Compl. ¶21-22). The complaint includes images of the accused products, which depict mud flaps with prominent vertical channels. Figure 1 of the complaint shows the Aero-Flap P/N 033-08050, illustrating the surface geometry of the accused device (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges these products are sold through distributors such as FleetPride and used by customers including FirstFleet, Inc., indicating ongoing commercial activity (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 19. The following chart summarizes the apparent correspondence between the claim elements and the accused product, based on the complaint’s allegations and visual evidence.

RE 44,755 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A mudflap for a vehicle comprising a vertically extending flap mounted at an upper edge behind a vehicle wheel and extending downwardly therefrom...	The accused Aero-Flap products are mud flaps designed for vehicle mounting.	¶23	col. 1:4-7
...the flap comprising a plurality of laterally spaced channels on a front side thereof...	The accused Aero-Flaps have vertical channels on their surface, as depicted in the complaint’s figures.	¶21, p. 6	col. 2:22-24
...the channels having rear walls at the rear sides of the channels and spaced sidewalls at the sides of the channels...	This structure is alleged to be part of the accused product’s channel design.	¶21, p. 6	col. 2:22-34
...the rear walls having slots formed therein that extend through the rear walls of the channels...	The patented invention is described as having openings to permit air passage, a feature allegedly incorporated into the accused products.	¶21-22	col. 2:44-45
...the slots having side edges that are spaced away from the sidewalls of the channels...	The accused products are alleged to infringe the claim containing this structural limitation.	¶23, p. 6	col. 2:40-55
...such that water flowing rearwardly through the mudflap along the channel sidewalls strikes the rear walls of the channels at the side edges and is deflected by the side edges.	The accused products are alleged to operate in a manner that stops and redirects water toward the ground.	¶21, ¶23	col. 3:9-14

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The final limitation of Claim 19, which functionally defines how water is "deflected by the side edges" of the slots, was added during the patent's reissue process. A central dispute may be whether the "newly designed" accused products, while structurally similar, were specifically engineered to operate in a way that falls outside the scope of this functional language.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide technical evidence (e.g., fluid dynamics analysis, high-speed video) demonstrating that the accused products actually perform the water deflection function precisely as recited in the claim. The case may require expert testimony to establish whether water striking the accused product is, in fact, "deflected by the side edges" of the slots as the claim requires.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "deflected by the side edges"

Context and Importance

This functional language appears in the final clause of Claim 19 and is central to the infringement analysis. Because the lawsuit concerns a "newly designed" product following a prior infringement judgment, practitioners may focus on this term as the likely locus of a design-around attempt. The definition will determine whether a subtle change in the accused product's structure is sufficient to avoid infringement.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that any interaction where water hits the vertical edge of a slot and changes direction satisfies this limitation, consistent with the patent's general objective of directing water "in a downward direction toward the ground" (’755 Patent, col. 1:43-45).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term implies a specific mechanism of deflection tied to the geometry shown in the patent's figures. They might also point to descriptions in the specification, such as where water and debris "stop and then flow in a downward direction" after striking the rear walls, to argue that simple blockage is distinct from the specific "deflection by the side edges" required by the claim (’755 Patent, col. 3:9-11).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant supplies the Aero-Flaps to distributors and customers (e.g., FleetPride, FirstFleet) with knowledge that these products infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33, 51-52). It further alleges inducement against third-party vendors (Viking Tool & Engineering, HS Inc.) for manufacturing molds used to make the infringing products, claiming these vendors were given actual knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 39-41).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is a central theme of the complaint. The allegations are based on Defendant's extensive history of litigation over the same patent, which resulted in a CAFC-affirmed judgment of infringement. The complaint alleges that despite this history and its established knowledge of the ’755 Patent, Defendant "created new molds" and continued to manufacture and sell newly designed but still-infringing products (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 29, 31, 48).

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

• A core issue will be one of design-around effectiveness: The prior litigation established the validity and infringement of the ’755 Patent. The central question for the court will be whether the Defendant's "newly designed" Aero-Flap products are legally distinct from the previously adjudicated products and successfully avoid at least one limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the specific functional requirements of Claim 19.
• A key legal question will concern claim scope: The infringement analysis will likely turn on the construction of the phrase "deflected by the side edges," language that was added during patent reissue. The court’s interpretation of this functional limitation will determine whether the operation of the redesigned accused product falls within the patent’s scope.
• An overarching theme will be willfulness: Given the extensive litigation history, if infringement is found, a key focus will be whether Defendant's conduct in creating and selling a "newly designed" product constitutes willful infringement, which could expose it to enhanced damages.