DCT

1:24-cv-01093

UnderCover Inc v. Rough Country LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01093, W.D. Tenn., 04/25/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Tennessee and having committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Hard Tri-Fold Flip Up Bed Cover" products infringe three patents related to the design and construction of foldable tonneau covers for pickup trucks.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-panel, foldable covers for pickup truck cargo beds, which are designed to provide security, weather protection, and improved vehicle aerodynamics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship between the parties, which ceased in 2023, after which Defendant allegedly began selling the accused products sourced from a different supplier. Plaintiffs also allege sending notice letters to Defendant regarding the asserted patents on January 30, 2024. The complaint notes a prior, unrelated ITC investigation involving Defendant that resulted in a consent order, presented as evidence of a "pattern of infringement."

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-09-29 Earliest Priority Date for ’264 and ’224 Patents
2009-05-26 ’264 Patent Issued
2014-04-08 ’224 Patent Issued
~2015 Alleged business relationship between parties commences
2016-06-28 Priority Date for ’358 Patent
2017-11-14 ’358 Patent Issued
2023 Alleged business relationship between parties ceases
2024-01-30 Plaintiffs allegedly send notice letters to Defendant
2024-04-25 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,815,358 - "Foldable Tonneau Cover with an Extruded Forward Section," issued November 14, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional tonneau covers where the forward-most panel, which supports the weight of the other panels when folded, is made of a polymeric foam surrounded by a metal frame. This construction can lead to seal breakdown and water leakage, particularly along the rear frame element, due to the stress of supporting the folded stack (’358 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes replacing the multi-component forward section with a "unitary extruded panel." This single, integrated component is designed to distribute the weight of the folded panels more effectively, enhancing durability and reducing potential failure points. The extruded panel features an upper wall and a lower wall, which can define internal channels and be reinforced with internal ribs, creating a strong yet lightweight structure (’358 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to improve the structural integrity and water resistance of a foldable cover by strengthening its most critical load-bearing section, while also simplifying the manufacturing process and reducing the number of components (’358 Patent, col. 6:7-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A tonneau cover with a forward section and rear sections.
    • The rear sections are foldable into a stack and have a "multi-component construction" including a central panel and frame members.
    • The forward section is mountable to the cargo box and pivotably coupled to a rear section to support the stack.
    • The forward section is formed of a "unitary extruded panel" with a "single-component construction" between its front and rear edges, having an upper and lower wall member, with the lower member at least partially defining a channel.

U.S. Patent No. 8,690,224 - "Pick-Up Truck Box Cover," issued April 8, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies common issues with truck bed covers, including difficulty of installation, water leakage, lack of security, and inconvenient access to the cargo area (’224 Patent, col. 1:26-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a complete cover assembly that includes multiple foldable panels connected by hinge strips, a set of side rails that attach to the truck bed to support the panels, and a latching system. A key feature is a "holding element" that connects the cover to a side rail to prop the folded panels in an upright position, allowing full access to the bed. The side rails are designed with specific profiles, including a "panel support" that is offset from the truck's own bed rails, to ensure a flush fit and proper drainage (’224 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides an integrated kit for a foldable tonneau cover system that is designed to be self-aligning, weather-resistant, secure, and highly functional by allowing the cover to be held open without being removed (’224 Patent, col. 7:20-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A cover assembly with first and second side rails attachable to a truck's box rails.
    • A cover with pivotally attached panels supported on the side rails.
    • The side rails have a "panel support joined to a clamp plate," with the panel support located below and "offset inwardly from, and not overlying," the truck's box rails.
    • A "first holding element" with one end attachable to a "bottom surface of the front panel" and a second end attachable to the "first side rail," for holding the cover in a folded upright position.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,537,264 - "Pick-Up Truck Box Cover," issued May 26, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, the parent of the ’224 Patent, addresses similar problems of water leakage, security, and ease of installation for tonneau covers (’264 Patent, col. 1:5-29). It discloses a cover assembly comprising multiple panels connected by resilient hinge strips, side rails for mounting to the truck, and a "slam latch assembly" with plungers that engage latch channels in the side rails to secure the panels (’264 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-62).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 16, 18, and 25; claim 16 is independent (Compl. ¶66).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe by incorporating a foldable, multi-panel cover supported by side rails that include a "panel support" and are attached to the truck bed (Compl. ¶¶66, 31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Rough Country Hard Tri-Fold Flip Up Bed Cover" series of truck bed covers (Compl. ¶31).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused products are foldable, multi-panel tonneau covers designed to be installed on pickup trucks to secure the cargo bed (Compl. ¶5). The name "Hard Tri-Fold Flip Up Bed Cover" suggests a three-panel design that can be folded and propped open. The complaint alleges that after a prior business relationship ended, Defendant sourced the Accused Product from a new supplier and began selling it in 2023 (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, F) that detail the infringement allegations; however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint and are not available for analysis (Compl. ¶¶45, 56, 67). The infringement theory is summarized below based on the narrative allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’358 Patent:
      • Technical Question: A central factual dispute may be whether the forward section of the Accused Product is constructed from a "unitary extruded panel" as claimed, or from a conventional multi-part assembly of a frame and a separate panel insert. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs previously pitched a cover with "nearly identical components" to Defendant, which may be used to argue Defendant's awareness of this specific construction (Compl. ¶20).
      • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the definition of "unitary" and "single-component construction." A court may need to determine if this requires a monolithic piece of extruded material or if some minor, non-structural additions are permissible.
    • ’224 Patent:
      • Technical Question: The complaint's theory requires the Accused Product to possess a "first holding element" that connects the "bottom surface of the front panel" to the "first side rail" for upright support. Evidence will be needed to show that the accused device has a component that meets these specific structural and connectional requirements.
      • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention is the geometric relationship of the side rails. The claim requires a "panel support" that is "offset inwardly from, and not overlying, the first and second box rails." This precise spatial arrangement will likely be a focus of claim construction and infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’358 Patent:

  • The Term: "unitary extruded panel"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core structural innovation of the patent. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused forward section is a single extruded piece, as this feature is what distinguishes the invention from the prior art foam-and-frame construction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the invention as an "integral extruded panel," which could suggest the key is its single-piece nature rather than a specific internal geometry (’358 Patent, col. 6:3-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show the "extruded panel 52" as having a specific cross-section with an upper wall, a lower wall, internal ribs, and channels. A defendant might argue the term should be limited to a panel incorporating these disclosed structural features (’358 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 4:6-10).

For the ’224 Patent:

  • The Term: "first holding element"
  • Context and Importance: This element is critical to the "flip up" function of the claimed cover. The claim recites specific attachment points (bottom of front panel to side rail). The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product has a component that performs the holding function and is connected in the specific manner required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family specification (incorporated by reference) describes this component as a "compression spring element, such as an air cylinder," which may suggest functional breadth (’264 Patent, col. 5:4-11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, defining the element by its connection points: "a first end attachable to a bottom surface of the front panel, and a second end attachable to the first side rail." Practitioners may focus on this term because any accused component that connects at different points (e.g., panel-to-panel) or lacks a direct connection to the side rail may fall outside the literal scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's product manuals, website, installation instructions, and customer support, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶32, 48, 59, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is supported by allegations of both pre- and post-notice knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-notice knowledge stemming from the parties' prior business relationship, during which Defendant allegedly "expressly acknowledged" the intellectual property rights of Plaintiffs' predecessor (Compl. ¶20). It also alleges knowledge from at least the date of formal notice letters sent on January 30, 2024 (Compl. ¶33).

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

  • A core issue for the ’358 patent will be one of structural identity: does the forward panel of the Accused Product embody the "unitary extruded panel" construction of claim 1, or is it a structurally distinct, multi-component assembly that falls outside the patent’s scope?
  • A key evidentiary question for the ’224 patent will be one of component correspondence: does the Accused Product contain a discrete "holding element" that connects the front panel directly to the side rail to hold the cover upright, as strictly defined by claim 1, or does it achieve this function through a structurally different mechanism?
  • A central question for willfulness will concern the impact of the parties' prior relationship: can the evidence of the former supply agreement and Defendant's alleged acknowledgment of Plaintiffs' IP rights establish the requisite knowledge and intent for a finding of deliberate infringement?