DCT

1:25-cv-01206

Truxedo Inc v. Rough Country LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01206, W.D. Tenn., 08/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the district and has placed the accused products into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase by consumers in the forum.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hard roll-up pickup truck bed covers infringe three patents related to the mechanical structure and operation of roll-up tonneau covers.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns hard-paneled tonneau covers for pickup trucks designed to be rolled into a compact cylinder for storage, aiming to combine the security of a rigid cover with the convenience of a soft roll-up cover.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff's parent company, RealTruck, Inc., which ceased in 2023. Plaintiff alleges that as part of that prior relationship, Defendant acknowledged its predecessor's ownership of intellectual property. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter regarding one of the asserted patents on February 11, 2025, and that Defendant’s response on April 25, 2025, referenced all three patents-in-suit. The complaint notes other pending patent litigation between Defendant and other RealTruck subsidiaries.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-10-14 Earliest Priority Date for ’388, ’833, and ’135 Patents
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,672,388 Issues
2015-12-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,211,833 Issues
2017-12-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,840,135 Issues
2023-01-01 Alleged cessation of business relationship
2025-02-11 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant
2025-04-25 Defendant responds to notice letter, allegedly establishing knowledge
2025-08-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,672,388 - “Hard Roll-Up Tonneau” (Issued Mar. 18, 2014)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for a hard tonneau cover that provides the security and protection absent in soft covers, but which can be more easily stowed than conventional single-piece or folding hard covers (’388 Patent, col. 1:40-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a tonneau cover constructed from a plurality of rigid, "hingeable members" that are pivotally connected. This segmented construction allows the hard cover to be rolled up from the tailgate toward the cab into a "generally circular cross-section" for storage, thereby revealing the truck bed (’388 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:8-15). The specific hinge mechanism is a key feature, comprising interlocking arcuate arms and channels that facilitate rotational movement between adjacent rigid sections (’388 Patent, col. 4:36-51).
  • Technical Importance: This design sought to merge the benefits of two distinct product categories: the durability and security of hard-shell tonneau covers with the operational convenience and low-profile storage of soft roll-up covers (’388 Patent, col. 4:10-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A side rail connectable to a pickup bed sidewall.
    • A plurality of hingeable members pivotally coupled to each other to form a continuous surface supported by the side rail.
    • The members are rollable into a "generally circular cross-section" that is "disposed substantially above said side rail."
    • At least one member is "selectively coupled" to the side rail.
    • The hinge coupling includes a "first arcuate arm" extending from one member that is received within an "arcuate channel" on an adjacent member "to provide rotational movement."

U.S. Patent No. 9,211,833 - “Hard Roll-Up Tonneau” (Issued Dec. 15, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’388 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of creating a secure, yet easily stowable, hard tonneau cover (’833 Patent, col. 1:41-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’833 Patent further details the construction of the rollable hard cover. It describes various embodiments for the hingeable connections between rigid slats, including the use of a "flexible hinge member" that connects adjacent sections via complementary channels (’833 Patent, col. 5:57-6:31; Fig. 5C). Another disclosed embodiment involves interlocking, nested "V-shaped sections" that provide alignment and structural reinforcement between the members (’833 Patent, col. 7:30-40; Fig. 5E).
  • Technical Importance: The specific hinge architectures described in this patent aim to enhance the performance, weather resistance, and manufacturing efficiency of hard roll-up tonneau systems (’833 Patent, col. 7:35-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A side rail connectable to a pickup bed sidewall.
    • A plurality of hingeable members pivotally coupled to each other to define a continuous surface.
    • The members are rollable from a rearward position to a forward position into a "generally circular cross-section" disposed "substantially above said side rail."
    • At least one of the hingeable members is "selectively coupled" to the side rail.

U.S. Patent No. 9,840,135 - “Hard Roll-Up Tonneau” (Issued Dec. 12, 2017)

Technology Synopsis

This patent, also in the same family, further refines the hard roll-up tonneau cover by claiming a specific cover assembly construction. The invention is defined as comprising a plurality of rigid slats and a plurality of separate hinge members that pivotally connect the slats, allowing the cover to be rolled from an extended, planar configuration into a rolled one for storage (’135 Patent, Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the fundamental architecture of the Rough Country Hard Roll Up Bed Cover, which allegedly uses rigid slats connected by hinge members to form a rollable surface, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Rough Country Hard Roll Up Bed Cover" and related products (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the Accused Products as pickup truck bed covers that compete with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 19). Based on the infringement allegations, the Accused Products are alleged to possess a segmented, rigid surface composed of multiple members or slats that are hinged together, allowing the cover to be rolled up to grant access to the truck bed (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 54, 65). The complaint alleges Defendant ceased a business relationship with Plaintiff's parent company and began sourcing these "competing products from a foreign supplier" (Compl. ¶19).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as Exhibits D, E, and F, but these exhibits were not available for review (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 44, 55, 66). The analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

’388 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’388 Patent (Compl. ¶43). This theory suggests the Accused Products not only have a rollable, multi-panel hard cover but also utilize a specific hinge mechanism that meets the claim limitation of a "first arcuate arm" on one member being received by an "arcuate channel" on an adjacent member to enable rotation.

’833 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’833 Patent (Compl. ¶54). This infringement theory appears broader than for the ’388 Patent, as Claim 1 of the ’833 Patent does not recite a specific hinge structure. The allegation is that the Accused Products meet the general structural and functional requirements of a tonneau system with side rails and a plurality of pivotally coupled hingeable members that can be rolled into a circular shape above the rails.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’388 Patent, a primary question will be whether the specific geometry of the accused hinge mechanism can be characterized as an "arcuate arm" fitting within an "arcuate channel." The interpretation of "generally circular cross-section" and "disposed substantially above said side rail" in both the ’388 and ’833 Patents may also be disputed, depending on the stowed configuration of the accused cover.
  • Technical Questions: What is the precise mechanical structure that connects the rigid slats in the Accused Products? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the accused hinge functions or how the cover "selectively couple[s]" to the side rail, key elements for assessing infringement of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "hinge member having a first arcuate arm ... and an arcuate channel" (’388 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the specific interlocking pivot mechanism that is a central feature of Claim 1 of the ’388 Patent. The infringement analysis for this patent will likely depend on whether the Defendant's hinge design falls within the scope of this language.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may point to the specification's general description of providing a "pivotable connection" and argue that "arcuate" should be interpreted functionally to mean any curved, interlocking components that permit rotation, not just the exact profiles shown (’388 Patent, col. 4:26-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower construction may cite the detailed descriptions and specific shapes illustrated in Figure 5A, which depict a distinct "inwardly turned hook-like portion" (62) fitting into a "complementary shaped receiving slot" (66), to argue the claim is limited to such structures (’388 Patent, col. 4:41-51).

Term 2: "rolled together into a generally circular cross-section" (’388 and ’833 Patents, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This limitation describes the required geometry of the cover in its stowed position. A dispute may arise if the accused product rolls into a shape that is arguably not "generally circular," such as an oval or an irregular coil.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "generally" suggests that a perfect circle is not required. Figure 4 in the patents depicts a rolled assembly that is coiled but not perfectly circular, which may support an interpretation that covers any compact, rolled-up shape (’833 Patent, Fig. 4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing argument could be that the term requires a shape that is substantially round, and that the patentee's choice of "circular" over other terms like "coiled" or "rolled" was intended to impart a specific geometric limitation (’833 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:60-62).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is premised on Defendant allegedly providing product manuals and installation instructions that encourage customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 47, 58, 69). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted for infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 60, 71).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. This knowledge is alleged to stem from Plaintiff's notice letter dated February 11, 2025, and Defendant’s subsequent response on April 25, 2025, which allegedly referenced all three patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 46, 57, 68). Plaintiff also points to a "pattern of infringement" evidenced by separate litigation and a prior ITC investigation involving Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the hinge mechanism in the Accused Product embody the specific "arcuate arm" and "arcuate channel" structure required by Claim 1 of the ’388 Patent, or does it only potentially infringe the broader, more general claim language of the ’833 and ’135 Patents?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: given the alleged prior business relationship and Defendant’s alleged acknowledgment of all three patents in its April 2025 letter, what actions, if any, did Defendant take to assess the risk of infringement? The answer will be central to Plaintiff's claim for enhanced damages.
  • The case may also present a question of definitional scope: can the phrase "generally circular cross-section," as described in the context of the patent figures, be construed to read on the specific stowed shape of the Accused Products? The resolution of this term could be dispositive for infringement of both the ’388 and ’833 patents.