Transtex LLC v. WABCO Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Transtex LLC (Indiana) and Transtex Composites Inc. (Quebec, Canada)
  • Defendant: WABCO Holdings Inc. (Delaware) and Laydon Composites Ltd. (Ontario, Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux LLP; Steptoe & Johnson LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00290, E.D. Tex., 04/11/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants transact business and have committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aerodynamic trailer skirts infringe eight patents related to the design, shape, and resilient mounting structures of such skirts.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns aerodynamic side skirts for tractor-trailers, which reduce air drag underneath the trailer to improve fuel efficiency and vehicle safety.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Laydon had actual notice of its infringing activities due to prior patent infringement litigation between the parties filed on March 21, 2012. The complaint also notes that five of the asserted patents survived ex parte reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, during which claims were amended or added and confirmed as patentable.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-29	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2010-07-06	U.S. Patent No. 7,748,772 Issues
2011-02-15	U.S. Patent No. 7,887,120 Issues
2011-05-17	U.S. Patent Nos. 7,942,467, 7,942,469, and 7,942,471 Issue
2012-03-21	Prior litigation filed between Transtex and Laydon
2012-10-23	U.S. Patent No. 8,292,351 Issues
2013-05-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,449,017 Issues
2013-06-27	U.S. Patent No. 7,748,772 Reexamination Certificate Issues
2013-06-30	U.S. Patent No. 7,942,467 Reexamination Certificate Issues
2013-08-01	U.S. Patent Nos. 7,942,469 and 7,942,471 Reexamination Certificates Issue
2013-08-12	U.S. Patent No. 7,887,120 Reexamination Certificate Issues
2014-03-25	U.S. Patent No. 8,678,474 Issues
2016-01-01	WABCO acquires Laydon (approximate date)
2017-04-11	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,748,772 - "Resilient Aerodynamic Trailer Skirts"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional trailer skirts and their mounting brackets are typically made of rigid materials. This makes them vulnerable to being permanently bent or broken when they contact road obstacles, which reduces their aerodynamic efficiency and increases maintenance costs (’772 Patent, col. 1:25-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an aerodynamic skirt assembly where both the skirt panel and its supporting struts are made of resilient materials. This design allows the entire assembly to bend or deflect significantly upon impact and then return to its original, aerodynamically optimal position, thereby preventing permanent damage (’772 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-6). Figure 13 of the patent illustrates this deflection capability.
• Technical Importance: By creating a durable, self-recovering skirt, the invention aimed to reduce the operational and maintenance costs associated with aerodynamic attachments, making fuel-saving technology more robust for the trucking industry (’772 Patent, col. 1:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13 (’772 Patent, as reexamined; Compl. ¶36).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (as amended during reexamination) include:
  • A resilient aerodynamic skirt with a skirt panel having a front portion and a rear portion.
  • The front portion is mounted "laterally proximally" (toward the trailer's center) and the rear portion is mounted "laterally distally" (away from the center).
  • The skirt panel defines a "curved portion" between the front and rear portions when mounted.
  • The skirt panel is adapted to bend away from its configuration upon impact and then recover.
  • The skirt comprises a "resilient strut" that secures the panel to the trailer.
  • The resilient strut is adapted to bend and sustain elastic deformation without breaking when the skirt panel bends both proximally (toward the trailer) and distally (away from the trailer), and to self-recover.

U.S. Patent No. 7,887,120 - "Aerodynamic Trailer Skirts"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’772 Patent, the invention addresses the damage susceptibility of rigid trailer skirts and seeks to provide a resilient, easily installable alternative (’120 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
• The Patented Solution: This invention describes an aerodynamic skirt system where the skirt panel is made from a "substantially planar material" that is intentionally "bent in an aerodynamic configuration when mounted on the trailer" (’120 Patent, col. 9:54-61). This installation process creates a stressed, curved shape. The panel is held in place by resilient struts that permit deflection upon impact, similar to the ’772 Patent (’120 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The design allows for the manufacturing and shipping of flat skirt panels, which are then formed into their final aerodynamic shape during installation, potentially simplifying manufacturing and logistics (’120 Patent, col. 9:54-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of the ’120 Patent, as reexamined (Compl. ¶46).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (as amended during reexamination) include:
  • An aerodynamic skirt comprising a skirt panel with a front portion and a rear portion.
  • The skirt panel is made of a "substantially planar material adapted to be bent" into its aerodynamic configuration when secured to the trailer's underside.
  • The skirt panel includes a "curved portion" between the front and rear portions when installed.
  • The installed skirt panel defines an air passage along the center of the trailer.
  • The panel is secured by a plurality of "resilient struts" adapted to bend from an original shape (both proximally and distally) and self-recover thereafter.

U.S. Patent No. 7,942,467 - "Aerodynamic Skirt Support Member"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses specifically on the structure of the support member, or "resilient strut," used to attach the aerodynamic skirt to the trailer. The strut is designed to sustain elastic deformation, allowing the skirt to bend upon impact and then return to its original position (Compl. ¶15; ’467 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: The "plurality of resilient struts" used in Defendants' TrailerSkirt® products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶28, ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 7,942,469 - "Aerodynamic Skirt Panel"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to the skirt panel itself, describing it as a single sheet of material that is resiliently secured to the trailer. The claims cover the panel's ability to move away from its aerodynamic configuration upon impact and then self-recover, enabled by the resilient struts (Compl. ¶16; ’469 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
• Accused Features: The overall skirt panel of the accused products, including its front, rear, and curved portions, is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶29, ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 7,942,471 - "Aerodynamic Skirt Shape"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a specific aerodynamic shape for the skirt panel where the "forward portion" has a "front height" that is "shorter than the rear height" of the rear portion. This tapered profile is part of the aerodynamic design (Compl. ¶17; ’471 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
• Accused Features: Defendants' trailer skirts are alleged to have a front portion with a shorter height than the rear portion (Compl. ¶30, ¶70). The complaint includes a photograph purporting to show this feature (Compl. p.10).

U.S. Patent No. 8,292,351 - "Resilient Strut for Aerodynamic Skirt"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an aerodynamic skirt assembly where both the skirt panel and its supporting resilient struts can sustain substantial elastic deformation and return to their original position after an impact. The claims focus on the combination of the panel and the resilient struts as a system (Compl. ¶18; ’351 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
• Accused Features: The combination of the skirt panels and "resilient struts" in Defendants' products, and their collective ability to deform and recover, is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶28, ¶33, ¶78).

U.S. Patent No. 8,449,017 - "Aerodynamic Skirt Resilient Member"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a "resilient strut" for an aerodynamic skirt that includes a "shape variation" designed to alter its mechanical strength and influence its flexibility. This allows the strut to bend under load and then self-recover (Compl. ¶19; ’017 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶86).
• Accused Features: The "resilient struts" of the accused products are alleged to be the infringing "resilient member" (Compl. ¶32, ¶86).

U.S. Patent No. 8,678,474 - "Self-repositioning Aerodynamic Skirt"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an aerodynamic skirt assembly where the skirt panel can "independently move away" from its original aerodynamic configuration due to an external force and then "self-recover" to that original configuration. The invention relies on resilient struts to enable this self-repositioning functionality (Compl. ¶20; ’474 Patent, cl. 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
• Accused Features: The alleged ability of the accused skirts to deform upon impact and return to their original position is the basis for infringement allegations against this patent (Compl. p.9, ¶94).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Laydon Composites Ltd.’s "TrailerSkirt®" brand trailer skirts (specifically, flat panel models TS248 and TS259, and wishbone style model TS225) and "substantially similar" trailer skirts marketed and sold by WABCO Holdings Inc. (Compl. ¶¶22-25, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are aerodynamic side skirts designed to be mounted to the underside of commercial trailers to improve fuel efficiency (Compl. ¶28, ¶33). The complaint alleges these skirts are constructed with "resilient struts" made of "high rubber," which provides "extreme durability and two way flexibility" (Compl. p.9). This construction allegedly allows the skirt panels to "sustain substantial elastic deformation when impacted by a foreign object" and subsequently return to their original position (Compl. p.9). A visual in the complaint depicts an accused skirt elastically deforming as a trailer turns a corner (Compl. p.9). The complaint notes that WABCO acquired Laydon in 2016 to increase its access to the North American market for these products (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,748,772 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as reexamined)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a skirt panel defining a front portion and a rear portion	Defendants' skirt panel includes a front portion and a rear portion.	¶28	col. 3:11-12
the front portion being adapted to be laterally proximally mounted... and the rear portion being adapted to be laterally distally mounted	The accused skirts include a front portion adapted to be laterally proximally mounted and a rear portion adapted to be laterally distally mounted.	¶29	col. 3:12-16
the skirt panel defining a curved portion between the front portion and the rear portion when mounted on the trailer	The accused skirts include a curved portion between the front and rear portions. The complaint provides a photograph of an accused skirt showing this feature.	¶29; p.10	col. 9:18-20
the skirt panel being adapted to bend away from the aerodynamic configuration when contacting a foreign object and to recover its aerodynamic configuration thereafter	The accused skirt panels can sustain substantial elastic deformation when impacted by an object (e.g., a curb) and return to the original position afterward.	p.9	col. 2:3-6
a resilient strut securing the skirt panel to the trailer, the resilient strut being adapted to bend and sustain an elastic deformation without breaking... and to self-recover	The accused skirts include resilient struts made of high rubber that allow flexing; they can sustain substantial elastic deformation and return to the original position.	¶28; p.9	col. 8:26-34

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "resilient strut," described in the patent's preferred embodiments as a composite material, can be construed to cover the accused "high rubber" struts (Compl. p.9). The analysis may focus on whether the accused rubber components perform the same function in the same way as the claimed composite structure.
• Technical Questions: The claim requires the strut to allow the panel to bend both "proximally toward a center of the trailer and distally away from the center of the trailer." The complaint alleges the accused rubberized strut "allows flexing in both directions" (Compl. ¶28, p.10), but the case may require evidence demonstrating that this functionality matches the specific bi-directional bending recited in the claim.

U.S. Patent No. 7,887,120 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as reexamined)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a skirt panel... made of a substantially planar material adapted to be bent in an aerodynamic configuration when mounted on the trailer	The complaint accuses "flat panel trailer skirts" (models TS248 and TS259) of infringement.	¶23; ¶46	col. 9:54-61
the skirt panel further including a curved portion between the front and rear portions when in the aerodynamic configuration	The accused skirts are alleged to include a curved portion between their front and rear portions when mounted.	¶29	col. 5:35-40
a plurality of resilient struts adapted (a) to bend from an original shape... and (b) to self-recover the original shape thereafter	The accused skirts' resilient struts are alleged to be made of "high rubber for extreme durability and two way flexibility," allowing them to sustain elastic deformation and return to their original position.	¶28; p.9	col. 1:16-20

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The claim recites a skirt panel "made of a substantially planar material adapted to be bent" into its configuration "when mounted." This raises the question of whether this limitation requires the panel to be flat prior to installation and stressed into its final shape as part of the mounting process. Infringement may depend on whether the accused "flat panel" products are installed in this manner or are, for instance, pre-molded into a curved shape before mounting.
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the manufacturing or installation process of the accused skirts. Discovery will be needed to determine if the accused panels are in fact "bent" into their aerodynamic shape during installation as the claim may require.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "resilient strut" (’772 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted claims of multiple patents-in-suit. Its construction will be critical because the accused products allegedly use struts made of "high rubber" (Compl. p.9), while the patent specifications heavily feature embodiments made of specific composite materials (’772 Patent, col. 8:26-31). The dispute will likely concern whether the claim term is limited by these embodiments or should be given a broader, purely functional definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating the strut is "made of a resilient material adapted to sustain significant deformation and adapted to resiliently regain its original position" (’772 Patent, col. 2:18-22). This language does not limit the material to composites.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the preferred embodiment repeatedly references a specific "reinforced thermoplastic manufactured by Transtex Composites Inc" and describes its specific properties, such as being "about 4 millimeters thick" (’772 Patent, col. 8:26-46). A defendant may argue these specific disclosures limit the scope of the term "resilient strut" to such composite structures.

The Term: "substantially planar material adapted to be bent in an aerodynamic configuration when mounted" (’120 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a process (bending a flat panel during installation) as a structural limitation. Infringement by the accused "flat panel trailer skirts" (Compl. ¶23) depends on whether they are manufactured and installed in a way that meets this "planar...bent...when mounted" requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language focuses on the material being "adapted to be bent," which could be interpreted as describing the inherent capability of the material, not strictly requiring that the bending act occurs during every installation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The shared specification describes the installation process as actively creating the final shape: "the skirt panel 32 is bent to reach the forward angle support 64 and secured thereto. That bent locates the skirt panel 32 to the road trailer 20 and defines the shape of the skirt panel 32" (’772 Patent, col. 6:65-col. 7:1). This may support an interpretation that the bending step during mounting is a required process limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Laydon provides assembly instructions for its products and attaches them as exhibits, which could provide a factual basis for a future claim of induced infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶31).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The primary basis for this allegation is prior patent litigation filed by Transtex against Laydon on March 21, 2012, which allegedly provided Laydon with actual notice of Transtex's patents and the allegedly infringing nature of its products (e.g., Compl. ¶¶41-42, 49-50, 57-58).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "resilient strut," which is described in the patents' preferred embodiments in the context of specific composite materials, be construed broadly enough to cover the "high rubber" struts used in the accused products?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of process versus structure: does claim 1 of the ’120 patent, which recites a panel made of "substantially planar material adapted to be bent...when mounted," require proof that the accused "flat panel" skirts are physically bent from a flat state during installation, or is it sufficient to show the panel is made of a material capable of being bent?
• A central legal question will be one of willfulness: given the prior litigation between the parties dating back to 2012, did Defendants act with objective recklessness by continuing to market and sell the accused products, potentially exposing them to enhanced damages?