Banks Morrison Innovations LLC v. General Motors LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Banks Morrison Innovations, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: General Motors LLC (Delaware); Beaumont Motor Company (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.; Miller Fair Henry PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00422, E.D. Tex., 04/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants’ alleged regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including a GM facility in Roanoke and Beaumont Motor Company's principal place of business in Beaumont, as well as the occurrence of infringing acts within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ pickup trucks equipped with "MultiPro" or "Multi-Flex" tailgates, along with associated accessory deactivation kits, infringe three patents directed to systems for preventing the tailgate from being damaged by a collision with an attached trailer hitch.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a known operational issue with modern multi-panel pickup truck tailgates, which can be damaged when their inner panel is lowered while a trailer hitch is installed in the vehicle's receiver.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously engaged in settlement negotiations with Lippert Components, Inc. and Curt Manufacturing ("Lippert/Curt"), a third-party supplier to GM, resulting in a settlement agreement on December 29, 2023. Plaintiff asserts this agreement does not license the specific "GM Infringing Products" that are the subject of the current suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-09-01	Approx. launch of GM MultiPro Tailgate on 2019 GMC Sierra
2019-09-06	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents ('878 Provisional)
2019-10-01	Plaintiff (BMI) introduces first "Tailgate-Fix" product to market
2019-11-18	Alleged purchase of Plaintiff's product by a Curt engineer
2020-12-10	Approx. date Curt began marketing its own deactivation product
2021-11-02	U.S. Patent No. 11,161,555 Issued
2023-07-18	U.S. Patent No. 11,702,148 Issued
2023-12-29	Plaintiff settles claims with Lippert/Curt
2025-03-04	U.S. Patent No. 12,240,533 Issued
2025-04-18	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,161,555 - "Tailgate Deactivation System," issued Nov. 2, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem where vehicle tailgates capable of pivoting below the vehicle bed can collide with and be damaged by a towing apparatus, such as a trailer hitch, attached to the vehicle (’555 Patent, col. 1:13-16; Compl. ¶31). The complaint highlights this issue with a warning from a GM owner's manual. (Compl. ¶32, Fig. 4-1).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a deactivation system that automatically interrupts the electrical power supply to the tailgate's inner panel latch when a towing apparatus is installed (’555 Patent, col. 1:21-39). It proposes a switch, mounted near the hitch receiver tube, which is physically actuated by the process of securing a ball mount system with a hitch pin, thereby transitioning the switch to an "off" state and preventing the inner tailgate from opening (’555 Patent, col. 4:3-16, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The system provides an automated safety interlock to prevent an inherent and potentially costly design flaw in a major new feature of modern pickup trucks (Compl. ¶31, ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶92).
• The essential elements of claim 15 are:
  • A tailgate deactivation system comprising a switch.
  • The switch has two terminals for coupling to a tailgate power circuit.
  • The switch has an actuator with an actuation surface.
  • The actuator can couple the terminals (on state) to allow power flow or decouple them (off state) to inhibit power flow.
  • The actuation surface is configured to transition the switch to the off state as a result of "coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube of the vehicle."

U.S. Patent No. 11,702,148 - "Tailgate Deactivation System," issued July 18, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’555 Patent: the potential for a multi-panel tailgate to strike a towing apparatus when opened (’148 Patent, col. 1:13-16).
• The Patented Solution: This patent describes a similar tailgate deactivation system but specifically claims the use of a "proximity switch" as the core component for controlling the tailgate's power circuit (’148 Patent, claim 1). An actuator causes this proximity switch to transition between "on" and "off" states, thereby enabling or disabling power to the tailgate components and preventing unwanted movement (’148 Patent, col. 5:14-23).
• Technical Importance: The use of a proximity switch suggests a system that could be more resistant to environmental factors and wear than a purely mechanical switch by not requiring direct physical contact for actuation.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶99).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • A tailgate deactivation system comprising a switch.
  • The switch is configured for coupling to a tailgate power circuit.
  • The switch comprises a "proximity switch."
  • An actuator is configured to cause the switch to transition between an on state (allowing power flow) and an off state (inhibiting power flow).

U.S. Patent No. 12,240,533 - "Tailgate Deactivation System," issued March 4, 2025

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims the entire vehicle system, not just the deactivation component. It describes a vehicle comprising a hitch receiver, a vehicle bed, a multi-functional tailgate with independently pivoting inner and primary gate panels, and "circuitry operable to enable or disable power delivery" to the inner gate panel (’533 Patent, claim 5). The patent claims the vehicle's ability to be configured into different states, including one where the inner gate is inhibited from pivoting downwards when the primary gate is in a horizontal position (’533 Patent, claim 5).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶109).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that GM's vehicles equipped with MultiPro and Multi-Flex tailgates, such as the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado, constitute the infringing vehicle system (Compl. ¶84, ¶108).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies two categories of accused instrumentalities:
  1. "Curt Infringing Products": Aftermarket, Curt-branded tailgate deactivation wiring harnesses, electronic modules, and integrated electrical systems sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶67).
  2. "GM Infringing Products": Vehicles manufactured and sold by GM that incorporate a factory-installed tailgate deactivation feature, specifically GMC and Chevrolet trucks from model year 2022 onwards equipped with MultiPro or Multi-Flex tailgates (Compl. ¶80-82, ¶84).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The "Curt Infringing Products" are sold as accessories on GM's official websites and can be installed by authorized dealers (Compl. ¶67-68). Screenshots show an option for a customer to have the product shipped to and installed by a local dealer, such as Defendant Beaumont Motor Company (Compl. ¶22, Fig. 2-2).
  • The "GM Infringing Products" feature a built-in "enable/disable feature" that prevents the inner tailgate from opening (Compl. ¶82). According to a user manual excerpt provided in the complaint, this function is activated by the user pressing and holding an "upper touchpad on the tailgate handle" for several seconds (Compl. ¶82, Fig. 7-1). The complaint alleges this system operates by cutting power to the inner tailgate latches, thereby utilizing the patented technology (Compl. ¶83). The MultiPro/Multi-Flex tailgate is a significant marketing feature for GM's trucks (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

11,161,555 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a switch comprising: two terminals configured to be electrically coupled to a tailgate power circuit that supplies power to at least a portion of a tailgate of a vehicle;	The Curt Infringing Products are described as wiring harnesses and electronic modules that connect to the vehicle's electrical system to control the tailgate.	¶67	col. 8:22-25
an actuator comprising an actuation surface, wherein the actuator is configured to electrically couple the two terminals in an on state... and to electrically decouple the two terminals in an off state...	The Curt products are alleged to automatically initiate a deactivation sequence, which implies the presence of an actuator that controls power flow by opening or closing a circuit.	¶68	col. 8:27-32
and wherein the actuation surface is configured to transition the switch from the on state to the off state by coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube of the vehicle.	The system is alleged to practice the claims by "detecting trailer attachment and automatically initiating a tailgate deactivation sequence as claimed," which the complaint equates to the claimed actuation method.	¶68	col. 8:32-37

11,702,148 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a switch configured to be electrically coupled to a tailgate power circuit that supplies power to at least a portion of a tailgate of a vehicle...	The accused GM vehicles are alleged to have circuitry that controls power delivery to the latches of the inner tailgate.	¶82, ¶83	col. 5:14-17
...wherein the switch comprises a proximity switch;	The complaint alleges that the GM vehicles' technology, which uses a touchpad, infringes this claim, which may suggest a theory of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.	¶98, ¶83	col. 5:18
and an actuator configured to cause the switch to transition from an on state to an off state...	The user-activated "upper touchpad on the tailgate handle" is alleged to function as the claimed actuator. A user manual excerpt shows this touchpad being held to disable the inner gate (Fig. 7-1).	¶82	col. 5:19-20

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’148 Patent is whether the term "proximity switch" can be construed to read on the accused GM vehicles' user-activated touchpad system. The complaint alleges infringement but does not explain how a touchpad that requires timed physical contact meets this limitation.
• Technical Questions: For the ’555 Patent, a key question is what evidence supports the allegation that the "Curt Infringing Products" are actuated "by coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube." The complaint's description of "detecting trailer attachment" (Compl. ¶68) may be broader than the specific mechanical interaction recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "proximity switch" (’148 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim against the GM vehicles (the "GM Infringing Products") may depend entirely on the construction of this term. GM's system uses a touchpad that a user must press and hold (Compl. ¶82, Fig. 7-1), which appears to be functionally different from a typical proximity sensor that detects the presence of an object without physical contact.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The related ’555 patent specification, incorporated by the ’148 patent, states that "the switch 26 may comprise any suitable type of switch, such as a proximity switch or the like, that can be activated by the coupling of the ball mount system" (’555 Patent, col. 4:48-52). A plaintiff may argue this language supports a broader functional definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common technical meaning of "proximity switch" refers to a non-contact sensor (e.g., inductive, capacitive, photoelectric). The patent specification also separately discloses an embodiment with a manual "push-button" (’555 Patent, Fig. 6, col. 5:48-59), which a defendant could argue demonstrates that the patentee viewed push-buttons and proximity switches as distinct and non-interchangeable types of switches.

• The Term: "actuation surface is configured to transition the switch... by coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube" (’555 Patent, claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific trigger for the deactivation. The infringement allegation against the "Curt Infringing Products" will depend on whether their method of "detecting trailer attachment" (Compl. ¶68) falls within this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "by" should be interpreted as "as a result of," meaning any detection method that is part of the overall process of attaching a trailer (e.g., connecting the trailer's electrical plug) satisfies the limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment shows the actuation surface being physically contacted by a hitch pin during the installation of the ball mount system (’555 Patent, Fig. 5, col. 4:15-24). A defendant could argue this limits the claim to a mechanical or direct-contact actuation tied to the physical installation of the ball mount, excluding a purely electrical detection method.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. For the "Curt Infringing Products," inducement is based on GM and its dealer (BMC) allegedly promoting, selling, and providing installation instructions for the products (Compl. ¶89-90). For the "GM Infringing Products," inducement is based on GM allegedly providing user manuals and other instructions that guide customers to use the vehicles' built-in deactivation feature in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶101, ¶111). The provided user manual excerpt for the feature (Compl. Fig. 7-1) is cited as evidence of such instruction.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents. The complaint asserts that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringement, citing GM's alleged awareness of the underlying design flaw since 2018 (Compl. ¶32), knowledge of Plaintiff’s products prior to November 2019 (Compl. ¶87), and a request made to Curt to "study and copy BMI's technology" (Compl. ¶72). The complaint also alleges Plaintiff sent a proposal to GM in May 2020 that was never responded to (Compl. ¶74).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope versus technical operation: Can the claim term "proximity switch" (’148 Patent) be construed to cover the user-activated, timed-press touchpad integrated into GM’s own vehicles? The resolution of this question, which centers on claim construction, will be fundamental to the infringement analysis for the factory-installed systems.
• A second key issue will be one of causation and mechanism: Do the accused "Curt Infringing Products" function "by coupling a ball mount system," as required by claim 15 of the ’555 Patent, or do they operate via a different trigger, such as detecting an electrical load from a connected trailer? The evidence regarding the precise functionality of the Curt accessory will be critical.
• Finally, the case may turn on evidence of intent: The complaint makes direct allegations of copying. A central question will be what evidence emerges during discovery to substantiate the claims that GM was not only aware of Plaintiff's technology but actively sought to replicate it through a third-party supplier, as this will heavily influence the determination of willfulness.