DCT
2:25-cv-00422
Banks Morrison Innovations LLC v. General Motors LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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., 08/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant General Motors maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including manufacturing and distribution facilities, and Defendant Beaumont Motor Company is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business within the district. The complaint further alleges that acts of infringement occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multifunctional truck tailgates (branded as "MultiPro" and "Multi-Flex") and associated aftermarket accessories infringe five patents related to systems that deactivate certain tailgate functions to prevent collision with an attached trailer hitch.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses a safety and durability issue in modern pickup trucks equipped with complex, multi-panel tailgates, which can be damaged if a specific inner panel is lowered while a trailer hitch is installed.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that after Plaintiff launched its "Tailgate-Fix" products to solve a known design flaw in Defendant's tailgates, Defendant partnered with third-party suppliers Lippert Components and Curt Manufacturing to copy Plaintiff's technology for an aftermarket accessory. Plaintiff states it previously settled a dispute with Lippert and Curt, but that the resulting license does not cover the infringing technology now integrated directly into Defendant's vehicles.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-09-01 | Plaintiff's founder purchases 2019 GMC Sierra with MultiPro Tailgate |
| 2019-06-01 | Plaintiff's founder identifies potential for tailgate/hitch collision |
| 2019-09-06 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents ('878 Provisional filed) |
| 2019-10-01 | Plaintiff introduces its first "Tailgate-Fix" product to market |
| 2019-11-14 | '231 Provisional filed |
| 2019-11-18 | Lippert/Curt engineer allegedly purchases Plaintiff's product to copy |
| 2020-01-02 | Curt files provisional patent application for competing product |
| 2020-05-01 | Plaintiff allegedly proposes partnership to GM, receives no response |
| 2021-09-01 | GM allegedly begins incorporating accused technology into its vehicles |
| 2021-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,161,555 Issues |
| 2023-07-18 | U.S. Patent No. 11,702,148 Issues |
| 2023-12-29 | Plaintiff executes settlement agreement with Lippert/Curt |
| 2025-03-04 | U.S. Patent No. 12,240,533 Issues |
| 2025-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 12,291,283 Issues |
| 2025-08-05 | U.S. Patent No. 12,377,918 Issues |
| 2025-08-05 | 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 describes how vehicle tailgates capable of pivoting below the vehicle bed may impact and be damaged by an attached towing apparatus, such as a trailer hitch (Compl. ¶21; ’555 Patent, col. 1:12-15). The complaint highlights this issue with GM's "Multifunctional Tailgate," noting that GM's own user manual warned of the risk (Compl. ¶22, Fig. 4-1). Figure 4-1 of the complaint shows a caution box from a vehicle manual explicitly stating, "Do not open the inner tailgate with the primary tailgate open if there is a hitch ball or trailer attached" (Compl. p. 14, Fig. 4-1).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a deactivation system that interrupts the power supply to the tailgate's inner panel release mechanism (’555 Patent, Abstract). It uses a switch coupled to the tailgate power circuit and an actuator. When a towing apparatus like a ball mount system is installed in the vehicle's hitch receiver, the actuator automatically transitions the switch to an "off" state, inhibiting power flow and preventing the inner tailgate from being lowered into the path of the hitch (’555 Patent, col. 1:21-38, col. 4:4-10).
- Technical Importance: This solution provides an automatic safety override to prevent costly damage that could otherwise result from user error when operating a complex, high-value vehicle feature.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claim 15 as exemplary (Compl. ¶94).
- The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
- A switch comprising two terminals configured to be electrically coupled to a tailgate power circuit.
- An actuator with an actuation surface, configured to electrically couple the terminals in an "on" state (allowing power flow) and decouple them in an "off" state (inhibiting power flow).
- The actuation surface is configured to transition the switch to the "off" state by the act of coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,702,148 - "Tailgate Deactivation System" (Issued Jul. 18, 2023)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’148 Patent addresses the same technical problem of potential collision between a multi-panel tailgate and a towing apparatus as the ’555 Patent (Compl. ¶21; ’148 Patent, col. 1:14-17).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is also a tailgate deactivation system that interrupts power, but this patent’s claims are focused on the use of a "proximity switch" as the core component (’148 Patent, Abstract, col. 5:10-14). The system includes the proximity switch coupled to the tailgate power circuit and an actuator that causes the switch to transition between "on" and "off" states to control power flow (’148 Patent, col. 6:49-62).
- Technical Importance: By claiming a specific type of switch, this patent may cover alternative electronic, non-contact methods of detecting the presence of a hitch or a user's intent, as compared to a purely mechanical switch.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claim 1 as exemplary (Compl. ¶101).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A switch configured to be electrically coupled to a tailgate power circuit that supplies power to a portion of a vehicle's tailgate.
- The switch comprises a proximity switch.
- An actuator is configured to cause the switch to transition from an "on" state (allowing power flow) to an "off" state (inhibiting power flow).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 12,240,533 (Issued Mar. 4, 2025)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a vehicle that incorporates a multi-functional tailgate and a "circuitry operable to enable or disable power delivery associated with the inner gate panel" (’533 Patent, col. 7:30-32). The claims describe controlling this circuitry to achieve specific tailgate configurations, such as inhibiting the inner gate from pivoting downwards when the primary gate is horizontal (Compl. ¶111).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 5 is asserted as exemplary (Compl. ¶111).
- Accused Features: The accused feature is the "MultiPro Inner Tailgate Enable/Disable" system integrated into GM vehicles, which the complaint alleges operates as the claimed circuitry to control power and configure the tailgate (Compl. ¶¶84-85, 110).
U.S. Patent No. 12,291,283 (Issued May 6, 2025)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a vehicle with a multi-functional tailgate where the tailgate is configurable by a "circuitry of the vehicle" into various states (’283 Patent, col. 8:1-3). The claims specifically recite configurations where the inner gate is "inhibited from being downwards pivoted by disabling power delivery associated with the inner gate panel" (Compl. ¶121).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 10 is asserted as exemplary (Compl. ¶121).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that GM vehicles with the MultiPro/Multi-Flex tailgate and its integrated enable/disable feature embody the claimed vehicle and its configurable circuitry (Compl. ¶¶84-85, 120).
U.S. Patent No. 12,377,918 (Issued Aug. 5, 2025)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus comprising a tailgate assembly, a power circuit, and a switch configured to "override operation of the tailgate power circuit" (’918 Patent, col. 7:42-43). The switch includes a proximity switch and an actuator with a surface "facing outwardly from the rear portion of the vehicle" to control power flow (Compl. ¶131).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted as exemplary (Compl. ¶131).
- Accused Features: The accused features are the tailgate deactivation systems in GM vehicles, which allegedly include a switch and actuator that function as claimed to override the tailgate power circuit (Compl. ¶¶84-85, 130).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies two classes of products:
- "GM Infringing Products": GMC and Chevrolet vehicles (e.g., Sierra, Silverado, Hummer EV) manufactured since 2022 and sold with the MultiPro or Multi-Flex tailgate incorporating a built-in "enable/disable feature" (Compl. ¶¶82, 84, 86).
- "Curt Infringing Products": Aftermarket tailgate deactivation products manufactured by Curt and sold by GM and its dealers through platforms like the "Accessories GMC Website" (Compl. ¶¶69, 70, 79).
Functionality and Market Context
The core accused functionality in the GM Infringing Products is an electronic control system that allows the vehicle operator to disable the power to the inner tailgate's release latches (Compl. ¶85). The complaint provides an image from a 2025 GMC Sierra 1500 User Manual, Figure 7-1, that describes this "MultiPro Inner Tailgate Enable/Disable" feature (Compl. ¶84, p. 30). According to this manual, a user can disable the inner tailgate by holding an "upper touchpad on the tailgate handle for up to seven seconds," which prevents it from being opened alone (Compl. p. 30, Fig. 7-1). The complaint alleges this feature was GM's "unsuccessful effort to design around the technology embodied by BMI's Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶84).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references exemplary claim charts as exhibits (e.g., Exhibit B-1), but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint document provided (Compl. ¶102). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations and the visual evidence in the complaint body.
’148 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A tailgate deactivation system comprising: 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 GM Infringing Products allegedly include a technology that controls circuitry to enable or disable power delivery to the latches securing the inner tailgate (the "deactivation system"). | ¶84, ¶85 | col. 6:49-53 |
| wherein the switch comprises a proximity switch; | The complaint alleges the enable/disable feature, operated via the "upper touchpad on the tailgate handle," functions as the claimed switch. | ¶84, Fig. 7-1 | col. 6:53-54 |
| and an actuator configured to cause the switch to transition from an on state to an off state...to inhibit power from flowing in the tailgate power circuit. | The user's action of holding the touchpad for several seconds is alleged to be the "actuator" that causes the system to "cut[] off the supply of power to the inner tailgate." | ¶84, ¶85, Fig. 7-1 | col. 6:55-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether GM's manually-operated system meets the claim limitations. For instance, does an operator intentionally holding a touchpad for seven seconds constitute an "actuator" causing a "proximity switch" to transition, as those terms are used in the patent? The specification for the patent family frequently describes the "actuator" as the physical hitch or hitch pin itself, which automatically triggers the switch, raising the question of whether a user's finger can be an "actuator" in this context (’555 Patent, col. 4:4-10).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by a system operated via a "touchpad" (Compl. ¶84). The court may need to determine the precise technical nature of this touchpad—for example, whether it is a capacitive or other sensor that could plausibly be characterized as a "proximity switch" as required by claim 1 of the ’148 Patent, or if it is a simple electrical contact switch.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "proximity switch" (’148 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The characterization of the switch in the accused GM products will be dispositive for infringement of the ’148 Patent. The complaint alleges a system operated by a "touchpad" infringes this limitation (Compl. ¶84). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a manually-operated, user-interface component can satisfy a term that often implies automatic, non-contact sensing.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not appear to provide an explicit, limiting definition of "proximity switch," which could allow for the term to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing various sensor types, including capacitive touch sensors.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description in the shared specification of the patent family repeatedly discusses the switch being activated by the physical presence of towing hardware. For example, it states the switch may be one "that can be activated by the coupling of the ball mount system 16 to the hitch receiver tube 14" (’555 Patent, col. 4:48-51). This context may support a narrower construction limited to switches that automatically detect the proximity of towing components, not a user's finger.
Term: "actuator" (’148 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The identity of the "actuator" is critical. The complaint's theory for the GM products requires the user's action on a touchpad to be the "actuator" (Compl. ¶84). Whether this aligns with the patent's use of the term will be a key point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "actuator" is a general term of art for a component that is responsible for moving or controlling a mechanism or system. A broad reading could include a user's input that initiates a change in the system's state.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the actuator as a component that includes an "actuation surface" that is physically contacted by the hitch pin or ball mount system (’555 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:4-7). This suggests a specific mechanical or electromechanical component that is part of the deactivation system itself, rather than the external action of a user.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against GM and BMC. This is based on allegations that GM provides instructions and user manuals (such as the one depicted in Figure 7-1) that guide customers to use the accused features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶103, ¶113). It is also alleged that GM induced infringement by soliciting Curt to develop the infringing aftermarket products (Compl. ¶90). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the accused systems are a material part of the invention and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶105, ¶115).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringing conduct. The complaint asserts that GM knew of the underlying design flaw in its tailgates, was aware of Plaintiff's commercial products as early as November 2019, received a direct proposal from Plaintiff in May 2020 which it never responded to, and proceeded to develop and sell products incorporating the allegedly copied technology (Compl. ¶¶22, 63, 76, 89, 96, 107).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "proximity switch," as used in claim 1 of the ’148 Patent, be construed to read on the manually-operated touchpad of GM's integrated system? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive for the allegations against GM's own technology.
- A second central question will be one of infringement theory: The patents appear to describe a system that automatically deactivates the tailgate upon installation of a hitch. GM's accused integrated system is allegedly a manual, user-initiated override. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can successfully argue that this manual "design around" still falls within the scope of the patent claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
- A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness and copying: The complaint constructs a detailed narrative alleging that GM was aware of Plaintiff's products and, instead of licensing or designing a novel solution, incorporated a copy of the patented technology. The evidence supporting GM's knowledge, intent, and the technical development of its enable/disable feature will be critical for the willfulness and potential damages aspects of the case.