DCT
2:25-cv-00632
Club Car LLC v. Denago Ev Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Club Car, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Denago EV Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Findlay Craft P.C.; Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00632, E.D. Tex., 06/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas, specifically a factory in Plano, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electric vehicles and accessories infringe three patents related to vehicle power system housing, ornamental vehicle design, and a utility vehicle accessory mounting system.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the competitive market for personal transportation vehicles, such as golf carts and neighborhood electric vehicles, involving both functional and aesthetic intellectual property.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. Plaintiff states it sent a notice letter regarding the '311 Patent on April 8, 2024, and a follow-up letter regarding the '311 and '540 patents on January 22, 2025. The complaint also references a May 30, 2025 social media post by Defendant acknowledging a patent review of its vehicle design in light of a "Club Car CRU's pending patent," which may be relevant to willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-01-28 | '311 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-08-17 | '311 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-10-13 | '096 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-06-21 | '096 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-06-15 | '540 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-04-08 | Notice Letter Sent to Denago ('311 Patent) |
| 2024-10-04 | Denago's First Accused Cart Allegedly Produced |
| 2025-01-22 | Follow-Up Notice Letter Sent to Denago ('311 & '540) |
| 2025-05-30 | Denago Social Media Post Regarding Patent Review |
| 2025-06-10 | '540 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-06-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,775,311 - HOUSING FOR VEHICLE POWER SYSTEMS (Issued Aug. 17, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes that in conventional small vehicles like golf carts, power system components such as fuel tanks or batteries are typically installed individually at various locations on the vehicle’s frame or body (’311 Patent, col. 1:33-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single, integrated, "bucket-like housing" that contains and supports the vehicle’s energy source (e.g., fuel tank or batteries) and other related components. This housing is removably connectable to the vehicle frame and is also configured to support the vehicle's seat. This modular design allows the entire power system to be assembled into the housing as a self-contained unit before installation, and similarly removed as a single unit for maintenance or conversion (’311 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:23-32).
- Technical Importance: This modular approach to vehicle power systems could streamline manufacturing and servicing by consolidating key components into a single, interchangeable unit (’311 Patent, col. 3:23-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A vehicle comprising: a frame and a prime mover mounted to the frame.
- A "bucket-like housing" that is removably connected to the frame and defines an interior space.
- A power system with an energy source positioned within and supported by the housing.
- A seat that is coupled to, supported by, and removable from the frame along with the housing, where the seat generally covers the housing's interior space.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶27).
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,078,540 - Vehicle (Issued June 10, 2025)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, rather than a functional problem. The implicit goal is to create a visually distinct and appealing vehicle design.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a vehicle as depicted in its drawings ('540 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design features an open-air cabin, a distinctive front and rear profile, and a unique overall shape and configuration ('540 Patent, CLAIM). The complaint identifies the commercial embodiment as the "Club Car Cru," which it describes as having a "breezy open-air design" and "flexible seating" (Compl. ¶36).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic intended to differentiate the vehicle in the personal transportation market based on its appearance (Compl. ¶37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the patent's single claim for "The ornamental design for a vehicle, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶39; '540 Patent, CLAIM).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,371,096 - SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR UTILITY VEHICLE ACCESSORY MOUNTING (Issued June 21, 2016)
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of flexibly and securely mounting accessories to the cargo beds of utility vehicles ('096 Patent, col. 1:8-19). The patented solution is a system comprising cargo bed side panels with specially shaped, extruded "engagement interfaces" and a corresponding clamping device that can be manually attached and detached anywhere along these interfaces, purportedly without tools ('096 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:56-65).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶41-42).
- Accused Features: The "Denago EV Clamp" accessory is accused of infringing the '096 Patent when used with Denago vehicles, such as the Nomad and Rover XL6, that are equipped with a "Versattach Bar" alleged to have the claimed cargo bed interface (Compl. ¶41, ¶66).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the "Denago EV Nomad," "Denago EV Nomad XL," and "Denago EV City" vehicles, as well as the "Denago EV Clamp" accessory (Compl. ¶8-9).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Accused EVs are street-legal carts assembled by Defendant in Plano, Texas (Compl. ¶8, ¶19). The Denago EV Nomad and Nomad XL are accused of infringing the '311 patent's functional claims related to its power system housing (Compl. ¶27). The complaint includes an image of the Denago EV Nomad, which shows a traditionally styled golf cart (Compl. ¶19, p. 5). The Denago EV City is accused of infringing the '540 design patent, with the complaint alleging it is a "blatant copy" of Club Car's Cru vehicle and is offered at a lower price point to capture market share (Compl. ¶37). The complaint provides an image of the Denago EV City, which depicts a vehicle with a modern, open-air design (Compl. ¶37, p. 10). The Denago EV Clamp, shown in an image on page 5 of the complaint, is an accessory accused of infringing the '096 patent (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'311 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle comprising: a frame; a prime mover mounted to the frame | The Denago EV Nomad is alleged to be a vehicle with a frame and a prime mover mounted to the frame (Compl. ¶29-31). | ¶29-31 | col. 4:59-62 |
| a bucket-like housing removably connected to the frame, the housing defining an interior space | The Denago EV Nomad is alleged to have a bucket-like housing that is removably connected to the vehicle's frame and defines an interior space (Compl. ¶32). | ¶32 | col. 4:50-54 |
| a power system including an energy source positioned substantially within the interior space of the housing such that the housing supports the energy source, the energy source being connectable to the prime mover | The Denago EV Nomad is alleged to have a power system with an energy source (e.g., batteries) positioned within and supported by the housing, with the energy source being connectable to the prime mover (Compl. ¶33). | ¶33 | col. 2:42-45 |
| a seat coupled to and supported by the housing for removal from the frame with the housing, the seat generally covering the interior space of the housing when the housing is connected to and disconnected from the frame | The Denago EV Nomad is alleged to have a seat coupled to and supported by the housing, allowing for removal from the frame with the housing, and which covers the interior space of the housing (Compl. ¶34). A screenshot in the complaint shows a Denago vehicle with its seat assembly tilted up (Compl. ¶23). | ¶34 | col. 2:40-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused component in the Denago EV Nomad meets the definition of a "bucket-like housing" as contemplated by the patent. The interpretation of this term could be pivotal.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the seat to be "supported by the housing for removal from the frame with the housing." Factual evidence will be needed to determine if the accused vehicle's seat is supported by its power system housing in this specific manner, or if it is primarily supported by the vehicle frame itself, which could create a non-infringement argument.
'540 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the "overall aesthetic" of the accused Denago EV City vehicle is "substantially similar to Club Car's Cru," the product embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶37). Infringement of a design patent is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint supports this allegation by presenting an image of its own "Club Car Cru" vehicle (Compl. ¶36, p. 9) and a separate image of the accused "Denago EV City" (Compl. ¶37, p. 10), inviting a direct visual comparison.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’311 Patent:
The Term: "bucket-like housing"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central component of the invention. Its construction will be critical, as Defendant may argue its vehicle's component is a simple container that does not rise to the level of the claimed "bucket-like housing."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the invention with general terms like "housing" and a "generally rectangular box," which may support a broader construction not limited to the specific depicted embodiments ('311 Patent, col. 2:48-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show highly specific "fuel bucket" and "electric bucket" embodiments with numerous integrated features, such as reinforcing recesses, specific projection assemblies, and retainer tabs, which could be used to argue for a narrower definition that requires more than a simple tub ('311 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 7:1-4).
The Term: "supported by the housing for removal from the frame with the housing"
- Context and Importance: This phrase describes a key functional relationship between the seat and the housing. The infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused vehicle’s seat is structurally dependent on the housing in a way that allows for their joint removal as a single module.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff will likely argue for the plain meaning of the words, asserting that any structure where the housing bears the load of the seat meets this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes the ability to remove the power system components as a "single unit" for servicing ('311 Patent, col. 3:28-32). A defendant could argue this implies a specific, integrated seat-and-housing assembly, and that if the seat must be removed separately or is primarily supported elsewhere, the claim is not met.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of the ’096 Patent. It claims Defendant induces infringement by "actively encourag[ing]" customers to use the accused Denago EV Clamp with vehicles featuring the infringing "Versattach Bar" (Compl. ¶66). It further claims contributory infringement by alleging the clamp is specifically adapted for this infringing use and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶68-69).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. For the ’311 Patent, the allegation is based on pre-suit notice dating back to an April 8, 2024 letter (Compl. ¶54). For the ’540 and ’096 Patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge as of the complaint's filing and from Defendant’s alleged "monitoring of Club Car's patent portfolio" (Compl. ¶61, ¶71). The complaint cites a social media post where Defendant discusses a patent review as potential evidence of this monitoring (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue for the design patent claim will be one of visual identity: would an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, be deceived by the "substantially similar" appearance of the accused Denago EV City vehicle into believing it is the design protected by the ’540 Patent?
- A key evidentiary question for the utility patent claims will be one of structural and functional correspondence: does the accused Denago EV Nomad vehicle incorporate a single, removable "bucket-like housing" that simultaneously supports both the power source and the seat in the specific modular manner required by Claim 1 of the ’311 Patent, or is there a material difference in its construction and function?
- The case will also turn on claim construction: will the court adopt a broad interpretation of terms like "bucket-like housing" based on general descriptions, or a narrower one informed by the detailed structures shown in the ’311 patent’s preferred embodiments? The outcome of this legal determination will likely control the infringement analysis.