DCT
5:25-cv-00056
Stellar Industries Inc v. Faf TX Depot LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stellar Industries Inc, Inc. (Iowa)
- Defendant: FAF TX Depot, LLC d/b/a Service Truck Depot (Texas) and Imfab Inc, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, and Baskerville, P.L.C.
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00056, E.D. Tex., 07/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as both defendants are Texas corporations and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the complaint, specifically the operation of a service truck retail business by Defendant Service Truck Depot, occurred within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Boxcar 55" custom work truck beds infringe a patent related to a modular track system for mounting equipment on the side packs of utility vehicles.
- Technical Context: The technology provides a reconfigurable system for attaching accessories to service truck storage units, a key feature for an industry that relies on vehicle customization.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer. It claims priority to a chain of applications dating back to 2013. The complaint alleges that Defendants had both constructive knowledge of the patent through Plaintiff's product marketing and actual notice of infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-05-24 | Earliest Patent Priority Date ('218 Patent) |
| 2023-04-10 | '218 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2024-07-23 | '218 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-03 | Accused Product (Boxcar 55) Launch Date |
| 2025-07-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,043,218, "SIDE PACK WITH CHANNELS" (Issued July 23, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the challenge of mounting equipment onto the top surfaces of conventional utility truck side packs. The traditional method requires drilling holes for bolts, a permanent modification that makes it difficult to reposition equipment without leaving unprotected holes in the side pack's structure (’218 Patent, col. 1:39-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a side pack with a top panel that incorporates one or more tracks. These tracks, which may be substantially C-shaped, feature inwardly-facing lips designed to engage with securing members (e.g., a nut that can be inserted and rotated to lock in place). This system allows equipment to be attached, secured, and slid along the track to a desired position without drilling into the top panel, offering greater flexibility. (’218 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-31).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a non-destructive and adjustable method for mounting a variety of accessories, which is a significant advantage in an industry where service trucks are frequently customized and reconfigured for specific jobs (’218 Patent, col. 6:8-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7, and dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 11-14 (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21).
- Independent Claim 7 recites the following essential elements:
- A side pack for a vehicle comprising:
- a first top panel;
- a first track extending along a length of the top panel and attached to it, having two parallel side walls, each with lips to engage securing members; and
- a second track extending along the top panel, having two side walls parallel to the first track's side walls, each with lips to engage securing members.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’218 Patent, col. 9:8-20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Boxcar 55 Series custom work truck beds" ("Boxcar 55"), allegedly manufactured by Defendant IMFAB and offered for sale by Defendant Service Truck Depot (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Boxcar 55 is a side pack system for utility vehicles that incorporates a dual-track system on its top surfaces (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 29). The complaint provides photographic evidence purporting to show these tracks are used for mounting accessories. For example, one annotated image shows a close-up of the accused track with callouts for the "first track," "lips," and "first side wall" (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges that the Boxcar 55 directly competes with Plaintiff's own products featuring the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 43).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'218 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A side pack for a vehicle comprising | The complaint identifies the accused Boxcar 55 as a "side pack for a vehicle." An accompanying photo depicts the side pack on a truck. | ¶23.a | col. 4:41-43 |
| a first top panel | The Boxcar 55 is alleged to have a "first top panel," which is depicted in a photograph. | ¶23.b | col. 4:41-43 |
| a first track extending along a length of the top panel and attached to the top panel | The accused product is alleged to have a first track welded to and extending along the top panel. An image shows the track attached to the panel. | ¶23.c | col. 4:56-62 |
| the first track having a first side wall and a second side wall parallel with the first side wall | The complaint alleges the first track has parallel side walls, providing a diagram and photograph to illustrate this geometry. | ¶23.d | col. 4:23-25 |
| each of the first and second side walls having lips to engage first securing members | The side walls of the first track are alleged to have lips for engaging securing members, as shown in a close-up photograph and diagram. | ¶23.d, p. 6 | col. 4:26-31 |
| a second track extending along a length of the top panel and attached to the top panel | The complaint alleges the Boxcar 55 includes a second track, noting that its attachment by welding is assumed. | ¶23.e | col. 4:56-62 |
| the second track having a third side wall and a fourth side wall parallel with the first side wall and the second sidewall | The second track is alleged to have side walls parallel to those of the first track, as illustrated in an annotated photograph. | ¶23.f | col. 9:15-20 |
| each of the third and fourth side walls having lips to engage second securing members | The complaint alleges the side walls of the second track also possess lips, as shown in a photograph with callouts. | ¶23.g | col. 9:18-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The claims require a specific geometric relationship: not only must the side walls of each track be parallel to each other, but the side walls of the second track must be parallel to the side walls of the first track (’218 Patent, col. 9:15-20). The dispute may turn on whether the accused product meets this precise parallel relationship or if there is any deviation that places it outside the claim scope.
- Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the "attached to" limitation. The complaint alleges the tracks are attached, and one image caption notes "(welding is assumed)" (Compl. ¶23.e). The method of joining the track to the panel will be a point of proof. If the track is formed integrally with the top panel rather than being a separate component that is subsequently attached, it could raise a non-infringement argument.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "attached to"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement depends on the relationship between the track and the top panel. If the accused product's track and panel are found to be a single, integral component, a dispute will arise over whether it is "attached to" the panel within the meaning of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "attached to" is not limited to one method, listing examples such as "welding," "pinning, bolting, adhering (for example, by gluing), or clipping" (’218 Patent, col. 4:56-62). This may support an argument that the term encompasses any means of joining.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "attached to" implies the joining of two distinct components. The patent’s discussion of forming the top panel and a side wall as a "single integral piece" (’218 Patent, col. 7:11-15) could be used to argue that the patentee understood the difference between integral formation and attachment, and chose the narrower term "attached to" for the track-panel relationship.
The Term: "substantially C-shaped cross-section" (from asserted dependent Claim 9)
- Context and Importance: Claim 9 adds the limitation that the track assembly forms a "substantially C-shaped cross-section." The definition of "substantially" is a frequent subject of claim construction. The complaint uses a diagram to allege the accused product meets this limitation (Compl. ¶29.b).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" signals that a perfect "C" shape is not required. The specification does not provide an explicit definition, which could support a construction that covers any generally C-like shape capable of performing the claimed function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patent shows a specific embodiment of the track with distinct right-angled corners and inwardly curved lips (’218 Patent, Fig. 6). A party could argue that "substantially C-shaped" should be construed in light of this embodiment, limiting the term to shapes that share these key geometric features and excluding those with, for instance, a more U-shaped or V-shaped profile.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief seeks a judgment for infringement by those to whom Defendants have "contributed and/or... induced" (Compl. p. 16, ¶A). The body of the complaint does not currently plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-suit conduct. It alleges Defendants had "knowledge of the '218 Patent through Stellar's consistent and continuous marketing" and also received "actual notice" (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31). The continued alleged infringement after notice is cited as "egregious misconduct" supporting willfulness (Compl. ¶32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms describing specific physical structures, such as "attached to" and "substantially C-shaped cross-section," be construed to read on the precise geometry and manufacturing method of the accused Boxcar 55 product? The outcome of claim construction for these terms will likely be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: does the accused product, upon close inspection, embody the precise geometric relationships required by the claims, particularly the multiple "parallel" limitations of Claim 7? The plaintiff's case relies heavily on photographic evidence, and the defense may focus on identifying subtle but material technical distinctions not apparent from the complaint's images.