DCT

4:25-cv-05969

Graco Inc v. MMJ Pumps LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05969, S.D. Tex., 12/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant TXAM because it is a Texas corporation residing in the district. Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant Ciso, a foreign corporation, in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ automatic lubrication pumps infringe two patents related to offset cam mechanisms and adjustable pump displacement technologies.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the design and operation of automatic grease and oil pumps used in heavy machinery, particularly within the oil and gas industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint includes a distinct count for false marking, alleging Defendant TXAM intentionally marked the accused product with a patent number (U.S. Patent No. 8,182,247) that Plaintiff asserts does not cover the product's technology, with the alleged intent to deceive the public.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-05-19 Priority Date for ’840 and ’862 Patents
2017-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,611,840 Issues
2019-01-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,167,862 Issues
2025-03 Plaintiff First Aware of Accused Pump
2025-04 Accused Pump Displayed at Southwestern Petroleum Short Course
2025-10 Accused Pump Displayed at Permian Basin International Oil Show
2025-12-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,611,840 - “Offset cam for piston pump”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes conventional cam-driven piston pumps where the piston is aligned to extend radially from the cam’s axis of rotation. This alignment can result in forces being applied to the piston that are not entirely along its direction of motion, which can lead to wasted energy and component wear (’840 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention repositions the piston axis. Instead of intersecting the cam’s rotational axis, the piston axis is offset and runs parallel to a reference line that intersects the cam’s rotational axis. This geometric arrangement is designed to ensure that the maximum force exerted by the rotating cam on the piston is substantially in line with the piston’s axis of travel, thereby improving efficiency and reducing wear (’840 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-51).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to increase the pumping efficiency and durability of cam-driven pumps by minimizing wasted torque and off-axis forces on components (’840 Patent, col. 5:11-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A cam with a geometric center that rotates in a plane about an eccentric axis, where the eccentric axis is offset from the geometric center by a "first distance."
    • A piston that engages the cam's circumferential side wall and runs along a piston axis.
    • The piston axis lies in the same plane as the cam and is parallel to a reference line that perpendicularly intersects the eccentric axis, but is separated from that reference line by a "second distance" equal to the "first distance."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,167,862 - “Removable shim clip for adjustable piston pump”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that adjusting the fluid output (displacement) of existing piston pumps often requires replacing an entire cartridge containing the piston and cylinder, a process that can be cumbersome and require purchasing alternative-displacement equivalents (’862 Patent, col. 1:53-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "removable shim clip" that can be inserted between the pump's cylinder and its base. Inserting shims of varying thicknesses increases the distance between the cylinder's fluid inlet port and the cam's rotational axis. This adjustment changes the effective stroke length of the piston, thereby allowing a user to easily reduce the pump's displacement volume without replacing major components (’862 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-16).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provides a simple, inexpensive, and field-adjustable method for tuning the output of a piston pump to meet different application requirements (’862 Patent, col. 4:36-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A base, a rotating cam, a cylinder attached to the base, and a piston driven by the cam.
    • A "shim clip" that is "removably insertable between the cylinder and the base."
    • The insertion of the shim clip increases the distance between the inlet port and the rotational axis, which "decreasing a working length of the piston and accordingly reducing displacement volume of the pump assembly."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The CISO GT PLUS Electric Grease Pump Automatic Progressive Lubrication System, referred to in the complaint as the “Accused Pump” (Compl. ¶9, ¶26; p.7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Pump is an automatic lubrication pump for industrial applications, allegedly offered for sale in the United States by Defendant Ciso through e-commerce websites and distributed by Defendant TXAM for the oil and gas industry (Compl. ¶4-5, ¶21, ¶28-29). A screenshot from an e-commerce website shows the Accused Pump offered for sale and shipment to the United States (Compl. p.7, ¶27). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants copied its Gx line of pumps to design and manufacture the Accused Pump (Compl. ¶49, ¶57). A photograph in the complaint shows the Accused Pump alongside authentic Graco G3 and G5 pumps, highlighting their visual similarity (Compl. p.8, ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits L and M that were not publicly available at the time of this analysis. The infringement theories are therefore summarized based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

  • ’840 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Pump infringes the ’840 Patent because it is a pump assembly that incorporates the claimed offset cam and piston geometry (Compl. ¶46-47). The core of the infringement allegation is that the internal mechanism of the Accused Pump is constructed such that its piston axis is parallel to but offset from a line intersecting the cam’s axis of rotation, matching the key limitations of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46, ¶48). Additional photographs show the Accused Pump being displayed at an industry trade show booth (Compl. p.9).
  • ’862 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Pump infringes the ’862 Patent by incorporating a "shim clip that is removably insertable between the cylinder and the base" of the pump assembly (Compl. ¶54). The infringement theory posits that the Accused Pump contains a mechanism equivalent to the claimed shim clip, allowing for the adjustment of the distance between the inlet port and the rotational axis to modify the pump's fluid displacement (Compl. ¶54, ¶56).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: For both the ’840 and ’862 patents, the central dispute will likely be factual and evidentiary. The analysis will depend on an examination of the Accused Pump's internal construction. Key questions for the court may include:
      • Does the Accused Pump’s cam and piston assembly actually feature the specific offset geometry required by Claim 1 of the ’840 Patent?
      • Does the Accused Pump contain a component that meets the structural and functional requirements of the "removable shim clip" as claimed in the ’862 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms, as its infringement allegations are made at a high level without identifying specific claim language that may be in dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful for both asserted patents (Compl. ¶49, ¶57). This allegation is primarily based on the assertion that Defendants engaged in "egregious behavior by copying Graco's Gx Pumps" (Compl. ¶49, ¶57). The complaint also asserts that Defendants have knowledge of the patents at least as of the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶49, ¶57).
  • False Marking: The complaint includes a count for false marking against Defendant TXAM, alleging it knowingly and intentionally marked the Accused Pump with U.S. Patent No. 8,182,247 ("the '247 TXAM Patent") with an intent to deceive the public (Compl. ¶61, ¶68). The complaint alleges a clear technical mismatch, stating that the '247 TXAM Patent requires stabilization bearings that rotate in a perpendicular orientation relative to the turning member's axis of rotation (Compl. ¶63). It alleges that the Accused Pump's bearings rotate in a parallel orientation, and therefore do not practice the patent with which they are marked (Compl. ¶66). An annotated photograph of the Accused Pump's internal mechanism purports to show support bearings rotating parallel to the axis of rotation of the turning member (Compl. p.12, ¶42).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate, through reverse engineering or discovery, that the internal mechanical structure of the Accused Pump embodies the specific geometric and functional limitations of the asserted claims—namely, the offset piston axis of the ’840 Patent and the removable adjustment mechanism of the ’862 Patent?
  • A second key question will be one of intent and copying: will the evidence support the allegation that Defendants engaged in "egregious" copying of Plaintiff's commercial products? A finding of deliberate copying could significantly influence the analysis of willfulness and potential damages.
  • Finally, the false marking claim will likely turn on deceptive intent: does the alleged technical mismatch between the Accused Pump and the patent it is marked with provide sufficient grounds to infer that Defendant TXAM marked its product with the intent to deceive competitors and the public?