DCT

6:20-cv-00316

Kirsch Research Development LLC v. BlueLinx Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00316, W.D. Tex., 08/11/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in El Paso, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s synthetic roofing underlayment products infringe patents related to reinforced, multi-layer, and slip-resistant roofing underlayment technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves synthetic alternatives to traditional asphalt-based roofing paper, designed to provide superior durability, tear resistance, and installer safety.
  • Key Procedural History: Post-filing, U.S. Patent No. 6,308,482 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-00192). A certificate issued on September 11, 2024, confirmed that all claims of the '482 patent (Claims 1-34) have been cancelled. This development is dispositive for the infringement allegations concerning the '482 patent. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff has marked its products with the asserted patent numbers since approximately 2003 ('482 Patent) and late 2014 ('251 Patent).

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-03-15 '482 Patent Priority Date
2001-10-30 '482 Patent Issue Date
2003-01-01 Alleged start of Plaintiff's '482 Patent marking
2006-07-21 '251 Patent Priority Date
2014-07-01 '251 Patent Issue Date
2014-10-01 Alleged start of Plaintiff's '251 Patent marking
2020-08-11 Complaint Filing Date
2020-11-10 '482 Patent IPR Proceeding Filed
2024-09-11 '482 Patent IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling All Claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,308,482 - "Reinforced Roof Underlayment and Method of Making the Same," issued October 30, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional roofing underlayments made of asphalt-coated organic paper as being prone to rapid deterioration from heat and moisture and susceptible to tearing, particularly when used over non-solid roof decks where water can puddle in draped sections (Compl. ¶13-14; '482 Patent, col. 1:35-2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a reinforced underlayment comprising an interwoven "scrim" (a mesh of strong strands) laminated with at least one layer of a waterproof thermoplastic material (Compl. ¶20, ¶22; '482 Patent, col. 2:35-46). This construction, illustrated in an exploded view in the complaint's reproduction of Figure 1, provides enhanced tensile strength to resist tearing and a durable barrier against the elements (Compl. ¶21; '482 Patent, col. 3:41-52).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create an underlayment with a lifespan that more closely matched the overlaying roof material (e.g., shingles or tiles), improving the overall integrity and longevity of the roof structure ('482 Patent, col. 2:11-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A roofing underlayment positioned between a roof support structure and an overlayment, comprising:
    • a reinforcing scrim of interwoven strands for supporting tensile forces in multiple directions; and
    • at least one layer of thermoplastic material affixed to a side of the reinforcing scrim by extrusion lamination for providing a weather-resistant barrier.

U.S. Patent No. 8,765,251 - "Slip Resistant Roof Underlayment," issued July 1, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a safety hazard with conventional underlayments, which can become slippery when exposed to moisture or covered in dust and debris, creating dangerous working conditions for roofers ('251 Patent, col. 1:29-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layer composite underlayment. It features a woven polypropylene scrim bonded to a non-woven, spun-bond polypropylene top layer using a liquid polypropylene coating. During manufacturing, the non-woven top layer is pressed deeply into the liquid coating, which both saturates the scrim and creates a "micro-textured surface" on the top layer, as shown in cross-section in the complaint's reproduction of Figure 1 (Compl. ¶34-36; '251 Patent, col. 2:25-36).
  • Technical Importance: This specific construction was designed to provide superior traction and a secure anchoring surface for workers and adhesive foams, thereby increasing installation safety and efficiency ('251 Patent, col. 1:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A roofing underlayment comprising a scrim of woven polypropylene fabric, a top layer of non-woven spun-bond polypropylene fabric, and a liquid-applied polypropylene coating.
    • The coating bonds the scrim and top layer and saturates the scrim to form a waterproof bottom layer.
    • The top layer is pressed into the coating to form a "micro-textured surface."
  • Independent Claim 11 requires:
    • A roofing underlayment comprising a top layer of non-woven spun-bond polypropylene fabric and a waterproof bottom structural layer laminated to it.
    • The bottom layer comprises a woven polypropylene scrim and a liquid-applied polypropylene coating that saturates the scrim and bonds it to the top layer.
    • The top layer is pressed into the coating to form a "micro-textured surface."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are synthetic roofing underlayments. For the '482 Patent, they are identified as Defendant's "ProLinx line," including ProLinx UDL 10, UDL 20, and UDL 30 (Compl. ¶56). For the '251 Patent, the accused products include the ProLinx line as well as "Owens Corning's RhinoRoof line," including RhinoRoof U10, U15, U20, and RSA (Compl. ¶64).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are used as a weather-resistant barrier in roof structures, placed between the roof support deck and the final overlayment, such as shingles (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint's reproduction of Figure 5 from the '482 Patent illustrates this conventional placement of an underlayment (10) in a roof assembly (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant are "direct competitors in the synthetic underlayment market" (Compl. ¶50). The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that presumably detail the specific infringing functionality of the accused products (Compl. ¶58, ¶66).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, which were not provided in the filed document. The following is a summary of the infringement theories based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

  • '482 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that Defendant’s ProLinx products directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1 and 2 of the '482 Patent (Compl. ¶56). The core of the allegation is that the accused products are reinforced roofing underlayments constructed with a "reinforcing scrim of interwoven strands" and a "layer of thermoplastic material" that provides a weather-resistant barrier, thereby mapping onto the elements of claim 1 (Compl. ¶20, ¶56). The complaint's reproduction of Figure 1 from the patent shows an exploded view of these core components: a scrim (12) sandwiched between waterproof layers (14) (Compl. ¶21).

  • '251 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the ProLinx and RhinoRoof products directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1 and 11 of the '251 Patent (Compl. ¶64). The theory of infringement suggests these products are multi-layer underlayments that include a woven scrim, a non-woven top layer, and a polypropylene coating, and that they are manufactured in a way that creates a "micro-textured surface" for slip resistance, as required by the asserted claims (Compl. ¶34, ¶37). The complaint's reproduction of Figure 1 from the patent illustrates the claimed cross-section, including the top layer (8) pressed into the coating (4) above the scrim (6) (Compl. ¶35-36).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • '482 Patent, Claim 1: "extrusion lamination"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific manufacturing process required by the claim for affixing the thermoplastic layer to the scrim. The infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused products are made by this precise method.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a formal definition. A party may argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the field, potentially covering any process where a molten polymer is extruded between two substrates that are then pressed together.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the specification notes that layers "may be affixed... using an adhesive or any other manner of attachment," claim 1 specifically recites "extrusion lamination," suggesting it is a distinct limitation meant to be narrower than all possible attachment methods ('482 Patent, col. 4:14-16). A party could argue this requires a process of co-extruding a new film layer onto the scrim, as opposed to laminating a pre-existing film with an adhesive.

  • '251 Patent, Claims 1 & 11: "micro-textured surface"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the key inventive feature providing slip resistance. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused products have such a surface and whether it is formed by the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition appears to be inextricably linked to a specific manufacturing process.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term covers any surface with small-scale texturing that is slip-resistant, focusing on the resulting structure rather than the method of its creation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims explicitly state the "micro-textured surface" is formed when "the top layer is pressed into the polypropylene coating" ('251 Patent, col. 10:1-4, 10:33-35). The specification emphasizes this process provides "superior traction" and prevents "pencil rolling," suggesting the term is not merely descriptive of any texture but refers to a specific texture created by impregnating non-woven fibers into a coating ('251 Patent, col. 2:25-36).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing "installation guides, product information and specification sheets, or online instruction materials" that instruct end-users to install and use the accused products in ways that directly infringe the '482 and '251 patents (Compl. ¶57, ¶65).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations for both patents are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts Defendant knew or should have known of the patents due to Plaintiff's long-standing practice of marking its competing products with the '482 patent number (since ~2003) and the '251 patent number (since ~2014). It further alleges Defendant would have been aware of these patents and marked products through its competition with Plaintiff and attendance at industry trade shows (Compl. ¶47-48, ¶52-54, ¶57, ¶65).

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

  1. Case Viability: A threshold question for the court will be the legal status of Count I. Given that an IPR proceeding subsequent to the complaint's filing resulted in the cancellation of all claims of the '482 patent, the infringement allegations related to that patent appear to be moot.

  2. Process vs. Product: For the '251 patent, a central dispute will likely be whether the claim limitation "micro-textured surface" is defined solely by the physical characteristics of the final product or if it is inextricably linked to the manufacturing process described in the patent—specifically, pressing a non-woven fabric into a liquid polymer coating.

  3. Evidentiary Burden: A key evidentiary question will be one of proof. Since the asserted claims include limitations related to the internal structure and method of manufacture (e.g., saturation of a scrim, formation of a micro-texture), the case may turn on what evidence Plaintiff can obtain through discovery regarding the specific materials and manufacturing processes used for the accused ProLinx and RhinoRoof products.