DCT
2:25-cv-00377
8082464 Canada Inc v. Elko Wire Rope Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: 8082464 Canada Inc. (Quebec, Canada)
- Defendant: Elko Wire Rope, Inc. (Utah) and related entities
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00377, D. Utah, 05/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because the lead Defendant, Elko Wire Rope, Inc., has its principal place of business in the state, and the common owners of all defendant entities are alleged to reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s heavy-lifting services for large mining shovels infringe a patent related to a specific method and system for safely lifting such equipment for maintenance.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for lifting multi-ton mining shovels, a critical and high-risk procedure in open-pit mining where efficiency and safety are paramount for minimizing operational downtime.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit and its infringement allegations on April 12, 2024, more than a year prior to filing the suit. This event forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-05-03 | U.S. Patent 11,851,309 Priority Date |
| 2023-12-26 | U.S. Patent 11,851,309 Issues |
| 2024-04-12 | Plaintiff Provides Defendant Notice of Patent |
| 2025-05-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,851,309 - “Shovel Lifting System and Method,” Issued December 26, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the significant risks and difficulties associated with lifting massive mining shovels for maintenance. Conventional methods are presented as creating dangerous imbalances, such as when lifting the entire shovel (including its dipper) off the ground, or creating intense localized pressure points that can cause the ground to fail or the shovel to tip over (’309 Patent, col. 5:1-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the shovel’s main body is lifted while the heavy front-end components (the dipper and handle) are intentionally left on the ground. This configuration uses the dipper’s weight to anchor and stabilize the lift ('309 Patent, col. 5:5-10). The lift is performed by a coordinated system of multiple lifting units, managed by a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), which monitors the lift and makes real-time adjustments to ensure the shovel remains level and stable throughout the operation ('309 Patent, col. 2:58-63; Fig. 9).
- Technical Importance: The described method aims to provide a safer and more controlled process for a critical industrial task, automating the lift to reduce human error and managing load distribution to prevent catastrophic failure ('309 Patent, col. 5:40-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('309 Patent, Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a) configuring the shovel and a lifting system including lifting units on a lifting site...the set of lifting units being operatively connected to a control unit;
- b) extending the set of lifting units in contact with...force applying points on the car body and the counterweight;
- c) lowering the dipper mounted to the shovel onto a supporting surface; and
- d) starting a lifting operation to raise the shovel...while the dipper...remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "heavy-lifting services to mining customers," specifically exemplified by the service of "lifting a mining shovel for undercarriage repair or maintenance at the Arturo mining site in Carlin, Nevada" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant is a competitor in the industry of providing heavy-lifting solutions for maintaining mining shovels (Compl. ¶17). The functional aspect of the service is the physical lifting of the shovel. One image provided shows a large crane suspending a shovel at night, suggesting its use in the lifting process (Compl. ¶22). A second image shows the shovel elevated and resting on supports during the day, with its dipper lowered near the ground, depicting the result of the alleged infringing service (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’309 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) configuring the shovel and a lifting system including lifting units on a lifting site in a relative position wherein a set of lifting units matches corresponding force applying points on the car body and the counterweight, the set of lifting units being operatively connected to a control unit | Performing heavy-lifting services for mining shovels, which necessitates configuring equipment at a mining site. | ¶21 | col. 10:1-6 |
| b) extending the set of lifting units in contact with the corresponding force applying points on the car body and the counterweight | The complaint does not detail this specific step but alleges that the overall lifting service performs the claimed method. | ¶21, 26 | col. 10:7-10 |
| c) lowering the dipper mounted to the shovel onto a supporting surface | The photographic evidence provided is alleged to depict the accused service, showing the shovel’s dipper lowered to the ground. | ¶22 | col. 10:11-13 |
| d) starting a lifting operation to raise the shovel to a desired height while the dipper, mounted to the shovel, remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation | The photographic evidence provided is alleged to depict the result of the lifting operation, showing the shovel body raised while the dipper remains on the ground. | ¶22 | col. 10:14-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent specification describes the "lifting system" as a coordinated set of ground-based hydraulic jacks ('309 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:3-13). The complaint’s photographic evidence, however, depicts a large mobile crane involved in the lift (Compl. ¶22). This raises the question of whether the term "lifting units" can be construed to encompass a crane, or if its meaning is limited by the specification's detailed disclosure of a multi-jack system.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence that the accused service utilizes a "control unit" to operatively connect the "lifting units," a required element of claim 1. A key factual question for the court will be what evidence shows that Defendant’s service uses such a control unit to coordinate the lift, as opposed to relying on uncoordinated manual operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "lifting system including lifting units"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central because the accused service, as depicted in the complaint's own evidence, appears to use a large crane (Compl. ¶22), whereas the patent’s specification and figures heavily emphasize a system of multiple, coordinated, ground-based jacks ('309 Patent, col. 6:3-13, Fig. 5). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether a crane falls within the scope of this term.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to jacks. Plaintiff may argue that any combination of devices used to perform the lift, including a crane and support stands, constitutes the "lifting system."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the specification consistently and exclusively describes the "lifting units" as a plurality of jacks (e.g., "four (4) lifting units 18L, 18R, 19L and 19R may be preassembled on a skid") and that the invention is the coordinated action of these specific types of units ('309 Patent, col. 6:3-8). The abstract's reference to "six lifting devices arranged in three pairs" could further support a narrower construction.
The Term: "while the dipper...remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is a key point of novelty distinguishing the invention from prior art where the entire shovel was lifted. Proving infringement requires showing that the accused service keeps the dipper on the ground during the active lifting phase, not just before or after.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff will point to the image in the complaint showing the dipper on the ground while the shovel is elevated as evidence that this condition is met (Compl. ¶22). They may argue "remains on the supporting surface" simply means it is not lifted with the main body.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue this requires constant contact with the ground throughout the entire lift. The complaint provides only static images, not a video or procedural description, raising the question of what evidence will demonstrate that the dipper stayed down for the required "duration of the lifting operation."
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful since at least April 12, 2024, the date Plaintiff allegedly sent a letter providing notice of the ’309 Patent and its infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 27). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge is the stated basis for seeking enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "lifting system including lifting units," which is described in the patent almost exclusively as a system of coordinated ground-based jacks, be construed to cover the accused service that appears to involve a large mobile crane for the primary lift?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: beyond the static photographs provided, what evidence will show that the accused service practices every step of the asserted method claim, particularly the use of an integrated "control unit" for coordination and the specific temporal requirement that the dipper "remains on the supporting surface for a duration of the lifting operation"?