DCT
1:25-cv-01855
Liftwerx USA Inc v. Liftra IP ApS
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: LiftWerx USA Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Liftra IP ApS (Denmark)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dechert LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01855, E.D. Va., 10/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its up-tower wind turbine repair technologies do not infringe two of the Defendant's U.S. patents, citing an ongoing international litigation campaign by the Defendant over related foreign counterpart patents.
- Technical Context: The technology involves specialized fixtures used to secure the main shaft of a wind turbine, enabling the repair or replacement of heavy components like gearboxes within the nacelle without using large, conventional ground cranes.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a preemptive action filed in response to Defendant Liftra's patent enforcement activities against Plaintiff's affiliates in Europe and Canada. Liftra has initiated proceedings in the Netherlands to seize evidence and has filed patent infringement lawsuits in Europe and Canada asserting counterpart patents. Plaintiff argues this pattern of international enforcement creates an actual and imminent controversy, justifying a declaratory judgment of non-infringement in the United States.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-10-07 | ’518 and ’578 Patents Priority Date |
| 2019-08-13 | U.S. Patent No. 10,378,518 Issues |
| 2024-09-20 | Liftra files European Seizure Request |
| 2024-09-27 | Liftra obtains European ex parte seizure order |
| 2024-10-01 | U.S. Patent No. 12,104,578 Issues |
| 2024-11-01 | European seizure executed |
| 2025-03-21 | Liftra files application for European Access Proceedings |
| 2025-05-16 | Liftra files European Infringement Proceedings |
| 2025-07-02 | Dutch District Court dismisses Liftra's access proceeding |
| 2025-07-18 | Liftra files Canadian Infringement Proceedings |
| 2025-07-29 | Liftra appeals dismissal of European access proceeding |
| 2025-10-23 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,378,518 - Main Shaft Fixture
Issued August 13, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of servicing heavy components (e.g., gearboxes, generators) inside a wind turbine's nacelle. Prior methods required halting the turbine, fixing the rotor with a lock, and using custom fixtures that were inflexible to different main shaft geometries, leading to significant operational losses and logistical complexity (’518 Patent, col. 1:39-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part main shaft fixture designed to be mounted on stable structural parts within the nacelle. Its key feature is a set of at least three "radially displaceable pressure mandrels" equipped with "tap shoes" that can be adjusted to securely grip main shafts of varying shapes and sizes. This adaptability allows the fixture to be installed and used for repairs while the rotor is still in operation, and it can also incorporate mounting facilities for smaller, self-hoisting cranes, avoiding the need for large ground-based cranes (’518 Patent, col. 2:19-41, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The solution aims to create a more universal and efficient system for up-tower wind turbine maintenance, reducing downtime and the high costs associated with large mobile cranes (’518 Patent, col. 2:50-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of claims 1-8 (Compl. ¶59). Independent claims 1 and 2 are asserted.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A main shaft fixture for fixation of a main shaft on a wind turbine.
- The fixture is divided into sections for mounting on stable structural parts in a nacelle.
- Comprises at least three radially displaceable pressure mandrels located symmetrically around the main shaft's centre axis.
- First ends of the mandrels face the main shaft and are furnished with a tap shoe.
- The mandrels are displaceable between a passive, withdrawn position and an advanced, engaged position.
- Further comprises a rotor lock for fixation of the rotor.
- Further comprises one of a multi-part needle, roller, or ball bearing with an inner and outer ring.
- Independent Claim 2:
- A main shaft fixture for fixation of a main shaft on a wind turbine.
- The fixture is divided into sections for mounting on stable structural parts in a nacelle.
- Comprises at least three radially displaceable pressure mandrels located symmetrically around the main shaft's centre axis.
- First ends of the mandrels face the main shaft and are furnished with a tap shoe.
- The mandrels are displaceable between a passive, withdrawn position and an advanced, engaged position.
- Further comprises a rotor lock comprised of a flange element with a bolt circle geometry corresponding to the rotor's geometry.
- The flange element is fastened to two first beam-shaped brackets extending parallel on each side of the main shaft.
U.S. Patent No. 12,104,578 - Main Shaft Fixture
Issued October 1, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’578 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the parent ’518 Patent: the need for a versatile and efficient fixture for securing a wind turbine's main shaft during up-tower repairs to minimize downtime and avoid costly large cranes (’578 Patent, col. 1:30-56).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is again a main shaft fixture, but the claims focus on a combination of "adjustable pressure mandrels with tap shoes" and integrated "mounting facilities adapted for anchoring a crane on/in a nacelle." This combination provides a single apparatus that both secures the shaft and serves as a base for the lifting equipment needed for repairs, streamlining the entire maintenance process (’578 Patent, col. 2:34-43, col. 2:57-3:4).
- Technical Importance: The invention seeks to provide an integrated system for both shaft fixation and crane anchoring, further enhancing the efficiency and reducing the logistical footprint of major wind turbine repairs (’578 Patent, col.2:62-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶73). Independent claims 1, 15, and 16 are asserted.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A main shaft fixture for fixation of a main shaft on a wind turbine.
- Comprises adjustable pressure mandrels with tap shoes.
- The mandrels are displaceable between a passive position (at a distance from the shaft) and an active position (engaged with the shaft).
- Further comprises mounting facilities adapted for anchoring a crane on/in a nacelle of a wind turbine.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint broadly identifies the products at issue as "LiftWerx USA's up-tower lifting technologies, solutions, products and services" (Compl. ¶59, ¶74).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes these as "novel lifting solutions" used for "up-tower wind turbine corrective repairs" that lower costs by "exchanging major components without the need for large traditional cranes" (Compl. ¶2). A related European filing alleges that the LiftWerx products include "main shaft fixtures with rotor locks to service GE 1.5/1.6 MW turbines" (Compl. ¶21). Plaintiff asserts it makes, uses, sells, and imports these technologies in the United States (Compl. ¶53).
IV. Analysis of Non-Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a traditional claim chart mapping product features to claim elements. Instead, it lists claim elements that its products and services allegedly lack. The following tables summarize these non-infringement contentions for the lead independent claims. The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison table highlighting differences between Claim 2 of the ’518 Patent and Claim 1 of its European counterpart, EP ’639 Patent (Compl. ¶40).
’518 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claims 1 & 2) | Alleged Basis for Non-Infringement | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least three radially displaceable pressure mandrels | Plaintiff alleges its products and services do not include this feature. | ¶60.i | col. 10:56-58 |
| at least three radially displaceable pressure mandrels substantially symmetrically located around a centre axis of a main shaft | Plaintiff alleges its products and services do not include this feature. | ¶60.ii | col. 10:58-60 |
| a rotor lock for fixation of the rotor of a wind turbine | Plaintiff alleges its products and services do not include this feature. | ¶60.v | col. 10:65-66 |
| a rotor lock for fixation of the rotor of the wind turbine comprising a multi-part needle bearing, roller bearing, or ball bearing | Plaintiff alleges its products and services do not include this feature. | ¶60.vi | col. 10:67-col. 11:2 |
’578 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Basis for Non-Infringement | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| adjustable pressure mandrels with tap shoes | Plaintiff alleges its products and services do not include this feature. | ¶74.ii | col. 7:7-9 |
| adjustable pressure mandrels...displaceable between a passive position...and an active position | Plaintiff alleges its products and services do not include this feature. | ¶74.iii | col. 7:9-14 |
| mounting facilities adapted for anchoring a crane on/in a nacelle of a wind turbine | Plaintiff alleges its products and services do not include this feature. | ¶74.iv | col. 7:15-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Questions: The central dispute will be factual: do the accused LiftWerx technologies, in fact, include structures that meet the claim limitations of "radially displaceable pressure mandrels," a "rotor lock," and "mounting facilities for a crane"? The complaint's categorical denial of these features suggests it believes its technology uses a fundamentally different mechanism for shaft fixation and repair.
- Scope Questions: A primary legal question will be the scope of the claim terms. For example, Liftra may argue that a component of the LiftWerx system, while not explicitly called a "rotor lock," performs an equivalent function and therefore infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. Similarly, the definition of "mounting facilities adapted for anchoring a crane" may be disputed if the accused system uses a different anchoring architecture.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology and the non-infringement allegations, the following terms may become central to the case.
The Term: "radially displaceable pressure mandrels" (’518 Patent, Claim 2)
Context and Importance: This term appears to describe the core mechanism for adapting the fixture to different shafts. Plaintiff’s non-infringement position for the ’518 patent hinges on its products not containing this feature. The definition of what constitutes a "mandrel," how it must be "radially displaceable," and what level of "pressure" it must exert will be critical.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the mandrels can be simple structures, such as "hydraulically driven pistons" or even manually operated "threaded bolts" that work with threaded holes in the fixture, potentially broadening the term to cover various adjustable clamping mechanisms (’518 Patent, col. 5:11-18, col. 3:5-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the mandrels (18) as distinct components arranged symmetrically around the shaft (4) and pushing inward toward its center axis, suggesting a specific structural arrangement may be required (’518 Patent, Fig. 2).
The Term: "mounting facilities adapted for anchoring a crane" (’578 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This limitation is a cornerstone of the ’578 patent's asserted claims, and Plaintiff alleges its products do not have it. The dispute will likely focus on what structures qualify as "mounting facilities" and how "adapted" they must be for anchoring a crane.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the fixture "may comprise mounting facilities for a lightweight crane," suggesting this can be a feature added to the core fixture rather than a fully integrated system (’578 Patent, col. 3:9-11). This could support reading the term on any part of the fixture that can serve as an anchor point.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 shows distinct "mounting facilities (40) for the lightweight crane (12)," which appear as purpose-built brackets and attachment points separate from the main clamping mechanism. This may support an argument that incidental or general-purpose anchor points do not meet the limitation (’578 Patent, col. 6:4-6, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to be a strategic response to international litigation, aimed at securing legal certainty in the U.S. market. The case will likely turn on the following key questions:
- Jurisdictional Prerequisite: A threshold issue will be justiciability: has Liftra’s pattern of enforcement against LiftWerx’s affiliates abroad, using foreign counterpart patents, created a sufficiently "actual and imminent" controversy to give a U.S. court jurisdiction to hear a declaratory judgment action on the related U.S. patents?
- Technical Mismatch: A core merits question will be one of technical operation: do LiftWerx's products achieve up-tower repair using a mechanism that is fundamentally different from the "radially displaceable pressure mandrels" and integrated "rotor lock" required by the patents, as LiftWerx alleges? Or will Liftra be able to demonstrate that the accused systems contain equivalent structures?
- Definitional Scope: The outcome will depend heavily on claim construction: can terms like "rotor lock" and "mounting facilities" be construed broadly enough to read on the specific architecture of the accused LiftWerx systems, or are they limited to the specific embodiments and arrangements disclosed in the patent specifications?