DCT
3:25-cv-00099
Extreme Driver Inc v. L Fab Enterprises LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Extreme Driver Inc. (Virginia)
- Defendant: L Fab Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Iron Force (Pennsylvania); Montana Post Driver, LLC (Montana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Williams Mullen
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00099, W.D. Va., 12/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because events giving rise to the claims occurred in Madison County, Virginia, and because Defendants have derived substantial revenue from sales of accused products within the Commonwealth of Virginia.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hydraulic post driver products infringe a patent related to a system for mitigating vibration transfer during operation.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns heavy-duty hydraulic post drivers, equipment used in agricultural and commercial fencing to mechanically drive posts into the ground.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent letters to both Defendants on September 24, 2025, providing notice of the patent-in-suit and its alleged applicability to Defendants’ products. These letters form the basis of the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-06-29 | ’591 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-XX-XX | Plaintiff Extreme Driver established |
| 2023-08-01 | U.S. Patent No. 11,713,591 Issued |
| 2025-09-24 | Plaintiff sends notice letters to Iron Force & Montana Post |
| 2025-12-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,713,591 - "Systems, Devices, and/or Methods for Driving Posts"
- Issued: August 1, 2023 (’591 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint states that conventional hydraulic post drivers generate powerful impact forces that can create excessive vibrations (Compl. ¶14). These vibrations can be transferred to the driver's frame and any coupled equipment (e.g., a skid steer or tractor), leading to mechanical stress, damage, reduced operator control, and potentially dangerous instability or rollover events (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system designed to isolate these vibrations (’591 Patent, Abstract). The core of the solution is a dual-mast structure: an outer mast, to which the jackhammer or driving mechanism is coupled, slides or "floats" along a stationary inner mast that is part of the main frame (’591 Patent, col. 4:35-45). As the jackhammer reciprocates, the motion is contained within the floating outer mast assembly, which prevents the vibrations from being substantially transferred to the main frame and the attached vehicle (Compl. ¶17; ’591 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to improve the durability, safety, and operator comfort of high-powered hydraulic post drivers by decoupling the violent, repetitive motion of the hammer from the machine's primary structure (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 against both defendants (Compl. ¶¶31, 36).
- The essential elements of claim 13 include:
- A frame comprising an outer mast and an inner mast, where the outer mast slides along the inner mast.
- A motor and a hydraulic system coupled to the frame.
- An actuator coupled to the outer mast, where the outer mast is constructed to "float up and down on the inner mast" as the actuator operates, such that vibrations "substantially do not transfer to the frame."
- A drive cap "driven by, a weight of the outer mast," which drives a post via repeated motion when the outer mast falls.
- A requirement that the system has a front-to-back tilt "in excess of 25 degrees" and a right-to-left tilt "in excess of 35 degrees."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant Iron Force: Iron Force MS2750, MS3000, MS3500, MS5000, and MS5500 post driver products (the "Iron Force Accused Products") (Compl. ¶18).
- Defendant Montana Post: Montana Mountain Goat product (the "Montana Mountain Goat Accused Product") (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Iron Force Accused Products are hydraulic post drivers that feature an "Auto-Force" valve to place downward pressure on the post, can drive posts up to 100 inches high, and have a tilt of at least 42 degrees (Compl. ¶19).
- The Montana Mountain Goat Accused Product is alleged to be a hydraulic post driver with an adjustable driving height for posts up to 12 feet 8 inches and a tilt of at least 45 degrees (Compl. ¶25).
- The complaint alleges that both defendants sell their respective accused products to customers in Virginia, directly competing with Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶22, 28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of claim 13 but does not map specific features of the accused products to each claim element. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the general allegations provided.
’591 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame, the frame comprising an outer mast and an inner mast, wherein the outer mast slides along the inner mast | The complaint alleges the accused products are post drivers that embody the inventions claimed in the ’591 Patent, but does not specify their frame or mast structure. | ¶¶18, 24, 31, 36 | col. 4:35-39 |
| an actuator coupled to the outer mast, which outer mast is constructed to float up and down on the inner mast...thereby vibrations from outer mast motion substantially do not transfer to the frame | The complaint does not describe the specific actuator or vibration-dampening mechanism of the accused products. | ¶¶18, 24, 31, 36 | col. 4:59-65 |
| a drive cap coupled to, and driven by, a weight of the outer mast, wherein, responsive to the outer mast falling, the drive cap drives a post into the earth | Iron Force products are alleged to include an "Auto-Force" valve that "places downward pressure on the post." The complaint does not specify the driving mechanism for the Montana Post product. | ¶19 | col. 4:66-67 |
| wherein: the system has a front to back tilt in excess of 25 degrees; and the system has a right to left tilt of in excess of 35 degrees | Iron Force products are alleged to have a tilt of "at least 42 degrees." Montana Post's product is alleged to have a tilt of "at least 45 degrees." | ¶¶19, 25 | col. 10:40-45 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' driving mechanisms are "driven by, a weight of the outer mast" as required by the claim. The complaint's description of Iron Force's "Auto-Force" valve that "places downward pressure on the post" (Compl. ¶19) raises the possibility that the driving force is primarily hydraulic, rather than gravity-based, which could present a dispute over the scope of this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical detail on how, or if, the accused products achieve the claimed "float up and down" functionality to ensure vibrations "substantially do not transfer to the frame." The case will likely require discovery to determine if the accused products actually possess the dual-mast, vibration-isolating structure that is central to claim 13.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "float up and down"
Context and Importance: This term is critical as it describes the core functional benefit of the invention—vibration isolation. The dispute will center on how much mechanical independence is required between the inner and outer masts for the outer mast to be considered "floating."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that this floating action results in vibrations that "substantially do not get transferred to the frame" (’591 Patent, Abstract). The use of "substantially" suggests that complete isolation is not required, potentially allowing for some degree of connection or interaction between the masts during operation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the concept in the context of the "outer mast slid[ing] along the inner mast" (’591 Patent, col. 4:37-38), which might imply a configuration where the outer mast's movement is primarily guided by, but not rigidly fixed to, the inner mast during the impact cycle.
The Term: "driven by, a weight of the outer mast"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to infringement, especially concerning the Iron Force products. It dictates whether the primary source of the post-driving force must be gravity acting on the mass of the outer mast assembly. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the Iron Force products use an "Auto-Force" valve to apply "downward pressure" (Compl. ¶19), creating a factual question about the source of the driving force.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "driven by" means the weight is merely a component of the driving force, and that hydraulic assistance does not remove the mechanism from the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language distinguishes the "actuator" (which lifts the mast) from the "weight of the outer mast" (which drives the post). This separation could support an interpretation that the driving stroke must be unpowered (i.e., gravity-fed), in contrast to the powered lifting stroke performed by the actuator.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that both Defendants' infringement has been willful, knowing, and intentional (Compl. ¶¶32, 37). The basis for this allegation is a set of letters Plaintiff's counsel allegedly sent to both Iron Force and Montana Post on September 24, 2025, informing them of the ’591 Patent and its alleged relevance to their products (Compl. ¶¶21, 27). This constitutes an allegation of pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the claim limitation "driven by, a weight of the outer mast" read on a system that allegedly uses an "Auto-Force" valve to apply downward hydraulic pressure, or is it limited to a purely gravity-driven mechanism?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: Do the accused products, for which no technical details are provided in the complaint, actually incorporate the dual-mast structure that allows an outer mast to "float" and "substantially" isolate vibrations as recited in claim 13, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their mechanical design and operation?