DCT

2:20-cv-00278

MacNeil Automotive Products Ltd v. Yita LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00278, W.D. Wash., 05/18/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant Yita, LLC is a Washington limited liability company with its principal place of business in the district, and it allegedly markets, distributes, and sells the accused products to customers within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Oedro and YitaMotor brand vehicle floor trays infringe four patents related to the specific design, precise fit, and manufacturing process of custom vehicle floor liners.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the automotive aftermarket accessories industry, specifically three-dimensional, custom-molded vehicle floor trays designed to conform precisely to the complex surfaces of a vehicle's footwell.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit by the accused products' manufacturer, Jinrong, including studying Plaintiff's patent portfolio and receiving advice from law firms regarding potential infringement. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, two of the patents-in-suit were the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In a proceeding concluded on February 6, 2024, all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186, including the asserted Claim 1, were cancelled. In a separate proceeding concluded on February 8, 2024, asserted claims 1, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834 were found patentable and confirmed to be valid over the prior art challenge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-10-29 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2013-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 Issues
2014-09-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834 Issues
2014-12-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 Issues
2015-01-01 Alleged manufacturer of Infringing Products begins studying U.S. market and Plaintiff’s IP (approx.)
2015-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,138,917 Issues
2016-10-01 Alleged first introduction of Infringing Products into U.S. market (approx. Fall 2016)
2022-05-18 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 - "Vehicle Floor Tray"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186, "Vehicle Floor Tray," issued February 26, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes issues with conventional vehicle floor mats and trays, which tend to shift, deform, or "flop about," providing a poor fit and uncertain feel for the occupant's feet. Additionally, while some mats have reservoirs for fluid, they do not adequately prevent collected liquid from "sloshing about in a moving vehicle." ( ’186 Patent, col. 1:15-30; col. 2:1-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a three-dimensional vehicle floor tray thermoformed from a polymer sheet. It features upstanding side panels that closely conform to the walls of the vehicle footwell to ensure a snug fit. A central feature is a reservoir containing a plurality of "upstanding, hollow, elongate baffles" designed both to elevate the occupant's feet above collected liquid and to impede the lateral movement of that liquid during vehicle motion. (’186 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:7-24).
  • Technical Importance: This design addressed the dual problems of poor fit and ineffective liquid containment by combining a precisely shaped, semi-rigid tray structure with an integrated, compartmentalized reservoir system. (Compl. ¶¶7, 8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶102).
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A vehicle floor tray thermoformed from a sheet of thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially uniform thickness.
    • A central panel substantially conforming to a vehicle footwell floor, with integrally formed and upwardly extending first and second panels that closely conform to footwell walls.
    • A reservoir disposed in the central panel.
    • A plurality of upstanding, hollow, elongate baffles disposed in the reservoir.
    • The baffles each having a width, in any horizontal direction, of more than two times its thickness.
    • The baffles are adapted to elevate an occupant's shoe above collected fluid and to impede lateral movement of that fluid.

U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834 - "Molded Vehicle Floor Tray and System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834, "Molded Vehicle Floor Tray and System," issued September 16, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the same problem of "loose fit" in conventional floor trays, which can "rattle, deform, shift and flop about" because of "a considerable space between the exterior wall of these conventional trays and the interior surface of the foot well." (’834 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is claimed as a system comprising both the vehicle footwell and the floor tray. The solution is a tray with an exceptionally close fit to the footwell, defined by a specific engineering tolerance. The patent claims that for large portions of the tray's upstanding walls, the outer surface is within one-eighth of an inch of the corresponding vehicle footwell wall, creating a "snug fit" that prevents movement. (’834 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-25).
  • Technical Importance: Achieving this high degree of dimensional accuracy in a mass-produced automotive accessory provided enhanced stability and protection compared to prior art trays. (Compl. ¶¶8-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claims 1, 5, and 9. (Compl. ¶111).
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A system including a vehicle foot well and a vehicle floor tray.
    • The foot well has a floor and at least first, second, and third upstanding walls.
    • The tray is molded from a sheet of polymeric material of substantially uniform thickness.
    • The tray has a central panel and first, second, and third upstanding tray walls that substantially conform to the respective foot well walls.
    • A specific tolerance limitation: at least 90 percent of the one-third of the outer surfaces of the tray walls closest to the top margin are within one-eighth of an inch of the respective foot well walls.
  • Independent Claim 9 contains similar elements but defines the tolerance limitation differently, requiring that 90 percent of the top one-half of the outer surface area of the walls meet the one-eighth inch tolerance.

U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 - "Manufacturing Vehicle Floor Trays"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655, "Manufacturing Vehicle Floor Trays," issued December 2, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a process for manufacturing vehicle floor trays. The claimed method involves digitally measuring the three-dimensional positions of points on a vehicle footwell surface, using those points to construct an electronic model of the footwell, using that electronic model to construct a three-dimensional image of the floor tray, and using the resulting data file to create a mold for manufacturing the physical tray. (’655 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s supplier, Jinrong, manufactures the accused products using a process of laser-scanning vehicle footwells to create "scan files," which are then used to digitally design and create molds for the floor trays. (Compl. ¶¶21-23, 54, 115).

U.S. Patent No. 9,138,917 - "Designing and Manufacturing Vehicle Floor Trays"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,138,917, "Designing and Manufacturing Vehicle Floor Trays," issued September 22, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: Like the ’655 Patent, this patent is directed to the method of designing and manufacturing vehicle floor trays. The claimed process includes digitally measuring points on a vehicle footwell, using a computer to create an electronic model of the footwell from those points, constructing an electronic image of the floor tray based on the footwell model, and using the resulting data to fabricate a mold. (’917 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶120).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations for this patent are based on the same accused manufacturing process as for the ’655 Patent: laser-scanning vehicle interiors to generate digital files that are then used to engineer and produce molds for the accused floor trays. (Compl. ¶¶21-23, 54, 120).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are vehicle floor trays marketed and sold under the trademarks “Oedro” and/or “YitaMotor.” (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are custom-designed vehicle floor trays made to fit specific makes, models, and years of vehicles. (Compl. ¶19). The complaint further alleges that the manufacturer of these products, Jinrong, uses a process of laser-scanning vehicle footwells in the United States to obtain the data necessary to design and manufacture these custom-fit trays. (Compl. ¶¶21, 40). Defendant Yita is alleged to be the exclusive U.S. distributor for these products, which are sold nationwide and compete directly with Plaintiff's "FLOORLINER" products. (Compl. ¶¶25, 104).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'186 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A vehicle floor tray thermoformed from a sheet of thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially uniform thickness... The accused Oedro/YitaMotor products are vehicle floor trays made from a polymeric material. ¶19 col. 5:11-17
a central panel substantially conforming to a floor of a vehicle foot well... a first panel integrally formed... upwardly extending... and closely conforming to a first foot well wall... a second panel integrally formed... upwardly extending... and closely conforming to a second foot well wall... The accused products are alleged to be custom-fit to specific vehicle footwells, thereby having a central panel and upstanding walls that conform to the footwell's surfaces. ¶19 col. 7:31-41
a reservoir disposed in the central panel of the floor tray; a plurality of upstanding, hollow, elongate baffles disposed in the reservoir... The accused products are alleged to be floor trays that infringe the patent, which implies the presence of a reservoir with baffles for fluid containment. ¶20 col. 7:7-12
the baffles each having a width, in any horizontal direction, of more than two times its thickness... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe Claim 1, which requires the baffles to meet this specific dimensional ratio. ¶102 col. 19:19-22
the baffles adapted to elevate the shoe or foot of the occupant above fluid collected in the reservoir, and further adapted to impede lateral movement... of fluid collected... The accused products are alleged to have the features of the patented invention, which include baffles that serve to raise the occupant's feet and prevent fluid sloshing. ¶20 col. 7:7-24

'834 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system including a vehicle... and a vehicle floor tray... The accused system is formed when a consumer installs an accused Oedro/YitaMotor floor tray into the vehicle for which it was designed. ¶110 col. 3:20-22
...the tray... having a central panel... first tray wall... second tray wall... and third tray wall... that substantially conform to the respective... floor... first foot well wall, second foot well wall, and third foot well wall. The accused trays are alleged to be custom-fit, made by laser-scanning vehicle interiors to ensure their panels conform to the vehicle's footwell surfaces. ¶¶21-22 col. 3:26-38
at least 90 percent of that one-third of the outer surfaces of the first, second and third tray walls which are closest to the respective top margins... being within one-eighth of an inch of the respective foot well walls. The complaint alleges that the process of laser-scanning and digital design used to make the accused products results in a tray that achieves the claimed close-fit tolerance when installed. ¶¶21-22, 111 col. 4:30-41

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Questions (Measurement): For the ’186 Patent, a key question may be whether the structures in the accused trays' reservoirs meet the specific dimensional limitation that their "width" is "more than two times its thickness." For the ’834 Patent, the central dispute will likely involve detailed measurements to determine if the accused trays, when installed, actually meet the precise numerical tolerance required by the claims (e.g., "90 percent... within one-eighth of an inch").
  • Scope Questions (Process Patents): For the process patents (’655 and ’917), a central issue may be whether the evidence of Defendant's manufacturing process in China is sufficient to establish that it practices every step of the claimed methods, including how digital points are used to construct electronic models and generate a mold.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'186 Patent

  • The Term: "baffles"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the liquid containment feature of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the structures in the accused products' reservoirs are "baffles" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its products have simple "treads" for grip, which are structurally or functionally distinct from the claimed "baffles" that must be hollow and impede fluid movement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract and detailed description frequently use the compound term "treads/baffles," suggesting the terms may be used interchangeably to describe structures that elevate a foot and impede liquid motion. (’186 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:7-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the "baffles" to be "hollow" and have a width more than twice their thickness. The specification describes the baffles as forming compartments that restrict fluid movement through a "complicated path" around their ends, which may suggest a more complex structure than simple parallel treads. (’186 Patent, col. 7:17-24).

'834 Patent

  • The Term: "substantially conforming"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the required relationship between the tray walls and the vehicle footwell walls. The term's construction will determine the baseline level of fit required before the more specific numerical tolerance of the claim is even considered.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background section contrasts the invention with prior art trays having a "loose fit" and "considerable space," suggesting that "substantially conforming" could mean any fit that is not loose. (’834 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language of Claim 1 itself provides an explicit definition for what "substantially conforming" means in the context of the invention, immediately clarifying the term with the precise limitation that 90% of a specific wall area must be "within one-eighth of an inch" of the footwell wall. A party could argue this objective standard defines the scope of the broader term.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both inducement and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on Defendant selling the accused trays to downstream consumers, who directly infringe by installing and using them. (Compl. ¶¶103, 111). The contributory infringement theory for the ’834 Patent is based on the allegation that the trays are especially made and adapted for infringing use (i.e., installation in a specific vehicle to complete the claimed "system") and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. (Compl. ¶109).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on extensive pre-suit knowledge. The allegations include that the manufacturer, Jinrong, studied Plaintiff’s patent portfolio, possessed and reviewed Plaintiff's patents, cited a MacNeil patent in its own Chinese patent application, and was "expressly aware of the patents-in-suit" after being advised by law firms on the matter. (Compl. ¶¶35, 36, 38, 39, 106, 113, 118, 123).

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

  • A core issue will be one of procedural effect: What is the legal and practical impact of the post-complaint IPR outcomes? The cancellation of all claims of the ’186 patent raises the question of whether that count can proceed, while the confirmation of the asserted ’834 patent claims may strengthen Plaintiff's position on validity for that portion of the dispute.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of metrology and proof: For the asserted system claims of the ’834 patent, can Plaintiff present sufficient expert evidence to prove that the accused products, as installed in vehicles, meet the highly specific and quantitative "within one-eighth of an inch" tolerance required by the claims?
  • A central challenge for the process patents (’655 and ’917) will be one of transnational discovery: Can Plaintiff obtain the necessary evidence from the manufacturer in China to prove that its internal design and manufacturing methods—from initial vehicle scanning to final mold creation—practice all steps of the asserted method claims?