DCT
2:23-cv-00562
Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane Rigging Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jay Schuyleman (Washington)
- Defendant: Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co. (Delaware); Barnhart Crane and Rigging, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Desmarais LLP; Seattle Patent Group
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00562, W.D. Wash., 12/18/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in Kent and Mt. Vernon, Washington, and has engaged in systematic and continuous business activities within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cantilevered hoisting systems infringe a patent related to an apparatus designed for positioning heavy loads, such as construction materials, into openings in buildings.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the heavy construction and industrial rigging sector, addressing the challenge of safely and efficiently moving large objects into difficult-to-access locations, particularly within high-rise structures.
- Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is a Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the patent and alleged infringement via a letter dated December 9, 2022. The complaint states Defendant acknowledged receipt of this letter but did not provide a substantive response, a fact pattern often used to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 8,317,244 Priority Date |
| 2012-11-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,317,244 Issued |
| 2022-12-09 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-12-18 | Third Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,317,244, Apparatus and Method for Positioning an Object in a Building, issued November 27, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of positioning large, heavy precast concrete panels into building openings as difficult, time-consuming, and dangerous, often requiring workers to manually pull the suspended loads into place, creating a risk of falling. (’244 Patent, col. 1:28-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an "offset hoisting apparatus" featuring a rigid boom that can slide through a fixed front mount and a rear mount. This configuration allows a crane to precisely extend a load cantilevered on the end of the boom into a recessed opening in a building, and then retract it, without requiring manual handling by workers at height. (’244 Patent, col. 2:13-24; col. 3:36-54).
- Technical Importance: The patented design purports to provide a safer, less expensive, and more controlled method for installing heavy components in structures compared to prior art methods. (’244 Patent, col. 2:2-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An improvement for an offset hoisting apparatus for use with a crane.
- A rigid boom with a hook for supporting a load.
- A front mount with an aperture that confines the boom for slidable movement, with the front mount being fixed to the hoisting apparatus.
- The distal end of the boom is cantilevered from the front mount to extend the load through an opening in a wall.
- A rear mount with an aperture that also confines the boom for slidable movement, with the rear mount also fixed to the hoisting apparatus.
- A "whereby" clause stating the boom can be selectively slid between retracted and extended positions to position the load.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more of the claims," reserving the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Defendant’s (1) Moveable Counterweight Cantilever System (“MOCCS”), including the Standard and Double Beam versions; (2) Mini-MOCCS; and (3) Mega-MOCCS. (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products are systems featuring a slidable boom that moves between retracted and extended positions, confined by a front and rear mount. (Compl. ¶¶22, 23, 24). This functionality is alleged to allow for the extension of a load through an opening in a wall. (Compl. ¶25). An animation from Defendant's website depicts the "Mini-MOCCS" inserting a load through an opening in a building facade. (Compl. p. 9). Defendant markets these products as a "new way" to perform rigging tasks that is less "time consuming," "high risk," and "labor intensive" than traditional methods. (Compl. ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'244 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rigid boom having a distal end and a proximal end, the distal end including a hook means for supporting the load; | The Accused Products include a boom (or "fork") with a means for lifting a load at its end. | ¶¶22, 37(b) | col. 3:40-43 |
| a front mount having a front boom aperture adapted for confining the boom to slidable movement therethrough, the front mount fixed with the offset hoisting apparatus, | The Accused Products allegedly have a front mount that confines a slidable boom. The complaint includes images depicting this structure in retracted and extended positions. | ¶¶22, 37(c) | col. 3:44-49 |
| the distal end cantilevered from the front mount to extend the load through an opening in a wall; and | The Accused Products are shown in marketing materials extending a load on the end of the boom into an opening in a building. | ¶¶25, 37(c) | col. 6:13-16 |
| a rear mount having a rear boom aperture adapted for confining the boom to slidable movement therethrough, the rear mount fixed with the offset hoisting apparatus; | The Accused Products allegedly have a rear mount that also confines the slidable boom. | ¶¶22, 37(d) | col. 3:50-54 |
| Whereby the boom may be selectively slid between a retracted and an extended position...the crane apparatus then able to lift the load. | Defendant’s marketing videos and animations allegedly show the boom on the Accused Products sliding between retracted and extended positions to lift and place a load. | ¶¶22-24, 37(e) | col. 4:40-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites that the cantilevered distal end is used "to extend the load through an opening in a wall." The court may need to address whether this phrase limits the claim to that specific use, or whether it describes a capability of the apparatus. Defendant may argue that its products have other primary uses outside this scope, while Plaintiff may argue that having the capability to be used in this way is sufficient for infringement.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on a factual comparison of the actual mechanical structure of the Accused Products to the claimed "front mount" and "rear mount." While the complaint provides marketing animations (e.g., Compl. p. 8), the case will turn on evidence of how the load forces are actually distributed and how the boom is supported and "cantilevered" in the physical products, not just in simplified diagrams.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"offset hoisting apparatus"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of claim 1 and provides the antecedent basis for the claimed "improvement." Its construction is critical because if deemed limiting, it could narrow the scope of all products to which the claim applies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term to generally describe the field of the invention, which may support an argument that it is merely contextual and not a structural limitation. (’244 Patent, col. 2:13-14).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes and illustrates a specific "offset hoisting apparatus 20" with particular frame components. (’244 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:36-39). A defendant could argue the term is limited to the structures disclosed in the patent's specific embodiments.
"the distal end cantilevered from the front mount"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the functional and structural relationship between the boom and the front mount that enables the invention's purpose. The precise engineering meaning of "cantilevered from" will be central to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue this term simply requires that the boom extends past the front mount as a cantilever beam, which is a standard engineering concept, and that the front mount acts as the fulcrum or primary support for the extended portion.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrasing "cantilevered from the front mount" could be argued to require a specific structural arrangement where the front mount is the exclusive or defining point of cantilever support. A defendant could argue its system uses a different load-bearing design that does not meet this specific claimed configuration. (’244 Patent, col. 6:13-14).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides promotional materials, instructions, and videos that teach and encourage customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner, with knowledge of the patent. (Compl. ¶¶38-40). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the products are especially made for an infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶41).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter on December 9, 2022, and that Defendant acknowledged its receipt, yet continued its allegedly infringing conduct. (Compl. ¶¶29, 31, 42, 44).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation "to extend the load through an opening in a wall" be interpreted to cover the general use of the Accused Products for moving equipment into any "hard to reach" location, or is it strictly limited to the specific building-construction context described in the patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the actual mechanical design of the accused MOCCS systems meet the claim's requirement of a boom that is "cantilevered from the front mount," or will a detailed technical analysis reveal a different load-bearing mechanism that falls outside the claim's scope?
- A central question for damages will turn on willfulness: assuming infringement is found, was Defendant's conduct after receiving a notice letter in December 2022 objectively reckless, or can it present a reasonable, good-faith defense of non-infringement or invalidity that would defeat the willfulness claim?