2:11-cv-00118
Nordock Inc v. Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nordock, Inc. (Canada)
- Defendant: Systems, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sokol Law Office
- Case Identification: 2:11-cv-00118, E.D. Wis., 01/28/2011
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a place of business in the district and the claims arising from business conducted within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s dock levelers infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a lip lug and hinge plate assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical components of dock levelers, which are platforms used to bridge the gap between a loading dock and a transport vehicle.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement prior to filing the lawsuit, a fact which may be used to support the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-12-23 | '754 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2008-11-04 | '754 Patent Issue Date |
| 2011-01-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D579,754 - Lip and Hinge Plate for a Dock Leveler
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that in the early 2000s, Nordock sought to create dock levelers with "unique and distinctive lip lug and header plate designs" to differentiate its products in the marketplace (Compl. ¶9).
- The Patented Solution: The patent does not claim a functional solution but rather a specific ornamental design for the lip and hinge plate assembly. The design, as shown in the patent's figures, consists of a repeating pattern of stylized hinge knuckles connecting a lip plate to a header plate ('754 Patent, FIG. 1). The claim is for the visual appearance of this component, not its mechanical operation (Compl. ¶11).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this distinctive design came to be associated with Nordock's brand and quality through extensive advertising and commercial success (Compl. ¶12-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design of a lip and hinge plate for a dock leveler, as shown and described." ('754 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict a series of spaced hinge elements with a particular shape, joined by a common plate ('754 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s LMP, LHP, LMD, and LHD Series dock levelers (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are dock levelers that incorporate a lip lug and hinge plate assembly to bridge the gap between a dock and a trailer (Compl. ¶7-8).
The complaint alleges that these specific products feature a "lip lug and hinge plate design" that embodies the design claimed in the '754 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The complaint references marketing literature showing the accused dock levelers, attached as Exhibit C (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also asserts that the accused products are of "substandard design or workmanship" compared to Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. For a design patent, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The complaint's allegations are framed to meet this test.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant makes and sells dock levelers with a "lip lug and hinge plate design embodying the design shown in the '754 Patent" (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges that the Defendant's designs are "substantially and confusingly similar to NORDOCK's lip lug and header plate designs" (Compl. ¶29), which directly addresses the legal standard for design patent infringement. A perspective view from the patent shows the claimed ornamental design of the hinge assembly ('754 Patent, FIG. 1). The core of the dispute will be a visual comparison between the design shown in the patent's figures and the design of the accused products.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the design of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the claimed design. This will involve comparing the overall visual impression of the two designs, not just dissecting minor differences.
- Technical Questions: The complaint requests a judgment that the patented design is "non-functional" (Request for Relief, ¶2). This suggests a potential defense that the design is dictated by its mechanical function rather than by ornamental considerations. The court may need to determine which aspects of the design are ornamental and which are purely functional, as only ornamental aspects are protected by a design patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, the "claim" is the visual design itself, as depicted in the drawings. Claim construction focuses on determining the scope of this visual design, particularly distinguishing protected ornamental features from unprotected functional elements.
- The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between the elements shown in solid lines (part of the claim) and those in broken lines (environmental and not part of the claim), as this defines the boundaries of what is protected.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might focus on the overall visual impression created by the repeating, stylized pattern, arguing that minor variations in the accused product do not change this essential aesthetic.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states that elements shown in broken lines, such as the "deck and deck frame," "drive brackets," and "drive bar opening," "represent environmental structure... and form no part of the claimed design." ('754 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language provides strong evidence to limit the claim's scope to only the specific shapes depicted in solid lines.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement by "making, offering for sale, and selling" the accused products and does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶21).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving "written notice" from Nordock about the '754 Patent (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint alleges the infringement has been "done willfully, wantonly and in bad faith" (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on two fundamental questions inherent in design patent litigation:
A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the Defendant's hinge plate assembly "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '754 Patent, or are the differences significant enough to avoid infringement?
A key validity and scope question will be one of functionality: Is the patented design primarily ornamental, as the Plaintiff alleges, or are its features dictated by mechanical function? The Defendant may argue that the design is functional and therefore unpatentable as a design, a question the Plaintiff has preemptively asked the court to resolve in its favor.