DCT
2:23-cv-01526
Goat LLC v. Advanced Wholesale LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Daniel Webster, Gary Graves, and The Goat LLC (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Advanced Wholesale LLC and Nicholas Newgard (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Leydig, Voit & Mayer, LTD
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01526, E.D. Wis., 11/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin because all defendants are citizens of and reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s roof climbing tool infringes a patent directed to a similar safety device, in addition to asserting claims for trademark and trade dress infringement.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to safety equipment that provides a means for roofing professionals to more easily and safely ascend and descend steeply pitched roofs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Defendants were permitted to sell Plaintiffs' authentic product. Plaintiffs allege they discovered in November 2022 that Defendants had begun selling "replicated" versions of the tool. This was followed by an Amazon infringement notice, which allegedly resulted in a temporary delisting, and subsequent cease-and-desist letters to which Defendants allegedly did not respond. This history forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-05 | Plaintiff The Goat LLC founded |
| 2013-09-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,551,184 Priority Date |
| 2014 (approx.) | Plaintiff The Goat LLC begins business related to the roof climbing tool |
| 2017-01-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,551,184 Issue Date |
| 2020 (H2) | Plaintiffs learn Defendants are making unauthorized sales |
| 2022-11 (approx.) | Plaintiffs learn Defendants allegedly replicated the Roof Climbing Tool |
| 2022-11 (approx.) | Plaintiffs report infringement notice to Amazon.com Inc. |
| 2023-09/10 | Plaintiffs send cease and desist letters to Defendants |
| 2023-11-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,551,184 - "Roof Climbing Tool"
- Issued: January 24, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of accessing and working on steep roofs as a "dangerous task," noting that conventional safety methods involving personal fall arrest systems are often "difficult and time consuming" (’184 Patent, col. 1:15-26). Carrying a second ladder up a first ladder to hook onto a roof also increases difficulty and risk (’184 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a tool designed to simplify this process. It consists of a "peak engagement member," shaped like a hook, that goes over the peak of a roof, and an "operator climbing member" which is a long shaft with multiple "step handles" attached (’184 Patent, Abstract). This allows a user to anchor the tool to the roof's peak and then use the handles to climb up or down the roof's surface, as illustrated in the patent's Figure 1 and described in the complaint (Compl. ¶13).
- Technical Importance: The tool aims to provide a method to "scale, inspect, and work on steep roofs that is both time-efficient and reduces the risk of injury or death" (’184 Patent, col. 1:35-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A peak engagement member for engaging a first surface of the roof.
- An operator climbing member with an elongated central shaft and multiple spaced-apart step handles.
- Each step handle has an elongated body with a bore, a "generally flat roof engaging surface," and a "generally U-shaped handle" opposite the surface.
- The U-shaped handle has an "elongated bight" that is "generally parallel to the central shaft."
- The bore is located between the U-shaped handle and the roof engaging surface, with the shaft passing through it.
- The operator climbing member engages the second surface of the roof and is operatively connected to the peak engagement member.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, though this is common practice.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "infringing versions of the Roof Climbing Tool" sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶33, 41).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants have "copied the proprietary and protected design" of Plaintiffs' tool and are selling "virtually identical versions" (Compl. ¶31). The accused products are alleged to have the same core structure, including a "peak engagement section" and a "plurality of step handles" (Compl. ¶33). A photograph provided in the complaint shows an accused product with a hook-like member, a blue shaft, and yellow handles (Compl., p. 10). The complaint alleges these products are sold through e-commerce sites like Amazon.com and Etsy, as well as Defendants' own website (Compl. ¶30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the accused product identifying elements that allegedly correspond to the patent claims (Compl., p. 10).
'184 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a peak engagement member for engaging the first surface of the roof | The accused tool includes a "peak engagement member for engaging the peak of a roof." This is labeled in the complaint's visual evidence. | ¶42 | col. 2:34-41 |
| an operator climbing member including an elongated central shaft, and a plurality of spaced apart step handles mounted on the central shaft | The accused tool includes an "operator climbing member having an elongated central shaft and a plurality of spaced apart step handles." This is labeled as "Climbing Member with Shaft" in the complaint's visual evidence. | ¶43 | col. 3:35-43 |
| each step handle having an elongated body with a bore extending therethrough, a generally flat roof engaging surface... and a generally U-shaped handle... | The accused step handles are alleged to have a "generally flat roof engaging surface," a "U-shaped handle," and a bore through which the shaft extends. | ¶44 | col. 3:44-53 |
| the U-shaped handle having an elongated bight that is generally parallel to the central shaft | The complaint describes the step handles as having a U-shaped handle, and the provided photograph depicts a bight that appears parallel to the shaft. | ¶44 | col. 4:1-3 |
| the bore of each step handle is disposed between the U-shaped handle and the roof engaging surface of each the step handle | The complaint alleges the bore is disposed between the U-shaped handle and the roof engaging surface. | ¶44 | col. 4:29-31 |
| the shaft extending through the bore of each step handle | The complaint alleges that the shaft "extends through the bore of each step handle." | ¶44 | col. 4:29-31 |
| the operator climbing member... being operatively connected to the peak engagement member | The complaint states that when assembled, the operator climbing member is "operatively coupled to the peak engaging member." | ¶45 | col. 4:38-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Questions: The core of the dispute appears to be factual. The complaint alleges the accused product is a "virtually identical" copy (Compl. ¶31). The primary question for the court will be whether the accused product, in fact, incorporates every element of the asserted claim as alleged.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of relational and descriptive terms. For example, the court may need to determine if the accused handle's bight is "generally parallel" to its shaft, or if its bottom surface is "generally flat" as required by the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "generally parallel"
- Context and Importance: This term, which appears in claim 1, defines the spatial relationship between the bight of the U-shaped handle and the central shaft. Its construction is important because if the accused product's handle is oriented at a sufficient angle, a defendant could argue it falls outside the scope of "generally parallel." Practitioners may focus on this term because such dimensional or relational limitations are common areas of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "generally" suggests the patentee did not intend to require perfect, mathematical parallelism. The specification describes the connecting member 39 (which forms the bight) as "generally parallel to shaft 31" ('184 Patent, col. 4:2-3), supporting the idea that some deviation is contemplated.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower construction might argue that the term should be interpreted in light of the patent's drawings, such as Figure 5, where the connecting member 39 is depicted as being substantially parallel to the shaft 31.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful since at least November 2022 (Compl. ¶50). The factual basis for this allegation includes Plaintiffs' discovery of the alleged replication (Compl. ¶28), a notice of infringement sent to Amazon.com (Compl. ¶37), and cease and desist letters sent in September and October 2023 (Compl. ¶39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on allegations of direct copying rather than complex technical distinctions. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A primary evidentiary question will be whether the accused product is, as a matter of fact, a copy that practices every limitation of the asserted patent claim. The complaint's allegation that the product is "virtually identical" suggests the dispute will focus on a direct comparison of the products.
- A secondary issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms with modifiers, such as "generally parallel" and "generally flat," be construed to cover any minor structural variations that may exist between the patented invention and the accused tool?
- Finally, the claim of willful infringement will turn on the evidence presented regarding the parties' prior commercial relationship and the extent of Defendants' knowledge of the '184 Patent, particularly following the events alleged to have occurred in and after November 2022.