Document Details

The Claimant is Mitch Walk / Bartact, Inc. No immediate red flags are apparent.

Based on the provided sources, the patent Claim Owner in this dispute is identified as Mitch Walk / Bartact, Inc. This entity is seeking to enforce a patent right in the case at hand. However, the sources do not provide any additional information that would raise immediate concerns or red flags about the Claimant. Specifically, there is no indication found in the provided sources that the Claim Owner is facing bankruptcy or experiencing financial distress. It's important to note that while no red flags are apparent from the given information, this does not necessarily mean there are none. Further research and due diligence may be necessary to uncover any potential issues or concerns related to the Claimant that are not evident from these sources alone.

The Defendant is Jeep, with no significant red flags identified.

Based on the provided sources, the defendant in this case is Jeep. However, there is limited information available about the company's financial status or any potential red flags. The sources do not provide any details about Jeep's recent revenue estimates, and there is no indication of bankruptcy or financial distress. The only notable information is regarding Jeep's likely defense strategy, which appears to be challenging the validity of the patent in question. Specifically, Jeep is contesting the validity of at least independent claims 1 and 12, as well as dependent claims, in view of U.S. Patent 10,144,315. They also argue that if the dependent claims are valid, they are not infringed by their Utility Grids. While this defense strategy is not necessarily a red flag, it does indicate that Jeep is actively contesting the lawsuit. Further research may be necessary to uncover any potential red flags or additional information about Jeep's financial status and overall position in this case.

The litigation venue and any potential red flags are not specified in the provided sources.

Based on the available information, there are no details about where the litigation is taking place or any associated red flags. The sources indicate that information regarding the Claim Defendant's business connection to the chosen venue and the Defendant's likely preferred court/venue in response to the Claimant's choice is not found. This suggests that the specific litigation venue and any potential issues related to it are not addressed in the reviewed documents. Further research may be necessary to determine the litigation location and identify any potential red flags associated with the chosen venue.

The estimated damages are $264 million, with potential lost profit damages of $150+ million. There is an injunction risk.

The estimated damages in this case are significant, with two key figures mentioned. First, based on addressable Jeep sales through trial (estimated at 600,000 vehicles by the end of 2024), and considering a replacement part cost of $220 per unit with two seats per vehicle, the apportioned sales through trial are estimated at $264 million. Additionally, there is mention of potential lost profit damages of approximately $150 million or more. This second figure is based on Bartact's high gross margin (exceeding 75%) and its demonstrated ability to scale production, as evidenced by its mass production of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding the injunction risk, it is important to note that Bartact is identified as a practicing entity. This means that Bartact is actively operating in the market and producing the products in question. As a result, there is a real risk of business interruption through an injunction or counterclaim, which could significantly impact Bartact's operations and future revenues.

The legal budget and terms of any law firm contingency are not known based on the provided information.

The sources do not contain any information about the legal budget or contingency arrangements for the Claim Owner. There is no indication of a specific budget allocated for legal expenses or any details about contingency agreements with law firms. The lack of information in the sources suggests that these details were not found in the reviewed documents. However, it's important to note that the absence of this information does not necessarily mean that such arrangements do not exist; rather, it indicates that further research or inquiry may be necessary to obtain this specific financial and legal information related to the Claim Owner's case.

The proposed claim is a patent infringement claim.

The claim involves alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,308,301, which covers a secure attachment system for vehicle seats, particularly for off-road vehicles like Jeeps. The Claim Owner has specifically alleged infringement of at least independent claims 1 and 12 of the '301 patent. The patent describes a plastic accessory frame with stabilizing components and straps for attaching accessories to the rear of vehicle seats. This invention is referred to as the "Walk '301—Secure Attachment System" in the provided information. While the exact details of the infringement allegations are not provided, the claim is clearly centered on the alleged unauthorized use or implementation of this patented vehicle seat attachment system.

The enforcement strategy involves direct communication, legal escalation, and damages assessment.

The Claim Owner, Mitch Walk / Bartact, Inc., has adopted a multi-faceted approach to enforce their patent rights. Their strategy begins with attempts at direct resolution, reaching out to Jeep through telephone and email communications. When these initial efforts prove unsuccessful, the strategy escalates to involve legal professionals, with attorney correspondence being initiated after disclosing the patent to Jeep. To strengthen their position, the Claim Owner has prepared claim charts to confirm infringement, demonstrating a thorough analysis of how Jeep's products potentially infringe on their patent. In terms of potential compensation, the strategy considers both lost profits and reasonable royalty damages approaches, indicating a comprehensive assessment of the financial impact of the alleged infringement. This multi-step approach suggests a calculated and escalating enforcement strategy, balancing direct negotiation attempts with legal preparation and financial analysis.

The client owns the patent and has rights to assert it as the inventor/owner.

Mitch Walk, the founder of Bartact, Inc. (originally Trek Armor), is identified as the patent owner and the entity seeking to enforce the patent rights in this dispute. The information provided indicates that Mitch Walk filed for the patent in 2015 on advanced seat systems with integrated securement assemblies. This patent, referred to as Walk '301, is currently granted and is set to expire on December 31, 2035. As the inventor and founder of the company, Mitch Walk/Bartact, Inc. has the rights to assert the patent. The client's ownership and right to assert the patent stem from their position as the original inventor and filer of the patent application, rather than as a licensee or assignee.

The client appears to own the patent as the original inventor.

Based on the provided sources, Mitch Walk, the founder of Bartact, Inc. (originally Trek Armor), is the inventor and owner of the patent in question. The information indicates that Mitch Walk founded Bartact, Inc. in 2011 and subsequently filed for a patent on advanced seat systems with integrated securement assemblies in 2015. This suggests that the client, Mitch Walk / Bartact, Inc., came to own the patent through the process of invention and filing for patent protection as the original creator of the technology. As the inventor and founder of the company, Mitch Walk likely has the rights to assert the patent in this dispute. However, the sources do not provide specific details about the patent application process or any potential transfers of ownership, so further research may be necessary to confirm the complete history of the patent's ownership.

The patent is currently in force.

The asserted patent, referred to as Walk '301, is granted and active. It is set to expire in 2035, indicating that it is currently valid and enforceable. This status is significant in the context of potential infringement claims and damages calculations. The source mentions discussions about lost profit damages and reasonable royalty damages, which are only relevant for patents that are in force and can be legally enforced. The fact that the patent's expiration is noted as being in the future (2035) further confirms its active status. Additionally, the mention of potential enhancement of damages due to willful infringement suggests that the patent holders are actively considering or pursuing legal action based on the rights granted by this in-force patent.

Mitch Walk is the inventor and appears to be on good terms with the Claim Owner.

The sources indicate that Mitch Walk is the sole inventor mentioned in the available documents. While the information provided is limited, there is no indication of any issues or conflicts between Mitch Walk and the Claim Owner. The sources specifically state that the documents do not indicate any problems in their relationship. This suggests that, as far as can be determined from the available information, Mitch Walk and the Claim Owner are likely still on good terms. However, it's important to note that the sources do not provide extensive details about their current relationship, and further investigation may be necessary to confirm the current status of their association.

The patent has not been found to have been litigated before.

Based on the provided sources, there is no indication that the patent in question has been involved in any previous litigation. The sources explicitly state that information about prior litigation or the results of any previous lawsuits was not found. However, it's important to note that this lack of information does not definitively prove that no litigation has occurred; it simply means that no evidence of litigation was present in the examined sources. Further research may be necessary to conclusively determine the litigation history of the patent.

The validity of the patent has not been tested in a post grant procedure based on available information.

The provided sources do not indicate any evidence of the patent's validity being challenged or tested in a post grant procedure at the USPTO. Both sources state that such information was "Not found." This suggests that, within the scope of the examined documents, there is no record of the patent undergoing any post grant validity challenges. However, it's important to note that while this information was not found in the current sources, further research may be necessary to definitively confirm the absence of any post grant procedures for this patent.

The patent covers a hardware invention, specifically an article of manufacture.

The invention described in U.S. Patent No. 10,308,301 is a secure attachment system for vehicle seats, primarily designed for off-road vehicles such as Jeeps. It is a physical, hardware-based invention that consists of a plastic accessory frame with stabilizing components and straps for attaching accessories to the rear of vehicle seats. The patent is classified as an "Article of Manufacture," which further confirms its nature as a hardware invention. There is no indication in the provided sources that the invention involves any software or process-related components. The absence of information regarding software involvement, coupled with the physical description of the attachment system, strongly suggests that this is purely a hardware-based invention.

The patent's grant location is not specified in the provided sources.

The sources do not contain any information about where the patent in question was granted. Both sources indicate that information about the patent's grant status in non-US patent offices was not found. This suggests that the patent's grant location is not explicitly mentioned in the available documents. It's important to note that while this information is not present in the given sources, it does not necessarily mean the patent hasn't been granted anywhere. Further research may be required to determine the exact location or jurisdiction where the patent was granted.

The patent has at least 2 independent claims.

Based on the provided sources, U.S. Patent No. 10,308,301 (referred to as the Walk '301 patent) has at least two independent claims. Specifically, the document mentions claims 1 and 12, which were not disputed by Jeep in terms of infringement. This information suggests that claims 1 and 12 are independent claims of the patent. It's important to note that while we can confirm the existence of these two independent claims, there may potentially be additional independent claims in the patent that were not explicitly mentioned in the provided sources.

The proportion of predicted damages that will be awarded at trial is uncertain and not explicitly stated.

Based on the provided sources, there are multiple damage estimates but no clear indication of what proportion will actually be awarded at trial. The sources mention lost profit damages of approximately $150M+ through trial, or reasonable royalty damages of $79M if limited to that approach. However, these are estimates and predictions, not guaranteed awards. The actual proportion awarded could vary significantly depending on various factors not specified in the sources. Additionally, there's mention of potential for enhancement up to 3x for either approach, which further complicates predicting the exact proportion. The sources also indicate that damages could continue beyond the trial period until the patent's expiration in 2035, but do not provide a specific proportion for trial awards versus ongoing damages. Without more concrete information on how the court is likely to rule, it's not possible to determine a precise proportion of predicted damages that will be awarded at trial.

The client's commercial strategy appears to be focused on the recovery of damages.

Based on the available information from the source, the Claim Owner's primary goal in bringing this claim seems to be seeking monetary compensation rather than pursuing an injunction or attempting to acquire market share. This is supported by the presence of detailed calculations for potential damages in the document, which include estimates for lost profits and reasonable royalties. The focus on quantifying financial losses suggests that the client's strategy is centered on recovering monetary damages resulting from the alleged infringement or breach. However, it's important to note that the source does not explicitly rule out other potential objectives, and further research may be necessary to confirm if there are any secondary goals or additional aspects to the client's commercial strategy beyond damage recovery.

Yes, there appears to be pending continuation or divisional applications.

Based on the provided sources, while there is no explicit mention of a pending continuation or divisional application, the information suggests that there are ongoing patent-related activities. The sources indicate that "other claims are still being examined" and there is an expectation that "most/all of those [will be] finalized in the coming months." This includes claims for specific features, such as those "between the seats." While the exact nature of these pending claims is not specified as continuation or divisional applications, the ongoing examination process implies that there are indeed pending patent applications related to the original patent. However, it's important to note that further research may be necessary to confirm the specific type of pending applications and their exact status.

The patent's status in other patent offices is unknown based on available information.

Based on the provided sources, there is no information available regarding whether the patent has been granted or refused in other patent offices. The sources indicate that no data was found about the patent's status in other countries, including whether it has been granted, denied, or challenged in post-grant procedures in non-US jurisdictions. Additionally, there is no information about potential differences in patent scope granted by other offices. This lack of information suggests that further research may be necessary to determine the patent's status in other patent offices worldwide.

The patent does not appear to claim priority from any earlier applications.

Based on the provided source, there is no information found indicating that the asserted patent claims priority to any earlier application or applications. However, it's important to note that this lack of information does not definitively confirm the absence of priority claims. Further research or examination of the patent documentation may be necessary to conclusively determine if there are any priority claims or potential risks related to added matter or loss of priority.

The language of the priority filing and potential translation risk are unknown.

Based on the provided sources, there is no information available about the language of the priority filing or its relationship to the language of the currently asserted patent. The sources indicate that this information was not found in the reviewed documents. As a result, it is not possible to determine if there is any translation risk or potential differences in patent claim scope due to translation. Further research would be necessary to ascertain these details and assess any potential language-related issues.