Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 179

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NORDOCK, INC. )
) CIVIL ACTION: 11-CV-0118
Plaintiff, )
) Magistrate Judge William Duffin
v. )
)
SYSTEMS, INC. )
)
Defendant. )

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS


MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Nordock, Inc. (Nordock) respectfully submits this memorandum responsive to

this Courts Orders of June 20, 2017 and August 4, 2017. (Court Docket 255 and 256). Nordock

contends the article of manufacture for purposes of calculating damages under 35 U.S.C. 289 is

the entire product manufactured and sold by Defendant when it infringed Plaintiffs design

patent; that this conclusion can be reached as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts; and

that Defendant bears the burden of proof if it contends otherwise.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Courts recent Samsung decision states the first step in calculating 289

damages is to identify the article of manufacture to which the infringed design has been

applied, but declines to establish how to make this identification. Samsung Elect. Co. Ltd. v.

Apple, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 434 (2016). The case involves design patents for a smartphone.

The Court stated a smartphone is a cell phone that performs a broad range of other functions

based on advanced computing capability, large storage capacity, and Internet connectivity. (Id. at

433). Recognizing this, the Court held that identifying the entire smartphone as the only

permissible article of manufacture because consumers could not separately purchase

components of the smartphones is not consistent with 289. Id. at 432-33.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 31 Document 258


Identifying the article of manufacture to which the infringed design has been applied is

relatively simple for products that do not perform a broad range of other functions. The terms

for purpose of sale and total profit in 289 are uncomplicated, and Congress clearly intended

the statute to prohibit apportionment and be preventive in nature. Thus, the article is presumed to

be the entire infringing product sold for a profit unless the infringer proves otherwise. When this

presumption is challenged, the article of manufacture is easily identified in the vast majority of

design patent cases by asking a few threshold questions. If the answer to each question is no, the

presumption stands and the defendants total profit is based on the entire infringing product. If

the answer to any question is yes, then a totality of the circumstances test should be performed.

1. Does the patent fail to identify the article of manufacture to which the claimed
design is applied by the name generally known and used by the public?
2. Is the patented design applied to a component sold separately from the
infringing product as a complete unit?
3. Is the patented design applied to a product with an intended purpose, which also
performs a broad range of other functions?

Stagnant dominant corporations will assuredly ask courts to adopt tests and factors that

violate the clear meaning and intent of 289 so they can take the distinctive and favorable

product designs of innovative smaller companies entering their industry. The above identification

step does not favor them, but rather avoids outcomes contrary to 289. It also conserves judicial

resources, promotes the industrial arts, and complies with the Courts Samsung and Federal

Circuits Nike decisions. Id; Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

II. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDING

A. Applicable Statutes

This is an action for infringement of a design patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 171 seeking

an award of damages under 35 U.S.C. 289 for the total profit on Systems sale of roughly 1,500

infringing dock levelers. Sections 171 and 289 both include the term article of manufacture.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 31 Document 258


The statutes read as follows:

Whoever invents any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of
manufacture may obtain a patent therefor . . . 35 U.S.C. 171 (2017).

Whoever . . . applies the patented design . . . to any article of manufacture


for the purpose of sale . . . shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his
total profit . . . 35 U.S.C. 289 (2017) (emphasis added).

The for purpose of sale and total profit language clearly focuses on the sale of the

infringing product. Nike, 138 F.3d at 1439-42. The Federal Circuits review of the Congressional

Record related to 289 recognizes that the statute prohibits apportionment. Id. at 1441. The

Congressional Record includes House and Senate Reports. Proposed Statement of Fact (SOF)

No. 1, Ex. A.

B. Background

1. Dock Leveler Industry

Nordocks U.S. Patent Application No. 10/328,279 (the 279 Application) is the parent

application of Patent Nos. 6,834,409 (the 409 Patent) and D579,754 (the D754 Patent).

SOF 2, Ex. B; SOF 3, Exs. C, D. As stated in the 279 Application, dock levelers are mechanical

devices that bridge the gap between the floor of a loading dock and the bed of a trailer. This is

done by raising and lowering its deck and lip to safely allow people and forklifts to pass between

the loading dock and the trailer when loading or unloading cargo. SOF 4, 5.

The United States loading dock leveler industry is dominated by three companies. As

Systems expert testified at trial, these companies have 80% of the market. SOF 6, 7.

Company Founded Market Share


4Front 1953 31
Rite Hite 1965 30
Systems 1961 19
Nordock 2002 5
Blue Giant 1963 4
Others --- 11

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 31 Document 258


Both this Court and the Federal Circuit acknowledged that dock levelers are sold with a

variety of lip, header and lip-to-deck securement designs (front end designs). SOF 8. The

D754 Patent lists fifty-three (53) references showing a variety of front end designs considered

by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) before issuing the patent. SOF 9.

Photographs from Rite-Hite and 4Front brochures for their levelers are shown below. SOF 10.

Since the 1960s, the defendant, Systems, sold dock levelers having a non-distinctive

piano hinge or gusseted piano hinge front end design. SOF 11. Photographs from Systems

brochures displaying these levelers are shown below. SOF 12.

Levelers with piano hinge and gusseted piano hinge front ends are common

throughout the industry. SOF 13. Systems sold levelers with this non-distinctive front end for

over forty (40) years before adopting Nordocks distinctive front end design covered by the

D754 Patent. SOF 11-15, 23, 24, 26.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 31 Document 258


2. Nordock Introduced A Line Of Levelers With Its New Distinctive Front End Design
And Filed A Patent Application Disclosing That Design In 2002

Nordock was founded in December 2001. From its inception, Nordock built and sold

levelers with a unique and distinctive front end design (the D754 Design). SOF 8, 14.

Nordocks front end design was intended to distinguish its levelers from other manufacturers.

Nordock began displaying photos of its levelers on its website in 2002. SOF 14. A photograph

from a Nordock brochure showing one of its levelers is shown below. SOF 15, Ex. E.

In December 2002, Denis Gleason, the founder and president of Nordock, filed the 279

Application entitled Dock Leveler. The 279 Application disclosed multiple inventions

resulting in multiple patents as shown in the chart below. Ex. D, p. A6321. The 279 Application

was published by the USPTO on June 24, 2004. Ex. C, p. A6271.

U.S. Patent Application Filed Published Issued


6,834,409 10/328,279 12/23/02 06/04/04 12/28/04
7,013,519 10/998,532 11/29/04 05/05/05 03/21/06
----- 11/179,941 07/12/05 12/15/05 Active until 6/23/07
D579,754 29/288,137 05/31/07 11/04/08 11/04/08

Figures 1-10 of the 279 Application show a dock leveler. SOF 16. As shown in Figure

7A below, the pivoting lip is physically and operationally an integral part of the leveler. Without

a lip (labeled 80 in the figure below), a leveler will not perform its intended purpose of

bridging the gap between the loading dock and the trailer bed (17). SOF 17.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 31 Document 258


Figures 10A-G of the 279 Application disclose the ornamental 754 Design. Figure 10A

is shown below. The front end design includes a combination of parts, namely a hinge plate or

header (labeled 55 below), header lugs (59a-i), a lip plate (80), lip lugs (88a-i) and a pivot rod

(89). The lip (80) is hingably joined to the front of the deck (60) by these parts. The deck header

(55) is welded to deck beams (52a-f) and deck (60). SOF 17.

Figures 10A-G show the D754 Design in solid lines, and show various other portions of

the dock leveler in broken lines. SOF 17, Ex. B. Systems technical expert, testified that the

broken lines shown in Figure 10A are consistent with a design patent drawing. SOF 18.

3. The D754 Patent

The D754 Patent issued November 4, 2008. Ex. D. Figures 10A-G of the 279

Application form the basis for Figures 1-7 of the D754 Patent. SOF 19. Figures 1-7 show the

header plate, lip, lugs and pivot rod that embody the D754 Design in solid lines, and show other

portions of the leveler in broken lines. Figure 1 from the D754 Patent is shown below.
6

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 31 Document 258


As the Federal Circuit stated, the D754 Patent is entitled Lip and Hinge Plate for a

Dock Leveler, and makes clear (i.e., identifies) that the claimed design is applied to and used

with a dock leveler. SOF 20, Ex. D. Pursuant to 171, the claimed design does not need to

encompass the entire article of manufacture. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure

(MPEP) explains as follows:

The title of the design identifies the article in which the design is embodied by
the name generally known and used by the public and may contribute to defining
the scope of the claim. See MPEP 1504.04, subsection I.A. The title may be
directed to the entire article embodying the design while the claimed design
shown in full lines in the drawings may be directed to only a portion of the article.
MPEP 1503.01 (I)(A) (9th ed. 2015) (emphasis added). The MPEP, in a subsection entitled

Considerations Under 35 U.S.C. 112, also states in pertinent part as follows:

The scope of a claimed design is understood to be limited to those surfaces or


portions of the article shown in the drawing in full lines in combination with any
additional written description in the specification. The title does not define the
scope of the claimed design but merely identifies the article in which it is
embodied. See MPEP 1503.01, subsection I.

MPEP 1504.04(I)(A) (9th ed. 2015) (emphasis added); SOF 21. The title and description of

each figure in the D754 Patent states the design is for a dock leveler. The patent illustrates and

describes various additional dock leveler parts, such as the deck, deck frame, drive brackets,

drive bar opening and assist spring mounting bracket. The cover page of the D754 Patent also

references its parent 279 Application and 409 and 513 Patents, each of which is entitled Dock

Leveler and shows and describes an entire leveler. Ex. D.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 7 of 31 Document 258


4. Systems Obtained A Printout Of The D754 Design From The USPTO Before
It Began Selling Its Infringing Levelers In 2005

Systems developed its infringing LHP/LHD levelers1 after 2002 - after Nordock filed its

279 Application and displayed its D754 design on its website. SOF 14, 22. Systems vice-

president of engineering testified that he conducted patent searches of the USPTO website on an

every-other-month basis to see what was new in the industry. SOF 23. He learned of the

409 Patent from just such a search at least as early as spring 2005, and brought a copy of it to

Systems president.2 SOF 23. Systems president was warned by its patent attorney that although

no patent had yet issued for the disclosed design, [t]hat can change, of course. SOF 23.

Systems admits it obtained Nordocks 409 Patent before it started selling its infringing

LHP/LHD levelers on October 21, 2005. SOF 24. After 40 years of selling levelers with a

common front end (See supra p. 4), Systems adopted Nordocks distinctive design. A photograph

from the cover of Systems brochure prominently displaying the D754 Design is shown below.

SOF 26, 27.

In May 2009, Nordock notified Systems of its infringement of the D754 Patent, but

Systems continued to make and sell its infringing levelers. SOF 28, 29.

1
The LHP and LHD levelers are identical except for labeling. SOF 26.
2
Infringers using the USPTO to obtain copies of new designs is the type of conduct denounced by Congress when
enacting the total profit language in 289. SOF 1, Ex. A, H.R. p. 835.
8

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 8 of 31 Document 258


5. Systems Continued Selling Its Infringing Levelers Until The Jury Verdict and
Injunction In 2013

Systems continued selling its infringing LHP/LHD levelers until March 26, 2013, SOF

30, Ex. Q, p. A6685, when a jury returned a verdict finding that these products infringe the

D754 Patent, Ex. S, and this Court issued a permanent injunction. Ex. T. Systems proposed and

consented to Verdict Question 1, SOF 31, Ex. U, pp. 20. During the trial, Nordock presented

testimony and evidence that Systems profits were over $912,000. SOF 32, Ex. W. Systems

experts report and trial testimony found its profits were over $630,000. SOF 33, 36. Nordock

requested the jury to determine Systems profits under 289. SOF 34, Ex. V. The jury awarded

$46,825 as a reasonable royalty under 284, but found Systems profits were $0. SOF 31, 36.

6. Nordock and Systems Appeals

Nordock appealed the damages award, and Systems cross appealed on validity and

infringement. SOF 35. The Federal Circuit upheld the findings of validity and infringement, but

remanded the case to properly determine damages. Nordock, Inc. v. Systems, Inc., 803 F.3d 1344

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (damages portion vacated for further consideration); See infra p. 10-13. In its

decision, the Federal Circuit made the following findings:

1 The D754 Patent is entitled Lip and Hinge Plate for a Dock Leveler,
and makes clear that the design is applied to and used with a dock leveler.
2. Dock levelers are welded together.
3. There was no evidence that Systems sold a lip and hinge plate separate
from the leveler as a complete unit.
4. It is clear that the article of manufacture at issue is a dock leveler.
5. There is no credible evidence that Systems total profits were $0.

SOF 20, 36; (emphasis added).

7. Samsungs and Systems Petitions for Writ of Certiorari

Systems filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the

Federal Circuits damages decision. Systems petition relied on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.s

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 9 of 31 Document 258


(Samsungs) previously filed petition for writ of certiorari. SOF 37. Systems did not challenge

the findings of validity and infringement. The Samsung case pertains to its infringement of three

design patents held by Apple, Inc. SOF 74, Ex. AN. The Federal Circuits 2015 Samsung

decision rejected Samsungs causation theory to reduce a $399 million damage award based on

its 1998 Nike decision finding that Congress banned apportionment. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung

Elecs. Co., 786 F.3d 983, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court granted Samsungs petition,

and put Systems petition on hold while it proceeded with Samsungs petition. SOF 37.

8. Supreme Courts Samsung Decision

During the briefing of the Samsung petition, the U.S. Solicitor General and the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office filed an amicus brief (Government Brief) discrediting Samsungs

causation theory, but asserting a need for a totality of the circumstances test to determine the

article of manufacture for a smartphone. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting

Neither Party, Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2322, pp. 43-55.

The Government proposed four factors. Id. at 46-48. The Government Brief states that

smartphones contain many components such as the technology governing their functions

that are unrelated to the infringing designs. Id. at 24, 32. (emphasis added). Thus, the

Government asserts that a component that provides a function that is unrelated to the function of

the component to which the design is applied in unrelated to the 289 inquiry.

During oral arguments, the Justices extensively questioned the Government and parties

about possible factors to determine the article of manufacture, particularly when the product is an

automobile another product that provides a broad range of other functions. SOF 39. Yet,

without reference to the Governments proposed totality of the circumstances test or any of its

proposed factors, the Court rendered a decision with the following limited holding:

10

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 10 of 31 Document 258


This case involves the infringement of designs for smartphones. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit identified the entire smartphone as
the only permissible article of manufacture for the purpose of calculating 289
damages because consumers could not separately purchase components of the
smartphones. The question before us is whether that reading is consistent with
289. We hold that it is not. (emphasis added).

Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 432. (emphasis added).

The Courts Samsung decision discussed the Dobson carpeting cases. Id at 433. SOF 40.

These cases involve design patents for carpeting. Ex. Z. Carpeting is a multicomponent product

that has an intended purpose, but does not provide a broad range of other functions. SOF 41; See

infra p. 17. And, the design patents only show the top surface of the carpeting - not the entire

product. The Court acknowledged that in response to the Dobson Cases, Congress enacted

the total profit language in 289. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 433. The Congressional Record

shows that Congress intended the total profit language to enable a design patent holder to

recover the total profit on the defendants entire infringing carpeting, Ex. A; H.R. at 834.

Although relied on by the Federal Circuit in the underlying decision, the Supreme Courts

Samsung decision does not criticize the Federal Circuits 1998 Nike decision. The Nike decision

pertains to an ornamental design applied to an upper portion of a shoe a multicomponent

product that has an intended purpose, but does not perform a broad range of other functions. SOF

45, Ex. AC1. Thus, both decisions recognize the prohibition of apportionment and the

disgorgement requirement of 289 when a design patent is for an ornamental design applied to

a portion of a multicomponent product (i.e., carpeting, shoe, etc.) when that product does not

have a broad range of other functions.

The Courts Samsung decision also discusses the application of 289 to multicomponent

products. Although the term multicomponent product is not found in 171 or 289 or the

Federal Circuits 2015 Samsung decision, the Supreme Court stated:

11

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 11 of 31 Document 258


This case requires us to address a threshold matter: the scope of the term article
of manufacture. The only question we resolve today is whether, in the case of a
multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture must always be the
end product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be a component of that
product.

Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434. As stated in the Government Brief, the Supreme Court explains that

a smartphone has a broad range of functions:

The iPhone is a smartphone, a cell phone with a broad range of other functions
based on advanced computing capability, large storage capacity, and Internet
connectivity.

Id., at 433 (emphasis added); see also Brief for the Unites States as Amicus Curiae Supporting

Neither Party, See supra p. 10. The Court went on to say that the 289 damages determination

involved two steps: First, identify the article of manufacture to which the infringed design has

been applied. Second, calculate the infringers total profit made on that article of manufacture.

Id. at 434. Notwithstanding the Government Brief and the extensive oral arguments by the

Government and parties regarding possible identification factors, SOF 41, the Court did not

comment on the appropriateness of the Governments factors, endorse the need for a totality of

the circumstances test, or set out a test for the identification step. Id. at 436.

9. Supreme Courts GVR Order In This Case

A week after its Samsung decision, the Supreme Court issued a grant, vacate and remand

(GVR) order sending this case back to the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of

its Samsung decision. Sys., Inc. v. Nordock, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 589 (2016). While the GVR Order

vacates the Federal Circuits decision, the GVR Order does not invalidate the Federal Circuits

findings. When the Supreme Court utilizes its GVR power, it is not making a decision that has

any determinative impact on future lower-court proceedings. A GVR does not amount to a final

determination on the merits." Kenmore v. Roy, 690 F.3d 639, 641 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Henry

v. City of Rock Hill, 376 U.S. 776, 777 (1964)). The lower court is free to determine whether its
12

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 12 of 31 Document 258


original decision is still correct. The Supreme Court has not specified or even suggested which

outcome is correct. 690 F.3d at 642. The Seventh Circuit allows vacated judicial opinions to be

given persuasive value. Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1987).

Vacated lower court decisions can have persuasive force as precedent that may save other judges

and litigants time in future cases. Matter of Memorial Hosp. of Iowa County, Inc., 862 F.2d

1299, 1302 (7th Cir. 1988).

Thus, the Federal Circuits findings in its 2015 decision (See supra p. 9) remain relevant

to this case. SOF 20, 36. The GVR order does not necessarily contradict the Federal Circuits

finding that the article of manufacture is the entire leveler. SOF 20. The Supreme Courts

Samsung decision and GVR order merely allow Systems to argue that something other than the

leveler as a complete unit is the article of manufacture, rather than focusing solely on whether

Systems sold a lip and hinge plate separately from the leveler.

10. Federal Circuits Remand Decision

On remand, the Federal Circuit also did not set out the test for the identification step to

determine the article of manufacture, and stated as follows:

Because there was no evidence that Systems profits were $0, we vacate the jurys
damages award and remand for a new trial on damages.

On remand, the trial court will have an opportunity to . . . . consider the parties
arguments with respect to the relevant article of manufacture in the first
instance. And, the parties will have the opportunity to develop the record
regarding what constitutes the relevant article of manufacture in these
circumstances . . .

Nordock, Inc. v Sys., Inc., No. 14-1762, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4732, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17,

2017).3 Thus, the question of how to identify the article of manufacture to which the infringed

design has been applied under 289 is a matter of first impression.

3
The Federal Circuits decision left intact its earlier decision upholding the validity and infringement of the D754
Patent. Nordock, Inc. v Sys., Inc., No. 14-1762, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4732, at *1 n 1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2017).
13

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 13 of 31 Document 258


III. ARGUMENT

Identifying the article of manufacture to which the infringed design has been applied is

relatively simple for most products. Courts should consider the language in 289, Congress

intent when enacting 289 and Supreme Courts Samsung and Federal Circuits Nike decisions.

If the identification test is to be uniformly applied, it should also take into account the diverse

spectrum of products covered by 171 and 289.

A. Diverse Spectrum of Designs Covered by 35 U.S.C. 171 and 289

Design patents cover a diverse spectrum of designs in two primary ways. First, the word

any in 171 denotes that design patents cover products including simple single-component

products to more involved multicomponent products. Second, the ornamental design can be

applied to the entire product or a portion of the product.

1. Single-Component And Multicomponent Products

The vast majority of design patents (about 80%) pertain to multicomponent products.

Yet, only a few (less than 5%) pertain to products that have an intended purpose, but also

provide a broad range of other functions. SOF 42. The USPTO website data base reveals that

design patents cover everything from a:

- Dinner Fork, Plate or Vase to Table, Folding chair or Sleeper sofa;


- Candle, Light bulb or Lamp to Camera, Projector or Television;
- Telephone, Radio or Calculator to Computer, Cell phone or Smartphone;
- Rope, Chain, Nail, Hammer or Saw to Window, Roof truss or Modular building;
- Thimble or Wire clothes hanger to Dress, Shirt, Shoe or Sewing machine;
- Roller skate, Bicycle or Wagon to Motorcycle, Automobile or Airplane;
- Washboard or Firewood stove to Washing machine or Microwave oven.

2. Entire Product Or A Portion Of The Product

Ornamental designs for products often pertain to only a portion of the product. SOF 43.

Not surprisingly, roughly half of design patents (about 40% to 60%) claim an ornamental design

applied to a portion of a product. SOF 44. Design patents have historically covered designs
14

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 14 of 31 Document 258


applied to a portion of a product or article of manufacture. Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14

Wall.) 511, 521 and 528-529 (1871); SOF 73, Ex. AM. Nothing in 171 or 289 requires the

design to be applied to an entire article of manufacture, and the MPEP reflects this. See supra p.

7. The word for in 171 indicates that the design is not the article itself, but rather the design

APPLIED to the article. In re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 208 (C.C.P.A. 1931), see also In re Zahn

617 F.2d 261, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1980).

Cases where design patents cover a portion of a product, and the patent holder was

awarded the total profits under 289 for the entire product are provided below. SOF 45.

U.S. Design Patent Product/Article for which


Case Title
Covers 289 Damages Awarded
Nike Shoe Upper Upper portion of shoe Entire shoe

Victor Stanley End Frame for End frame portions of


Entire bench
Bench bench
Fisher-Price Childrens Play Upper portion of
Entire play bassinet
Space bouncy play bassinet
Holder for
John O. Butler Handle for dental
Interproximal Entire dental brush
cleaning brush
Brushes
Untermeyer Watch Case Watch case Entire watch

The above cases involve multicomponent products that do not perform a broad range of

other functions. Section 289 cases do not typically involve products that do (i.e., smartphone).

SOF 42. While this may be an evolving area for design patents, SOF 47, this situation is not

germane to most design patent cases, including this one. SOF 53, 54.

B. Language in 289

Congress chosen language in 289 provides insight into formulating an appropriate test

to identify the article of manufacture, and what factors should (and should not) be considered.

Section 289 states: Whoever . . . applies the patented design . . . to any article of manufacture

for the purpose of sale . . . shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit . . . 35
15

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 15 of 31 Document 258


U.S.C 289 (2017). The statute clearly focuses on the sale of an infringing product. Nike 138

F.3d at 1441-43.

1. Applies Patented Design To Any Article Of Manufacture For Purpose Of Sale

Courts have long held that a cardinal principle of statutory construction is that a statute

ought to be construed so that no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or

insignificant. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (quoting Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S.

167, 174 (2001)). The interpretive rule requires this Court to give effect . . . to every clause and

word of the Act. Setser v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1470 (2012). When interpreting the

term article of manufacture the phrase for the purpose of sale should be a part of that

interpretation. The phrases to the extent of his total profit and for the purpose of sale indicate

that the profit is for the entire item sold not just a part of the item sold.

2. Total Profit

The term total profit is plain. The term does not mean half the profit, a portion of the

profit or a nominal profit. It means all of the profit. When combined with the phrase for purpose

of sale the term plainly means all the profit generated by the infringing sale. Nike, 138 F.3d at

1441. The term means all the gross revenue (price times quantity sold) less the cost of the goods

sold and appropriate expenses. Id. at 1447. The term requires disgorgement so that the defendant

does not even retain the benefit of any tax deductions for the infringing sale. Id. at 1448.

C. Congressional Intent: Response To Dobson Cases

The United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the progress of

science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right

to their respective writings and discoveries." U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

(emphasis added). Sections 171 and 289 promote the progress of the industrial arts by giving

inventors the right to procure design patents that provide meaningful protection.
16

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 16 of 31 Document 258


It is axiomatic that congressional intent is the guidepost to judicial interpretation of

federal statutes. Stribling v. U.S., 419 F.2d 1350, 1352 (1969). As the Supreme Courts Samsung

decision recognizes, Congress response to the Dobson Cases when enacting the total profit

language of 289. Ex. A; H.R. p. 834-35. These cases involved design patents for carpeting. SOF

40. Carpeting is a multicomponent product formed from dying and weaving pile into a primary

backing, applying bonding agents, securing the pile in place with a secondary backing, and

applying protective coatings, etc. SOF 41. Carpeting without its primary and secondary backing

and adhesives is just so many pile clippings. Yet, none of the Dobson design patents show or

claim an entire carpet. Ex. Z. Responsive to the Dobson Cases, Congress concluded that

requiring the patent holder to prove that the infringers profits were due to the patented design

left the patent holder with a right without a remedy, because only nominal damages could be

recovered. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 432-33. The Congressional Record states:

It is expedient that the infringers entire profit on the article should be recoverable, as
otherwise none of his profit can be recovered, for it is not apportionable; and it is
just that the entire profit on the article should be recoverable and by the patentee,
for it is the design that sells the product, . . .

Ex. A, H.R. Rep., No. 49-1966, p. 1. (emphasis added). The legislative history further states that

Congress intended the language in 289 to be preventive in nature.

The object in putting in the further clause that the party may recover any additional
damages is this: It is believed that this will be preventive in its character . . .

Ex. A, H.R. Rep., No. 49-1966, p. 384. (emphasis added).

No one can dispute that Congress enacted the total profit language of 289 to eliminate a

due to or apportionment analysis. The Supreme Court acknowledges this. See supra p. 11.

Similarly, no one can dispute that Congress intended the total profit language in 289 to provide

meaningful protection as evidenced by the Congressional Record. Ex. A. Thus, 289 renders an

infringer liable for its total profit on the sale of an infringing product even when the design
17

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 17 of 31 Document 258


patent does not claim the entire product (e.g., carpeting, shoe, etc.), provided the product does

not provide a broad range of other functions. Samsung, at 432-34; Nike, at 1441-43 and 48.

D. Burden Of Proof And Presumption That The Article Of Manufacture To Which


Infringed Design Has Been Applied Is Entire Dock Leveler Sold By Defendant

As part of the discussion regarding which party bears the burden of proof, the court

should recognize that the plain language in 289 presumes that the article of manufacture is the

product to which the infringer applied the patented design and sold. See Nike, 138 F3d at 1448.

The language of 289 dictates that the defendant bear the burden of proof to establish that

the article of manufacture is something less than the infringing product it sold. Given the phrase

for the purpose of sale and total profit, the focus is on the applied design when the infringing

product is sold for profit. See supra pp. 3, 11, 16. The phrases total profit and for the purpose

of sale indicate that the profit is for the entire item sold not just an apportioned part of the

item sold. Id. at 1441. Thus, a threshold determination should be made to determine what the

defendant sold. If the sold item is a specific product, not its asserted components, then the article

of manufacture is presumed to be the entire product.

Section 289 establishes a disgorgement remedy. Nike, 138 F3d at 1448; Government

Brief, Samsung, 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2322 at 20. The Government Brief cites SEC v.

Teo regarding insider trading. Id. at 30, citing SEC v. Teo, 746 F.3d 90, 105 (3d Cir. 2014).

Courts have consistently held, in the insider trading context, that the burden to prove that some

of the profits were not due to the illegal conduct is on the defendant. The courts reasoned that

the risk of uncertainty should fall on the wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created the

uncertainty. Id. (quoting SEC v. Hughes Capital Corp., 124 F.3d 449, 455 (3d Cir. 1997)). The

disgorgement remedy has been constructed around two objectives: to deprive a wrongdoer of

his unjust enrichment and to deter others from violating federal laws. SEC, 746 F.3d at 105.

18

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 18 of 31 Document 258


Similar to disgorgement in insider trading cases, a design patent infringer returns profits earned

through its ill-gotten profits when paying 289 damages. When there is a question as to the scope

of the article of manufacture, the risk of uncertainty should fall on the wrongdoer whose

infringing conduct created the uncertainty. Restatement Third of Restitution 51 (2011).

The differences between design and utility patents provide further reason for a

presumption that the infringers entire product is the article of manufacture. Design patents can

have only one claim. Utility patents can include a large number of claims. Utility claims use

words to focus on important and inventive utilitarian features of a product, while broadly

claiming the overall structure of the product. See SOF 75. Additional dependant claims can focus

on less important features and structures. Design patents cannot use words to claim distinctive

ornamental features, while broadly claiming non-distinctive portions of the product. Design

patents use drawing figures to show distinctive features in solid lines and non-distinctive

portions in broken lines. When a design patent shows both distinctive and non-distinctive

features in solid lines, an infringer can avoid infringement by changing a non-distinctive feature

and misappropriating the distinctive feature. For products with distinctive and non-distinctive

portions, a design patent that covers the entire product, renders the patent practically worthless.

Given the language in 289, Congress intent to resolve the Dobson cases and the

inherent difference between utility and design patents, the article of manufacture is presumed to

be the Defendants entire infringing product. A presumption that the article manufacture is the

entire product honors Congresss intent to eliminate apportionment and enact a statute that is

preventive in nature. See supra p. 10-11, 17.

To rebut this presumption, the defendant would have to prove that the relevant article of

manufacture is something less than the entire dock leveler. Congress enacted the total profit

standard contained in 289 to relieve the patentee of the burden of proving the amount of the
19

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 19 of 31 Document 258


infringers profit that is due to the patented design or the infringement. Samsung 137 S. Ct. at

432-33 and Government Brief, Briefs LEXIS 2322 at 27). While the plaintiff bears the ultimate

burden of establishing the infringers total profit, the defendant, as the maker and seller of the

infringing product, should bear the burden of identifying any component that it views as the

relevant article of manufacture. Government Brief, Briefs LEXIS 2322 at 18 and 50. Placing the

burden on the infringer is appropriate given the language in 289. Placing the burden on the

infringer is also appropriate because it places any risk in assessing damages on the wrongdoer.

In this case, the jury found in response to Verdict Question 1 that Systems LHP/LHD

products infringed the D754 Patent. SOF 30. Nordocks and Systems experts submitted reports

and testimony evidencing that Systems sold about 1,500 infringing LHP/LHD levelers and its

profits were between $630,000 and $912,000, SOF 32, 33, 36, with the difference being the

amount of expenses deducted. SOF 65. Thus, the record demonstrates the following two points:

1. Systems sold infringing LHP/LHD levelers; and, SOF 31-33, 36


2. Systems profited from these infringing sales. SOF 31-33, 36

As Systems was found by a jury to be a wrongdoer for selling its infringing LHP/LHD

levelers and the record shows Systems profited on its wrongdoing, the burden of proof correctly

falls on Systems to prove that its profits should not be for its entire LHP/LHD leveler sales.

E. Identification Step

The Courts Samsung decision requires courts to identify the article of manufacture, but

leave the structure of the analysis to the lower courts. The decision also does not preclude, and

actually supports, that a threshold determination be made before proceeding to a totality of

circumstances test that can elicit or risk an outcome contrary to law. Applying a totality of the

circumstances test to all multicomponent products (e.g., carpeting, shoes, etc.) risks outcomes

contrary to the law. Moreover, the Court has criticized totality of circumstances tests because

20

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 20 of 31 Document 258


they are unpredictable and undermine certainty, Pfaff v. Wells Elecs, 525 U.S. 55 (1998), and

can include factors that are not supported by law. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F.

by Charlene F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999). These tests effectively conclude that uniformity is not a

particularly important objective with respect to the legal question at issue. Antonin Scalia, THE

RULE OF LAW AS A LAW OF RULES, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1179 (1989). The Circuit Courts

have also criticized these tests. I.P Lund Trading v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, (1st Cir. 1998)

(factors are irrelevant or contrary to the intent of the law); Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.,

811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2015) (test and facts from different case too rigid); Vanskike v. Peters, 974

F.2d 806 (7th Cir. 1992) (test to did not fit the reality of the employment situation - the person

was a prison inmate).

The Supreme Courts Samsung decision does not require the judiciary to jump headlong

into totality of the circumstances tests for the 95% of design patent cases that do not involve

products having a broad range of other functions. The tail should not wag the dog. The following

proposed identification step avoids outcomes contrary to 289 and Congress intent when

enacting the statute. The test also conserves judicial resources, promotes the industrial arts, and

complies with the Courts Samsung and Federal Circuits Nike decisions.

1. Threshold Questions

The article of manufacture test should start with the presumption that the entire product

sold by the defendant is the article of manufacture (See supra p. 18-20), then considers some

threshold questions to filter out the many cases in which a totality of the circumstances test is not

necessary or appropriate. Ex. A, SOF 42. These threshold questions conserve judicial resources,

promote the industrial arts and avoid speculative and arbitrary outcomes that elicit or risk

determinations that are contrary law. Threshold factors also provide more predictable outcomes

21

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 21 of 31 Document 258


and aid in settlement. The following identification steps only require a totality of the

circumstances test when necessary and appropriate:

1. Start with presumption that the article of manufacture is the entire infringing
product sold by the defendant;
2. Eliminate single-component products;
3. Ask threshold questions about multicomponent product to filter out situations
where a totality of circumstance is not necessary or appropriate; and,
4. When necessary, apply a totality of circumstances test to determine if the article
of manufacture is something less than defendants entire infringing product.

Eliminating single-component products is consistent with the Samsung decision. This is

so even when a design patent covers a portion of the single-component product (dinner fork).

The Samsung decision requires an identification step for multicomponent products that

provide a broad range of other functions. Although most design patents (about 80%) are for

multicomponent products, only a few (less than 5%) provide a broad range of other functions.

SOF 42. The Samsung decision does not hold or require the judiciary to jump headlong into

performing totality of the circumstances tests for every multicomponent product. (e.g., pencils,

golf balls, dresses, shoes, folding chairs, venetian blinds, filing cabinets, carpeting, etc.). The

following threshold questions fully comply with 289, including the Supreme Courts Samsung

decision and the Federal Circuits Nike decision:

1. Does the patent fail to identify the article of manufacture to which the
claimed design is applied by name generally known and used by public?
If yes, administer totality of circumstances portion of identification step.
If no, go to Question 2.

2. Is the patented design applied to a component sold separately from the


infringing product?
If yes, administer totality of circumstances portion of identification step.
If no, go to Question 3.

3. Is the patented design applied to a multicomponent product having an


intended purpose, which also performs a broad range of other functions?
If yes, administer totality of circumstances portion of identification step.
If no, the article of manufacture is the entire product.

22

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 22 of 31 Document 258


The basis for the first threshold question4 is found in the Supreme Courts Samsung

decision requiring an identification step, (See supra pp. 1, 12), and the MPEP, which states: The

title of the design identifies the article in which the design is embodied by the name generally

known and used by the public. See supra p. 7. The rules of the Patent Office have the force and

effect of the law unless they are inconsistent with statutory provisions. In re Rubinfield, 270

F.2d. 391, 395 (C.C.P.A. 1959) (citing United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 22 App. D.C. 56,

66 (D.C. Cir. 1903)). The above MPEP rule does not conflict with 171 and 289, or Samsung or

Nike decisions, and thus is given the effect of law.

The basis for the second threshold question is found in the language of 289, the

Congressional Record, and the Supreme Courts Samsung and the Federal Circuits Nike

decisions. See supra pp. 2, 11, 15-18. While the Samsung decision states that this Federal Circuit

question cannot be the only basis for determining the article of manufacture, given the total

profit and for purpose of sale language of 289, this question can be part of a combination of

threshold questions to identify the article of manufacture.

The basis for the third threshold question is found in the Supreme Courts Samsung

decision. See supra pp. 10-12. This question filters out the many multicomponent products where

the design is applied to a component that is necessary to perform the intended purpose of the

product (e.g., bodice for a dress, backrest for a chair, frame for a bicycle, etc.) from the few

multicomponent products where the design is applied to a product that has internal high

technology components that perform a broad range of other functions (e.g., smartphones).

4
Interpreting a legal document such as a patent is a question of law that lies with the court. See Markman
v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995); See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v.
Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 842 (2015).

23

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 23 of 31 Document 258


As discussed above, the defendant bear the burden of establishing that the answer to at

least one of the above questions is yes. When the defendant fails to carry the burden, then the

presumption that the article of manufacture is the entire infringing product applies. The district

court can determine if the defendant carried its burden regarding these threshold questions.

2. The Threshold Questions Clearly Identify That The Article Of Manufacture Is


Systems Entire Dock Leveler

The above threshold questions demonstrate that the article of manufacture to which the

patented design is applied is Systems entire infringing LHP/LHD leveler. First, the D754

Patent plainly and repeatedly identifies the generic name of the article of manufacture to which

the patented design is applied as being a dock leveler. Ex. D. The Federal Circuit found that the

D754 Patent makes clear (i.e., identifies) that the claimed design is applied to and used with a

dock leveler. SOF 20. The D754 Patent is entitled Lip and Hinge Plate for a Dock Leveler,

and each of the drawing descriptions (Figures 1-7) states that the claimed design is for a dock

leveler. Numerous dock leveler parts are shown in dotted lines. The cover page of the D754

Patent also states that it is a continuation" of its parent 279 Application and 409 Patent, which

are entitled Dock Leveler and which disclose and claim an entire dock leveler. SOF 75, Exs.

B, C. As stated in the 279 Application and 409 Patent, the header plate (55), header lugs (59a-

i), lip (80), lip lugs (88a-i) and pivot rod (89) are parts of a dock leveler (20). Moreover, the

name dock leveler is the name of the article generally used by the public. SOF 46. Even

Systems refers to its infringing product as a dock leveler SOF 27, and Systems proposed and

consented to a Verdict identifying the infringing product as its LHP/LHD dock levelers. SOF 31.

Second, the Federal Circuit found that there was no evidence that Systems sold the lip

and hinge plate separate from the leveler as a complete unit. SOF 20, 49. The header plate of

the LHP/LHD leveler is welded to its deck and deck beams, SOF 25, and Systems shipped the

24

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 24 of 31 Document 258


levelers completely assembled. SOF 26. During the 2013 trial, Systems vice president of

marketing, its attorney and expert all referred to the dock levelers as units. SOF 33, 48.

Nordocks and third party marketing literature confirms that a dock leveler is sold as a complete

unit. SOF 15, 50. Systems did not determine its profit on any component other than the complete

leveler unit. SOF 67. Systems experts report did not have any information for the sale of a front

end of a leveler. SOF 33. As dock levelers are welded together, the removal and replacement of

the front end of the dock leveler to which the D754 Design is applied (header plate forward)

would be prohibitively expensive as this would require cutting welds and re-welding in the field,

which could result in misalignment of parts, unnecessary danger to the worker, and loading bay

downtime. SOF 51, 64. Remove the parts forming the dock leveler, and the leveler will not

perform its intended purpose. SOF 51, 53.

Third, the intended purpose of a dock leveler, such as the infringing LHP/LHD levelers,

is to bridge the gap between a loading dock and a trailer bed by raising and lowering its deck and

lip. Ex. B, pp. A6211, A6239 (Claim1), A6244 (Claim 20); Ex. C, p. A6289 (Col. 1, lns 13-14),

A6295 (Claim 1); SOF 51, 64. Each of its parts are need to and serve that intended purpose. SOF

53, 72. Although dock levelers are large in size and robust in construction to support tens of

thousands of pounds, Ex. F, pp. A6195, A6202, they do not provide a broad range of other

functions, such as a smartphone. SOF 53, 54. As stated and shown in Systems brochures, Ex. F,

their purpose is to bridge the gap between a loading bay and a trailer bed by raising and lowing

the deck and lip. Each of the infringing LHP/LHD levelers parts and features pertain to that

purpose. They do not perform a broad range of other functions. SOF 53, 54, 72.

As the answer to each of the above threshold questions is no, the article of manufacture

to which the infringed design was applied is Systems entire infringing LHP/LHD dock leveler.

25

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 25 of 31 Document 258


F. Factors For Totality Of Circumstances Test

The following proposed factors are directed to the situation of the present case, and not

that of a smartphone. Were this court to require a totality of the circumstances test, then the

threshold questions are also appropriate here. The factors are intended to avoid an outcome

conflicting with language in 289 and the prohibition of a due to or apportionment analysis.

1. Does the D754 Patent Identify a Dock Leveler as the Generic Name of the
Product to which the Patent Design is Applied?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. The Federal Circuit found that the D754

Patent makes clear (i.e., identifies) that the claimed design is applied to and used with a dock

leveler. SOF 20. The title and all figure descriptions state that the design is for a dock leveler.

Ex. D. Additional support is provided above. See supra p. 24.

2. Did Systems Sell its Infringing LHP/LHD Leveler as a Complete Product?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. Systems brochures state that its infringing

LHP/LHD levelers are shipped completely assembled. SOF 26, Ex. F. The levelers are

welded together, SOF 17, 20, 25. Welding fixtures are used to manufacture levelers so that all its

parts properly align, mate and operate in unison to reliably raise and lower the deck and lip. SOF

52. The deck, lip, frame and drive system are all necessary for the leveler to perform its intended

purpose. SOF 53, 64, Ex. F. The infringing LHP/LHD levelers must have a front end with an

extendable lip to perform its intended purpose. SOF 17, 54. Installing or replacing welded

components or parts in the field would be prohibitively expensive, and could easily result in

misalignment of parts, unnecessary danger to the worker, and loading bay downtime. SOF 64.

3. Is the Patented Design Applied To A Portion Of The Infringing Product That


is Seen Together With Other Portions/Components When Offered For Sale

The answer to this question is clearly yes. Design patents pertain to visual appearance.

Systems brochures plainly show the front end of the infringing LHP/LHD levelers, to which the
26

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 26 of 31 Document 258


D754 Design is applied, together with the its other components when offered for sale. Ex. F.

The same is true regarding trade shows and customer demonstrations. SOF 61. The front end

design is positioned with the lip extended at eye level. Dock levelers are not housed inside a shell

that conceals a variety of high technology components like a smartphone. The components of a

dock leveler are in plain view in Systems brochures and at trade shows and customer

demonstrations, as well as during operation. SOF 61, 62, Ex. F.

4. Do Systems Brochures Prominently Display the Patented Design?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. Systems brochures for its LHP/LHD levelers

clearly display the patented D754 Design in a prominent manner. SOF 26, 61. The infringed

design forms a large visual portion, if not the largest visual portion, of the leveler in the

brochures. The same is true regarding trade shows and customer demonstrations, where front end

design is positioned at eye level with the lip extended. SOF 61. Nordocks brochure also

prominently display the D754 design. SOF 15, 62.

5. Is the Portion of the Leveler to which the D754 Design is Applied


Necessary to Perform The Intended Purpose of the Leveler?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. The purpose of a dock lever is to bridge the

gap between a building loading bay floor and the bed of the trailer by raising and lowering the

deck and lip. SOF 51, 54, Exs. B, C. Systems infringing LHP/LHD levelers perform this same

purpose, SOF 53, and must have a front end (i.e., lip, lip lugs, header plate, header lugs and pivot

rod) to perform its intended purpose. SOF 17, 54, 64, Ex. F. Brochures of Nordock and third

party competitors confirm this. SOF 54, Exs. E, I.

6. Is the D754 Patent Applied to a Product That Has An Intended Purpose,


Which Also Performs a Broad Range of Other Functions?

The answer to this question is clearly no. Systems infringing LHP/LHD dock levelers

have an intended purpose, but do not perform a broad range of other functions. As stated and
27

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 27 of 31 Document 258


shown in Systems brochures, its intended purpose is to bridge the gap between a loading bay

and a trailer bed by raising and lowing the deck and lip. Ex. F. Each of its components and parts

serve that purpose. SOF 51, 53, 64, 72. Systems LHP/LHD levelers do not perform a broad

range of other functions. SOF 53, 54. Additional support is provided above. See supra p. 25.

7. Did Systems Sell a Lip and Header Plate for the LHP/LHD Leveler
Separately from its LHP/LHD Leveler?

The answer to this question is clearly no. The Federal Circuit found that there was no

evidence that Systems sold a lip and hinge plate separate from the leveler as a complete unit.

SOF 20, 49. The header of the LHP/LHD leveler is welded to its deck and deck beams, SOF 25,

and Systems shipped its infringing LHP/LHD levelers completely assembled. SOF 26, 64.

Additional support is provided above. See supra p. 24-25.

8. Do The 53 References Considered By The USPTO Before Allowing The


D754 Patent Indicate That The Design Is Applied To A Dock Leveler?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. The D754 Patent lists fifty-three (53)

references considered by the USPTO during its examination of the D754 Patent. Ex. D. All of

them pertain to a dock leveler. None pertain to any other type of product. SOF 9, 55. This

indicates that the Patent Office examiner did not consider non-dock leveler product designs

significant, and is an indication that the front end portion of the leveler to which the D754

Patent is applied is integral to the overall appearance of the dock leveler. SOF 55. Examiners are

required to conduct a search and consider the cited references, SOF 68, and are presumed to have

done their job. SOF 69.

Yet, a design patent for a refrigerator door latch lists references for a variety of latches

(e.g., medicine cabinet latch, storage cabinet latch, building door latch, hasp, etc.), many of

which are not refrigerator door latches. SOF 56. Similarly, a design patent for a cup holder for a

motor vehicle lists references for various types of cup holders; one holds a milk carton, one
28

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 28 of 31 Document 258


shows a beverage can and the holder attached to a portion of an automobile seat, the rest show

only a cup holder with a bracket, but do not show how or where that bracket attaches to the

motor vehicle. This is an indication that the designs for a refrigerator door latch and vehicle cup

holder are not integral to the overall appearance of the refrigerator or motor vehicle. SOF 57.

9. Is The D754 Patent A Continuation Or Divisional Of A Utility Patent


Disclosing And Claiming An Entire Leveler?

The answer to this factor is clearly yes. The D754 Patent, Ex. D, it is a continuation of

its parent 279 Application and 409 Patent entitled Dock Leveler and disclosing and claiming

an entire dock leveler. Exs. B, C. Claims 1, 20 and 36 of the 279 Application and Claim 1 of the

409 Patent each claim an entire dock leveler. SOF 75. By listing the 279 Application and 409

Patent on the cover of the D754 Patent and stating it is a continuation, third parties are

provided further notice that the D754 Design is used with and applied to a dock leveler.

10. Would a Designer Need to Consider the Look of the Entire Leveler to Design
the Front End of the Leveler?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. When creating the ornamental D754 Design,

Denis Gleason considered the entire leveler to ensure the design merged with the overall look of

the leveler. SOF 58. To create the D754 Design shown in the D754 Patent, a designer would

need to consider the look of the entire leveler to ensure the design integrated with the overall

look of the leveler to form a consistent product design. This is particularly true given the manner

dock levelers are marketed (i.e., deck raised and lip extended) to show the various components

and parts of the dock leveler. SOF 59, 62, Ex. AB, Visser Decl., 5.

11. Was Systems Aware Of The D754 Design Before It Began Selling The
Infringing LHP/LHD Levelers?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. Systems admits it was aware of the D754

Design disclosed in Figures 10A-G of the 279 Application and 409 Patent before it began

29

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 29 of 31 Document 258


selling its infringing LHP/LHD levelers. SOF 23, 24. Systems expert testified that the broken

lines shown in Figure 10A are consistent with a design patent drawing figure.SOF 18. Figures

10A-G form the basis for Figures 1-7 of the D754 Patent. SOF 19. Thus, Systems knew of the

D754 Design before it began selling its infringing levelers, and knew that Nordock was seeking

design patent protection for the D754 Design before it began selling its infringing levelers.

Systems patent attorney even warned Systems that the 409 disclosed and could be used to

obtain a design patent. SOF 23.

12. Can Systems Total Profit On Its Infringing LHP/LHD Levelers Be Properly
And Accurately Determined From Systems Accounting Records?

The answer to this question is clearly yes. Systems total profit on its LHP/LHD leveler

sales was presented at trial. Nordocks expert presented a report and testified that Systems had a

profit of $912,201. SOF 32. Systems experts report and testimony showed Systems had a profit

of $630,881. SOF 33, 36. The difference between the $912,201 and $630,881 amounts is largely

the result of improperly deducted expenses by Systems expert. SOF 65, 66.

13. Can Systems Profit On The Front End Of Its Infringing LHP/LHD Levelers
Be Accurately Determined From Systems Accounting Records?

The answer to this question is clearly no. Systems pricing for its levelers and reports by

its expert do not determine its profit on any component other than the complete leveler unit. Any

determination of profit on the front end of the leveler would be purely speculative. SOF 67.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court adopt the

above identification step and find that the article of manufacture is defendants entire LHP/LHD

leveler that the jury found infringing.

Dated: this 25th day of August, 2017.

30

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 30 of 31 Document 258


Respectfully submitted,

NORDOCK, INC.

s/Jeffrey S. Sokol
Jeffrey S. Sokol
Sokol Law Office
828 North Broadway
Milwaukee, WI 53202

31

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 31 of 31 Document 258


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NORDOCK, INC. )
) CIVIL ACTION: 11-CV-0118
Plaintiff, )
) Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin
v. )
)
SYSTEMS, INC. )
)
Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS


MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. Congress enacted the language in 289 responsive to the Supreme Courts decisions in

Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886), Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885)

and Dobson v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885) (Dobson Cases). Copies of the House

Report for the Act on 1887 (H.R. Rep 1966 (1886), reprinted in 18 Cong. Rec. 834 (1887)) and

Senate Report for the Act of 1887 (S. Rep. 49-206 (1886)) are provided as Exhibit A. Infringers

using the USPTO to obtain copies of new designs is the type of conduct denounced by Congress

when enacting the total profit language in 289. Ex. A, H.R. p. 835.

2. U.S. Patent Application No. 10/328,279 (the 279 Application) was filed with the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on December 23, 2002. A copy of the 279 Application

is provided as Ex. B.

3. U.S. Patent No. 6,834,409 (the 409 Patent) was issued by the USPTO on December

28, 2004. U.S. Patent No. D579,754 (the D754 Patent) was issued by the USPTO on

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 21 Document 258-1


November 4, 2008. Copies of the 409 Patent and D754 Patent are provided as Ex. C and Ex. D,

respectively.

4. The 279 Application and 409 Patent state: [d]ock levelers bridge the gap between the

floor of a loading dock and the bed of a trailer or similar carrier. Ex. B, A6211 second sentence;

Ex. C, A6289, Col. 1, lines 19-21.

5. The intended purpose of a dock leveler is to bridge the gap between the floor of a loading

dock and the bed of a trailer by raising and lowering its deck and lip. Dock levelers allow people

and forklifts to pass between the loading dock and the trailer when loading or unloading cargo

onto or from the trailer. Ex. G, Declaration of Denis Gleason (Gleason Decl.) 3 and Ex. H,

Declaration of Shawn Ward (Ward Decl.) 3.

6. At the time of the March 2013 trial, 4Front, Rite Hite and Systems collectively had 80%

of United States dock leveler market. Ex. Q, p. 8. A copy of pages 1, 6 and 8 of the Slide

Presentation given by Systems damages expert, Mr. Bero, during the March 2013 trial is

provided as Ex. Q.

7. At the present time, Entrematic has about 31 percent of the United States dock leveler

market and was formed from the acquisitions and mergers of several companies, including

4Front, which was formed from Serco and Kelley, which was founded in 1953. Rite-Hite has

about 30 percent of the market and was founded in 1965. Systems has about 19 percent of the

market and was founded in 1961. Ex. H, Ward Decl. 4.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 21 Document 258-1


8. This Court found that dock levelers have a variety of header, lip and hinge type designs.

Nordock, Inc. v Systems, Inc., 927 F. Supp. 2d 577, 589-90 (E.D. Wis. 2013), also see Docket

143, p. 17). In the Federal Circuits 2015 decision regarding this case, Nordock, Inc. v. Systems,

Inc., 803 F.3rd 1344, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2015), it found the following: (1) Nordock intended the

design to be distinctive and ornamental; (2) the header plate is not necessary to the function of a

dock leveler; (3) there is a wide range of alternate designs available, including an open lug

frontend design and a standard piano hinge design. Copies of manufacturer brochures including

photograph showing the variety of front end designs are provided as Ex. I.

9. The D754 Patent lists 53 references considered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

(USPTO) during its examination of the D754 Patent. (Ex. D). All but two of these 53

references show an entire dock leveler. These 53 references do not show any type of product

other than a dock leveler. Copies of the cover pages for each of these 53 references, along with

any necessary drawing figure page showing an entire dock leveler, are provided as Ex. J. Full

printouts of these references can be obtained from the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov).

10. Rite-Hite and 4Front brochures include photographs showing their levelers. A copy of the

subject photograph taken from the Rite-Hite website and a copy of the Kelley/4Front brochure

including the subject photograph are provided as Ex. I. pp. A6135-39, A6160

11. Since the 1960s, Systems sold dock levelers with a piano hinge or gusseted piano hinge

type front end. Ex. K, McGuire Dep., Tr. 26:15-17.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 21 Document 258-1


12. Systems brochures include photographs showing its levelers with a non-distinctive piano

hinge or gusseted piano hinge type front end. Ex. I, pp. A6148-51.

13. Levelers with piano hinge and gusseted piano hinge type front ends are common and

have been common (i.e., used by multiple third parties) throughout the industry since at least the

1950s. Ex. I, pp. A6141-42, A6169, A6173-74, A6176-78, A6182-84; Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 4;

Ex. H, Ward Decl. 5).

14. Nordock was founded in December 2001. From its inception, Nordock built and sold

levelers with a unique and distinctive front end design (the D754 Design). Nordocks front

end design was specifically intended to distinguish its levelers from other manufacturers.

Nordock initiated a one year nationwide marketing campaign throughout the U.S. for a line of

levelers with this front end design in 2002, began selling its levelers with the front end design in

March 2002 and began displaying photographs of its levelers with the front end design on its

website in 2002. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 5; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 6.

15. Nordock brochures include photographs showing its levelers with its distinctive front end

design covered by its D754 Patent (the D754 Design). A copy of a Nordock brochure

including a photograph showing its distinctive front end design is provided as Ex. E.

16. Figures 1-10 of the 279 Application and 409 Patent show a dock leveler. Ex. B, A6254-

70; Ex. C, A6272-88.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 21 Document 258-1


17. Figures 10A-G of the 279 Application and 409 Patent disclose the novel and

ornamental front end design of the leveler. Figures 10A-G show the lip and hinge plate front

end design in solid lines, and show other portions of the dock leveler in broken lines. Ex. B,

A6266-70; Ex. C, A6284-88. The lip (80) is hingably joined to the front of the deck (60) by

these parts. The deck header (55) is welded to deck beams (52a-f) and deck (60). Ex. B, pp.

A6223-24. Without a lip (80), a leveler will not perform its intended function of bridging the gap

between the loading dock and the trailer bed (17). Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 6; Ex. H, Ward Decl.

7.

18. Systems technical expert testified that the broken lines shown in Figure 10A are

consistent with a design patent drawing figure. Ex. L, Brookman 8/23/12 Dep. Tr. pp. 167-68.

19. Drawing Figures 10A-G of the 279 Application and 409 Patent form the basis for

drawing Figures 1-7 of the D754 Patent. Figures 1-7 of the D754 Patent show the lip and hinge

plate front end design in solid lines, and show other portions of the dock leveler in broken lines.

Ex. B, A6266-70; Ex. D. Under the co-pendency rule of 35 U.S.C. 120, the priority date of the

D754 Patent is the filing date of the 279 Application.

20. The Federal Circuit found the following in Nordock, Inc. v. Systems, Inc., 803 F.3rd

1344, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015):

a) The D754 Patent is entitled Lip and Hinge Plate for a Dock Leveler, and makes
clear that the claimed design is applied to and used with a dock leveler;
b) Dock levelers are welded together; and,

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 21 Document 258-1


c) There was no evidence that Systems sold a lip and hinge plate separate from the leveler
as a complete unit; and,
d) It is clear that the article of manufacture at issue is a dock leveler.

21. Copies of selected pages of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) are

provided as Ex. M, and also see Court Docket 64-8 Ex. V.

22. Systems developed its infringing LHP/LHD levelers after December 23, 2001.

23. Systems vice-president of engineering conducted patent searches of the USPTO website

on an every-other-month basis to see what was new in the industry. He testified that he

learned of the 409 Patent from just such a search when Systems was developing the infringing

leveler and at least as early as spring 2005, and that he quickly brought a copy of it to Systems

president. Systems vice-president of sales and marketing also testified that Systems became

aware of the 409 Patent shortly after it issued 12/28/04. Systems president or vice president

sent the 409 Patent to its outside patent counsel, who warned Systems that although no patent

for the design had yet issued, that can change, of course. Copies of the relevant transcript

pages from the 4/8/12 deposition testimony of Jerry Palmersheim, the 4/18/12 deposition

testimony of Michael Pilgrim, the 3/21/13 trial testimony of Edward McGuire, and an email to

Systems president form its patent attorney, Phil Mann, are provided as Ex N. See especially,

Palmersheim Dep. Tr. pp. 43:17-21 and 47:1; Pilgrim Dep. Tr. p. 170:13-17; McGuire Trial Tr.

p. 62:2-5.

24. Systems admits it obtained a copy of Nordocks 409 Patent as early as Spring of 2005.

Ex. N. Systems further admits it started selling its infringing LHP/LHD levelers on October 21,

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 21 Document 258-1


2005. A copy of Systems answer to Nordock Interrogatory Request No. 1 is provided as Ex. O.

Thus, Systems admits it obtained a copy of the 409 Patent before it started selling its infringing

LHP/LHD levelers.

25. Photographs showing Systems infringing leveler, including photographs showing its

header plate welded to the deck beams and deck, are provided as Ex. P.

26. Systems brochures state the infringing product is a Dock Leveler, and include

photographs showing the infringing LHP/LHD levelers. These brochures state: GENERAL

DESCRIPTION: All [DLM LHD or POWERAMP LHP] hydraulic dock levelers incorporate the

use of hydraulics to raise and lower both the platform and lip. These brochures also state:

INSTALLATION: Unit shipped completely assembled and ready for installation in preformed

concrete pit. Copies of Systems brochures showing its infringing LHP/LHD leveler are

provided as Ex. F. The LHP and LHD levelers are identical to each other except for a sticker

bearing different Systems brand names. Copies of Systems experts trial testimony and report

stating this are also provided as Ex. F.

27. Systems brochures for the LHP/LHD levelers prominently display Nordocks patented

D754 Design. Ex. F, Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 7; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 8.

28. Nordock did not learn of Systems infringing levelers until Mr. Gleason noticed them on

a Systems distributors website in 2009. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 8.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 7 of 21 Document 258-1


29. In May 2009, Nordock notified Systems of its infringement of the D754 Patent. A6739-

48. Many months of correspondence went unheeded and Systems continued to make and sell its

accused levelers. Ex. R.

30. Systems continued selling its infringing LHP/LHD levelers until about March 26, 2013,

when a jury returned a verdict of infringement and this court issued a permanent injunction. Ex.

Q, p. 6; Exs. S, T) (Also see Court Docket # 171 and 172).

31. Verdict Question 1 lists Systems LHP/LHD levelers as the accused products. Systems

proposed and consented to the language in Question 1. Thus, the jury found that the LHP/LHD

levelers are products that infringe the D754 Patent. Exs. S, U. Also see Court Docket #158, 172

and 227.

32. During the 2013 trial, Nordocks damages expert (Dr. Stan Smith) presented testimony

and evidence that Systems profits were over $912,000. Ex. W. Also see Nordock, Inc. v.

Systems, Inc., 803 F.3rd 1344, 1350, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

33. During the 2013 trial, Systems damages experts (Mr. Richard Beros) report and trial

testimony show Systems profits were over $630,000. (i.e., 1,457 x $433 = $630,881). Ex. X.

Also see Nordock, Inc. v. Systems, Inc., 803 F.3rd 1344, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Beros report

did not contain any information regarding the sale of a front end of an LHP/LHD leveler.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 8 of 21 Document 258-1


34. Nordock requested the jury to determine Systems total profits on the sale of the

infringing levelers under 289. Ex. V. Also see Court Docket #166, Pages 41-42.

35. Nordock appealed the damages award. (Fed. Cir. Docket 14-1762). Systems cross

appealed on validity and infringement. (Fed. Cir. Docket 14-1795).

36. The Federal Circuit found that Beros report and testimony reveal that Systems profits

on the infringing LHP/LHD leveler sales were at least $630,000. The Federal Circuit also found

that there was no credible evidence that Systems profits on these infringing sales were $0.

Nordock, Inc. v. Systems, Inc., 803 F.3rd 1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

37. Systems filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the

Federal Circuits damages decision. (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Systems, Inc. v. Nordock,

Inc., 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 490). Systems petition relied on Samsung Electronics Co.,

Ltd.s (Samsungs) previously filed petition for writ of certiorari. (Petition for a Writ of

Certiorari, Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4654). Under the

heading Questions Presented Systems Petition states:

In the case below, the Federal Circuit, relying on its recent decision in Apple v.
Samsung (petition for writ of certiorari pending), set aside a jury verdict in
Petitioners favor and held that, under 35 U.S.C. 289, design patent damages
should be based on profits attributable to an entire apparatus rather than the actual
portion of that apparatus to which the design is applied. (emphasis added).

The First paragraph of Systems Petition reads as follows:

Systems, Inc. (Systems) petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to the
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals correcting the Federal Circuits erroneous
interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 289 (Section 289). The instant matter raises a
nearly identical issue as that presented in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 9 of 21 Document 258-1


786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015), for which Samsung Electronics recently filed its
own petition for writ of certiorari. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc.,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 15-777 (currently pending).

The Supreme Court granted Samsungs petition, and put Systems petition on hold while it

proceeded with the Samsung petition.

38. The Federal Circuit upheld the findings of validity and infringement of the D754 Patent,

stating Our decisions with respect to Systems cross appeal remain intact. Nordock, Inc. v Sys.,

Inc., No. 14-1762, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4732, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2017).

39. During oral arguments in the Samsung case, the Justices extensively questioned the

Government and parties about possible factors to identify the article of manufacture, particularly

as applied to an automobile a product with a broad range of functions. Ex. Y, Samsung Oral

Argument transcript, pp. 20 and 28-54.

40. The Dobson cases are Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886); Dobson v. Hartford

Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885); Dobson v. Bigalow Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885)

(hereinafter Dobson Cases). Copies of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D6,822, D10,778, D10,870

and D11,074 for the are provided as Ex. Z.

41. Carpeting is a multicomponent product formed from dying and weaving pile into a

primary backing, applying bonding agents, securing the pile in place with a secondary backing,

and applying protective coatings, etc. Carpet, How Products Are Made, http://www.madehow.

com/Volume-2/Carpet.html (last visited Aug. 16, 2017); Carpet Terms and Terminology You

10

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 10 of 21 Document 258-1


Should Know, World Floor Covering Association, http://www.wfca.org/page/carpet (last visited

Aug. 16, 2017). Ex. AA.

42. Based on a survey of the first 250 design patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office on July 18, 2017, the majority (about 80%) pertain to multicomponent products. Only a

few (less than 5%) are for multicomponent products that have an intended purpose, and which

also provide a broad range of other functions. About twenty percent (20%) of the design patents

are for single-component products. A chart showing the results of the design patent survey is

provided as Ex. AP.

43. New ornamental designs for products often pertain to only a portion of the product. Ex.

AB Declaration of Professor Steven Visser (Visser Decl.), 4.

44. Roughly half of the design patents (about 40% to 60%) issued from 1976 to the present

claim an ornamental design applied to a portion of a product. A July 18, 2017 search of the

USPTO website for design patent containing the terms broken, dotted, dashed, lines and

combinations thereof is provided as Ex. AE.

45. The following cases pertain to U.S. Design Patents that cover a portion of an infringers

multicomponent product. In these cases the patent holder is awarded the total profits under 289

for the entire product. Copies of the design patents are provided as Exhibits AC1-AC5:

- Nike v. Wal-Mart, 138 F.3d 1437, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1998);


- Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe,, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112846 (D. Md. 2011);
- Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Del. 2003);
- John O. Butler Co. v. Block Drug Co., Inc., 620 F. Supp. 771 (N.D. Ill. 1985); and,

11

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 11 of 21 Document 258-1


- Untermeyer v. Freund, 58 F. 205, 212 (2d Cir. 1893).

46. The name dock leveler is the name of the article generally used by the public. Ex. G,

Gleason Decl. 9; Ex. H, Ward Decl.9. The brochures of third party dock leveler manufacturer

confirms this. Ex. I. A loading dock leveler is defined as an adjustable mechanized platform built

into the edge of a loading dock. The platform can be raised, lowered, or tilted to accommodate

the handling of goods or material to or from trucks. Ex. AF.

47. An evolving area of product design pertains to taking a single function product (e.g.,

thermostat, steering wheel, etc.) and turning the product into one with a broad range of other

functions. As a result, this is an evolving area for design patents. Copies of web printouts of

articles discussing this and U.S. Patent No. D792,299 entitled Steering Wheel for Car and/or Toy

Replica are provided as Ex. AO.

48. During the 2013 trial, Systems vice president of sales and marketing, Systems damages

expert report, and Systems attorney described Systems levelers as units. Exs. X, AG.

49. Dock leveler manufacturers sell dock levelers as a complete unit, and do not sell them

without a front end. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 10; Ex. H, Ward Decl.10.

50. Third party marketing literature confirms that dock levelers are commonly sold as a

complete unit, are not sold without a front end, and prominently display the front end. Ex. I.

12

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 12 of 21 Document 258-1


51. Dock levelers are welded together to perform a single intended purpose bridge the gap

between a loading bay and a trailer bed by raising and lowing the deck and lip, and returning the

leveler to its home position when not in use. Nordock, Systems and other manufacturers sell their

levelers as complete units. Exs. E, I). Remove any components or parts, and the dock leveler

will not reliably perform its intended purpose. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 11; Ex. H, Ward Decl.

11.

52. Welding fixtures are used by manufactures throughout the industry to ensure the parts

and components of the leveler properly align, mate and operate in unison to reliably raise and

lower the deck and lip. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 12; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 12.

53. Systems infringing LHP/LHD dock levelers have an intended purpose. As stated and

shown in Systems LHP/LHD brochures, they bridge the gap between a loading bay and a trailer

bed by raising and lowering the deck (platform) and lip. Each of its parts are need for and serve

that intended purpose. Each of the features listed in the brochure pertain to that purpose.

Systems infringing LHP/LHD levelers do not perform a broad range of other functions. Ex. F,

Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 13; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 13.

54. As stated in the second sentence of the Background and Claims 1 and 20 of the 279

Application and 409 Patent, the purpose of a dock lever is to bridge the gap between a building

loading bay floor and the bed of the trailer. The infringing LHP/LHD levelers must have a front

end with an extendable lip to perform its intended purpose. Brochures of Systems, Nordock and

third party competitors confirm this. Exs. E, F and I. Systems infringing levelers will not

13

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 13 of 21 Document 258-1


perform this function without their front end (i.e., lip, lip lugs, header plate, header lugs and

pivot rod). Although a dock leveler may be large in size, it does not provide a broad range of

other functions, such as a smartphone. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 14; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 14; Ex.

AB, Visser Decl. 6.

55. All of the fifty-three (53) prior art references listed on the cover of the D754 Patent

pertain to a dock leveler. None pertain to any other type of product. This shows that the Patent

Office examiner did not consider non-dock leveler product designs significant, and is an

indication that the front end portion of the leveler to which the D754 Patent is applied is integral

to the overall appearance of the dock leveler. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 15; Ex. J; Ex. AB, Visser

Decl. 7.

56. A design patent for a refrigerator door latch lists prior art references for a variety of

latches (e.g., Medicine cabinet latch, storage cabinet latch, building door latch, hasp, etc.), many

of which are not refrigerator door latches. Ex AH. This is an indication that the design for a

refrigerator door latch is not integral to the overall appearance of the refrigerator. Ex. AB, Visser

Decl. 8.

57. A design patent for a cup holder for a motor vehicle lists prior art references for various

types of cup holders; one holds a milk carton, one shows a beverage can and the holder attached

to a portion of an automobile seat, the rest show only a cup holder with a bracket, but do not

show how or where that bracket attaches to the motor vehicle. Ex. AI. This is an indication that

14

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 14 of 21 Document 258-1


the design for a vehicle cup holder is not integral to the overall appearance of the motor vehicle.

Ex. AB, Visser Decl. 8.

58. When creating the new, original ornamental design shown in the D754 Patent, Denis

Gleason considered the entire leveler to ensure the design merged with the overall look of the

leveler. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 16.

59. To create the front end design of a dock leveler as shown in U.S. Patent No. D579,754, a

designer would need to consider the look of the entire leveler to ensure the design integrated with

the overall look of the leveler to form a consistent product design. This is particularly true given

the manner dock levelers are marketed (i.e., deck raised and lip extended) to show the various

components and parts of the dock leveler. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 22; Ex. AB, Visser Decl. 5.

60. Skipped.

61. Systems marketing brochures for its LHP/LHD levelers clearly display the infringed

design in a prominent manner. Ex. F. Systems brochures could have shown the levelers with the

lip hanging down, but instead chose to show the lip extended to display Nordocks D754

Design. The infringed design forms a large visual portion, if not the largest visual portion, of the

leveler in the brochures. The same is true regarding trade shows and customer demonstrations.

The front end design is positioned with the lip extended at eye level. Nordocks brochures also

prominently display the patented D754 design. Ex. E; Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 17; Ex. H, Ward

Decl. 15.

15

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 15 of 21 Document 258-1


62. A dock leveler does not have an outer shell, let alone have high technology components

concealed inside that outer shell. The components of a dock leveler are in plain view in

marketing brochures, at trade shows and customer demonstrations, and during operation. Exs. E,

F, G, Gleason Decl. 18; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 16; Ex. I.

63. The D754 design is for a configuration of parts that form a necessary portion of the dock

leveler. The design is not conceptually distinct from the dock leveler as a whole. Unlike a

smartphone that has a variety of high technology components and complex software

programming applications concealed inside its outer shell, a dock leveler does not have an outer

shell let alone have unrelated, conceptually distinct elements concealed inside that outer shell.

Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 19; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 17.

64. A dock leveler performs an intended function, to bridge the gap between a loading dock

and a trailer bed by reliably raising and lowering the deck and extending and retracting the lip.

Systems LHP/LHD leveler will not perform its intended purpose without each of its asserted

components. The frame, deck, lip and drive system operate in unison and are all necessary for

the leveler to perform its intended purpose. Moreover, the majority of its components are welded

together and are not readily or economically removed and replaced, particularly the front end of

the leveler to which the D754 Design is applied. Installing or replacing welded components or

parts in the field, such as the header plate, would be prohibitively expensive as this would require

cutting and/or re-welding welds, which could easily result in misalignment of parts, unnecessary

16

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 16 of 21 Document 258-1


danger to the worker, and loading bay downtime. Ex. G, Gleason Decl. 20; Ex. H, Ward Decl.

18.

65. The difference between the $912,201 total profit net of selling expenses determined in

my report and the $630,881 total net profit produced by Mr. Beros report and testimony (1,457

units x $433/unit) for Systems infringing LHP/LHD leveler sales largely results from Mr. Bero

incorrectly and improperly deducting a unjustifiably larger amount of sales and general and

administrative expenses (SG&A). Standard economic theory indicates that profits should be

calculated net of variable expenses associated with producing and selling the product, and the

SG&A deducted by Mr. Bero includes various fixed costs. Mr. Bero incorrectly deducted

$409,417 in SG&A (A6695 $281/unit SG&A x 1,457 units) or about 11.2% of gross revenue

(A6685 hydraulic levelers), while I deducted a correctly determined amount equal to $221,832 in

selling expenses or about 5.55% of gross revenue (A6372-73 hydraulic levelers). During trial,

Mr. Bero could not establish or defend the appropriateness of his specific general and

administrative deductions. (A5542). Ex. AL, Smith Decl. 3; Ex. X. A copy of Smiths

Declaration is provided as Ex. AL.

66. Contrary to Systems burden to establish the appropriateness of the deductions, Ex. V,

Mr. Bero did not know what the specific G&A deductions were. Ex. X, p. A5542. A copy of the

Jury Instruction for determining 289 damages is provided as Ex. V.

67. Based on my review of Systems pricing for its levelers and the Reports by Richard Bero,

Systems did not determine its profit on any component of the leveler unit; it determined its

17

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 17 of 21 Document 258-1


profits on the entire, complete leveler unit. Any determination of profits on the front end

component of the leveler would in fact be purely speculative in nature. Ex. AL, Smith Decl. 2.

68. USPTO Patent Examiners are required to conduct a search, Ex. M, MPEP pp. 1500-12,

and consider the cited reference when reviewing a design application. Ex. M, pp. 1500-12, 21

and 28-29.

69. U.S. patents are presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. 282, and Systems expert admits that

USPTO Patent Examiners are presumed to have done their job correctly. Ex. L, Brookman

8/23/12 Dep. Tr. pp. 191-193.

70. The determination of the infringers total profit on the sale of its infringing product under

35 U.S.C. 289 prohibits apportionment.

71. The determination of the infringers total profit under 35 U.S.C. 289 does not require a

patent holder to prove that the total profit on the sale of its infringing product is due to the

patented design.

72. Systems brochures for its LHP/LHD levelers show parts and list features for the intended

purpose of a dock leveler - bridging the gap between the loading dock and a trailer bed by raising

and lowering the deck and lip. The listed Optional Equipment (e.g., Restraints, Insulation,

Weather seals, Special color, etc.) is not needed for the leveler to perform its intended purpose.

Exs. F; G, Gleason Decl. 21; Ex. H, Ward Decl. 19.

18

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 18 of 21 Document 258-1


73. A copy of U.S. Design Patent No. 1,440 in the Gorham v. White case is provided as Ex.

AM. The patent is entitled Spoon and Fork Handle and only shows and claims the handle

portion of the utensil.

74. Copies of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D593,087, D604,305 and D618,677 in the Apple v.

Samsung case are provided as Ex. AN. None of the titles or figure descriptions for these patents

identify the article of manufacture as a smartphone or cell phone.

75. Claims 1, 20 and 36 of the original 279 Application, Ex. B, pp. A6239, 6244, 6254-70,

read as follows:

1. A dock leveler for forming a bridge between a floor of a loading dock and a trailer
bed, the trailer bed being adapted to support a load and rise when that load is removed,
said dock leveler comprising:
a deck assembly with a first hinged end, a second outer end and a deck with a lip,
said deck being movable through a range of inclined positions between raised and
lowered positions;
a lift assembly including a lift member and a biasing mechanism, said lift member
releasably supporting said deck assembly and being upwardly and downwardly movable
through a range of positions between upper and lower positions, said biasing mechanism
biasing said lift member upwardly toward its said upper position and said deck toward its
said raised position;
a hold down mechanism joined to said lift member, said hold down mechanism
being operable to selectively prevent said lift member from moving upwardly toward its
said upper extended position, said lift assembly and hold down mechanism combining to
operably raise and lower said deck while said lift member remains in supporting
engagement with said deck assembly to position said lip on the trailer bed; and,
wherein said deck assembly releases from its said supporting engagement with
said lift member when the load is removed and the trailer bed rises, said deck and lip
being supported by and rising with the trailer bed.

20. A dock leveler for forming a bridge between a floor of a loading dock and a trailer
bed, said dock leveler comprising:

19

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 19 of 21 Document 258-1


a deck assembly including a deck with first and second ends, said deck being
movable through a range of inclined positions between raised and lowered inclined
positions;
a lip assembly including a lip plate with inner and outer ends, said lip plate being
operably movable between pendant and extended positions, said lip plate being biased
toward said pendant position, and said lip plate being substantially flush with said deck
when in said extended position;
a lip extension assembly having a series of linked components including a drive
member and a drive link, said lip extension assembly being movable between engaged
and disengaged positions, said drive member having a load bearing end offset from said
deck assembly, said drive member and said drive link being in driving communication
with said lip plat when in said engaged position, and one of said series of linked
components being released from pushing engagement with an other of said linked
components when in said disengaged position, said lip plate being movable between its
said extended and pendent positions when said lip extension assembly is in its said
disengaged position, said lip extension assembly being biased into said engaged position
when said deck is in said raised position and biased into said disengaged position when
said deck is below an intermediate inclined position, and said lip extension assembly
driving said lip plate toward its said extended position as said deck is lowered toward
said intermediate inclined position and said lip extension assembly is in its said engaged
position.

36. A dock leveler comprising:


a deck assembly including a deck and a support frame, said deck having upper
and lower surfaces, inner and outer longitudinal ends and first and second lateral sides,
said support frame having a plurality of spaced apart, substantially parallel support beams
including two outermost beams, each of said beams being supportably positioned beneath
said lower surface of said deck, and each beam having an outer longitudinal end
substantially aligned with said outer longitudinal end of said deck, and said outermost
beams extending along said lateral sides of said deck;
a header plate having inner and outer surfaces and upper, lower and lateral edges,
said upper edge of said header plate being flushly aligned with and rigidly secured to said
lower surface of said deck proximal its said outer longitudinal end and said inner surface
being rigidly secured proximal said outer end of each of said beams, said outermost
beams being rigidly secured to said lateral edges of said header plate, said header plate
extending from one side of said deck to said other side of said deck, and said header plate
being substantially perpendicular to said lower surface of said deck and substantially
perpendicularly to said beams;
a set of header lugs rigidly secured to and extending outwardly from said outer
surface of said header plate along its said upper edge, each header lug being substantially
linearly aligned with one of said beams of said support frame;
a lip plate having upper and lower surfaces and inner, outer and lateral edges, said
lateral edges of said lip plate being in substantial registry with said lateral edges of said
header plate;
a set of lip lugs rigidly secured to and extending from said lower surface of said
lip plate along its said inner edge, each of said lip lugs hingably joining one

20

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 20 of 21 Document 258-1


corresponding lug of said set of header lugs, and said lip plate is hingably movable
between pendant and extended positions relative to said deck, said upper surface of said
lip plate being substantially flushly aligned with said upper surface of said deck when in
said extended position.

Claim 1 of the issued 409 Patent, Ex. C, pp. A6272-88, 6295, reads as follows:

1. A dock leveler for forming a bridge between a floor of a loading dock and a trailer
bed, the trailer bed being adapted to support a load and rise when that load is removed,
said dock leveler comprising:
a deck assembly with a first hinged end, a second outer end, a float housing with
an abutment and a deck with a lip, said deck being movable through a range of inclined
positions between raised and lowered positions;
a lift assembly including a lift member and a biasing mechanism, said lift member
releasably supporting said deck assembly at said abutment and being upwardly and
downwardly movable through a range of positions between upper and lower positions,
said biasing mechanism biasing said lift member upwardly toward its said upper position
and said deck toward its said raised position;
a hold down mechanism joined to said lift member, said hold down mechanism
being operable to selectively prevent said lift member from moving upwardly toward its
said upper extended position, said lift assembly and hold down mechanism combining to
operably raise and lower said deck while said lift member remains in supporting
engagement with said deck assembly to position said lip on the trailer bed; and,
wherein said deck assembly releases from its said supporting engagement with
said lift member when the load is removed and the trailer bed rises, said deck and lip
being supported by and rising with the trailer bed.

Dated: this 25th day of August, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

NORDOCK, INC.

s/Jeffrey S. Sokol
Jeffrey S. Sokol
Sokol Law Office
828 North Broadway
Milwaukee, WI 53202

21

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 21 of 21 Document 258-1


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NORDOCK, INC. )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. )
) 11-CV-0118 (WED)
SYSTEMS, INC. )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER

AND NOW, this ______ day of ______________________ 2017, upon consideration of

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and any response thereto and for good cause state that,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED as to identifying the

article of manufacture as being Systems entire infringing LHP/LHD dock leveler, particularly

regarding the following:

- under 35 U.S.C. 289 Systems bears the burden of proof to show that the article of
manufacture is something other than its entire infringing LHP/LHD levelers, and
- Systems failed to carry its burden and the article of manufacture is Systems entire
infringing LHP/LHD levelers.

BY THE COURT

HONORABLE WILLIAM E. DUFFIN

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 1 Document 258-2


Exhibi t A

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 6 Document 258-3


834 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE. JANUARY 20,
for; which wns referred to tho Committeo of the Whole House on the l'roperty In <lcsigns erlland Is or \Blue. Tho RC\'lsed Stntutes provide for
state of the Union, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be tho issue of lctlors potent for snch dosigua. Courts or equity will, by Injunc-
tion, restrain present or future infringement or such pntents. Dut for n pnst in-
printe<l. fringement, the profits of which l1a\"O been renllzcd, the existing low is found w
ORDER OF DUSINESS. provide no remedy, merely boenusc the rulo of dl\lnngcs proscribed by the stat-
ute Is innpplicnble to designs on nccount of their 1>cculinr chnl'Rcter.
The SPEAKER. This completes the call for the introduction of 'fho bill meets this elDergcncy and pro, ides" new rule of 1cco\"cry {or design
bills and re.solutions. Tho hour for tho consideration of bills begins pntcnts.
at eight minutes before 1 o'clock. The call rests with the Committee '!'hnt the cn1ergcney should be met la only to '"Y thnt the design p11lcnt lnws
sl1011ld bo continued in force. To fnli to meet !he emergency will be n vlrtunl
on Pat.en ts. repeal of lhoso lo.\vs, for infringement is not discovcrc<I until the goods nre in
.111r. MARTIN. flfr. Speaker, I a.m instructed by the Committee on tbe hnnds of the deniers, nnd n design j>l\lentee cannot prnclicnlly g(\t out In-
junctions ngnlnst nil the dcnicis O\"Cn (he \Vere willing SO to SUO those who
Patents to call up the bill (S. 1813) to amend the Jaw relating to are niso his own customers. '.rho la1w is practically n right without a remedy
patents, trade-marks, and copyright, and ask tho present consideration it no wny is pro,idcd orrcn.cbing tho infringing mnnuC11cturcr nnd is o. nullit.y.
1

of the same. The design pnlent lat'l'S, unlike other pntent laws, do not increase the price of
tho nrticles nll"octetl. '!"his WM snlisfnctorily pro\'cd beforo yonr commiLtce.
Tho bill was read, ns follo1vs: Designs nre fnst sellers or slow sellers, 1111d nrc valnablo nccordini;ly. The sole
Bo ii onadcd .t:c. Tlut hercnf\cr, <luring the term of letters p:>tcntfor a design, rcmuncrntion to the ruanufnct.urer for his ln.rgc outln.) in origiunt1ng designs ta
It ahnll bo unln\vful for nn~ person other thnn the owner of said letters pntent., in the increased antes ho makes thereby. The design is mcrdythe principle or
without the licene of ruch owner, to 11pply tho design secured by such Jette.rs selection in tho purchasing of articles of mnnufncture.
potent, or any colornblo imitation thereof. to any article of runnufncturofortho So f1u as tho deigners nro concerned they crcnte a property for which they
purpose of s11lc, or lo sell or e.:poso for mto any article of m:mufnctnro to which ha\'e a rlitht to demand protection. Design p:lte11t laws preserve w them that
auch design or colornhlo Imitation shnli, \\'Hhout the license of !he owner, ha\'o J>roperty for" short term of yearsnncr publie11tion, which is thethuewbcnthat
been applied, knowing thnt tho &.'\me hllS been so npplied. Any person '"iolnt.- J>roporty first. becomes or nny money \ 11.luc. \\'omen are entering this prore99
0

lng lho pro\'isiuns, or either of lhem, or !bis section. shnli bo liable in !be sion. Design schools hnvc been started within the last decade In several of our
amount of mo: nnd in cnse tho totnl profit ruado b;y him from the ruanufnctoro lnri;c cities. The protection intended lo !Jc grnntc<l. and until April or lnstyr.nr
or snlc, ll! aforesaid. or tho arLiclo or articles to which tho design, or colornble supposed lo br. gl'llntcd b;y our design po.tent Jo.we, had fostered a rnpid gro\vLh
Imitation the1oor, hllS been applied, exceeds the sum of f"..00, he shallbo further in this profcssion-n profession the products of whose lnbor lose by the common
liable for tho excess or such proHt over nnd abo,e the sum of$~: 1md the full lnw tho chnmclcr of property when ullilzcd, ti.lat ls, when publiehcd,11ud whicll
nmount of such linbility mny be recovered by !he owner of the letters pntont. to b thercforo wholly the crcnturo of statute.
his own use. In nny circuit court of tho United Sto.tes having jurisdi.ction of tho So (nr as tho mnnnfncturers nre conccrnctl, who embody these original designs
J>llrtics, either b;y notion nt la\V or upon a bill In equity for an Injunction w rc- In nrLicles of mnnufnct.urc, it wn.s shown before your commit.tee lhnt the four or
&lrnin such infringement. llvo lending cnrl>et mnuufoctnrcrs iu the country expend ench from&30 1000to8GO,-
S&c. 2. Thut nothing In this net eontl\lnc<l shall prevent., lessen, lmpench, or OOO a, ycnr in sn nries to lleslgncrs anll n the incidents of designing bc1ore o.yard
nvoid any remedy at ll\W or in equily which nny owner or Jotters J>atent for n of cnrpeling is b~gun to be u1ndc for sale. It wnsnl8oshown tho.ttheadvnnce lo
design, nggrie\'ed by the infrlnge1ucnt of tho snlDe, might ha\'e ho.d if this act the Inst fow ycnrs in the uppliclltion of nrt lo the lndustrilll pursuits had been
hnd not been pnsscd; but such owner shnll not twice rcco,er the proM m:lde rnpid and grcnt, llncl wns lorgf'ly due to the e.:istcnceof design pntentlnws, nnd
from tho infrinircment. . !hut this growth hnd been coinclden~ with n steady decline in J>rioes. H was
nlso shown tbnt the cfl"cct of design pnlcnt lnws wos lo cheapen production and
Mr. MAR'(IN. This bill is n Senate bill which hM been un:mi- so ullimntcly to reduce \>rices, been.use itcno.bled the nln.nufacturerto run longer
monsly reported by the Committee on Potents, aud unless there be on n i:i\'cn design limn 1eothcrwiseconl<.1, and thuso.voidchonging machinery.
So far as tho cm1sun1ers nre concerned, !ho effect of design patent l11ws that
sorue objection to it, or some gentlemnn dcsil"cs to discuss it-, I v;ill nsk nro respected is lo gi\e them more bellntiful curpcts nnd wall-papers and oil-
the previous question ou the bill. cloths for the anruo money, nnd even for less moue;y, with atendcncytoenconr-
Mr. ADAMS, of Illinois. I tl1ink the report ought to be read. nge the purchnsc of nrt.iclesof standard quulitics nsoppc>sed to shoddy imitations,
which is a true cconom;y in indhidunls nnd RO In masses.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Knns.'IS. I bopo t11e gentleman will not press '.l'he rule or recovery prescribed by tho bill pre,cnts the Infringer from nc-
the demn.nd for the previous questiou. Let us hear tho report nnd hear tu ...11y profiting by his infringement. '!'he pntcntce recovers the 1>roflt nctunlly
what cbaoge the bill proposes to mnko in existing law aud what neces- mndo on the infringing arllcle if ho cnn pro,o that profit, that Is, \Vbat the In-
fringer rcnlizcd from the infringing nrllcles minus wltnt they cost hilD i but the
sity there is for it. patentee recovers nothing beyond thnt profit, tho capital nnd labor mvestcd
J\Ir. MARTIN. Very well. The Senate bill is the exnct countcr- being left with lho infrh11tcr just"" it wns before tho infringement. Tho copy-
p:irt of a House bill which wns reported by tho gentloroan from Con- ri;ht law goes far beyond this, for there !he mpitnl anri lnbor nrc forfeited to
!he owner of tho copyright, and Ibero is a hco.v;y penalty in nddiliou. and also
necticut [Afr. MITCHELJ,]. The number of the report on t!Jat bill is n right to reeo\cr nny other d1Uno.;;cs thllt cnn bo pro,ed. It is c.:pcdlent th11t
1!>66, and if the Clerk will re:ul thnt report it will nnswer every pur- the infrini;cr's entire profit on lhe nrtlclo ahould bo rccoverablo, ns otherwise
pose. There is no special report upon this bill beyond the fact that it none of his proOt can be recovered for it b not opportionnble; and it b just
thnt tho entiro profit on tho nrticle al1011ld be rccovernblo and b;y the patentee,
is reported favorably. . for it Is the design that sells the article, nnd so that makes It possible w rea llzo
l\lr. DUCK. It inight be well for the gentleman from Alabama to any proftt nt all, nnd the patentee Is entitled to ail the i:ood will the design h:lS
explain the bill. in tho market, and so, nftertho 11nnlogy of tradc-mo.rlt lllW, is entitled to rul tho
prnlit tho Infringer mado on the goods mnrked.
Mr. MARTIN. I will explain it, if that is desired. Dut to weet tho cnse or nn Infringement actually committed without profit
The report on the bill (II. R. 8323) {by Jllr. MITCHELL) was rend, as (which won Id In the majority of cases be tho infringement most damaging and
follows: disastrous to.the pn.tentco o.s n mBnulBcturer), and to meet t.he case when tho
exact profit In dollars nnd cents can not be proved under the severe and tech
Tho Committee on Pntcnts, to whom wns rercrrcd House bill :sliiO, h11ve eon- nical rulos ofthe lnw (and this would not Infrequently occur withdeCondant the
aidcred tho 81\me nnd report it to the Houso wlth the recommendation that ft only witness. and hie books the ooly evidence), the bill prescribea a minimum
lie upon the tnblo, nnd thnt I.ho eubstitulo for &nid bill herewith reported do reco\cry or e"..'iO. This Is nccess11ry to nny elfectunl protection or so lntanelble
pnss. a prope11-y. It i9 ,. recovery certo.ln nnd eimple, o.nd will command for the
It no\\' Rppe11r1 t.hnt the design pntent lo.we provide no effectual money reco\- design patent lnws a respect which is the patentee'& greatest protection. It Is
cry for infringement. This~ tbo result of the statute, llS applied to the peculiar the method of tho English statute \Vhich prescribes a recovery of :50 on proof
chnrnctcr of properly imolved, Inn test case decided in April last by the Su of violntlon of n design registration, a law that has been in successful operntion
preme Court of tho United S!ntes. Since thatdoeision the 1ecelplll ortho Pat<!ut for upwards of forty years. Tho nmount prescribed seems to be the avorngo
Otlloe in tho design depnrtment have fallen off upwards of 50 per cent. and !he o.mount that will work enbstantinl justice In the long run, IAklng Into account
average weekly issue> of design palonts hns olso fallen off jnst one-hair. nll trodes nnd industries that nre likely to nvall themselves of thedeslp paten&
'!'he bill pro\ides n rule of recovery for lnfringomentof design patents. merely lnws. Tho \iolnlion spoken of In the bill, for which tho sum eerlnin Is made re-
sn1>1>l~lng whnt the Cl\SO referred w shows w be lacking h1 the existing lnw. coverable, would bo nil that tho infringer hnd made or sold of !he Infringing
'.l'o f~il to pl\SS this or" similnr bill is n virtual repeal of tho design pntent laws. articles beLwcen !ho day the patent Issued ond tho day the suit against him
l'roperty In originnl designs (which aro defined as works of nrt o.pplied to wns begun: nnd if the nrticlo mo.de wns In Itself amnll o.nd cheap, tile quantity
articles of mnnufacturo Intended for sale nnd use) ~ n 1>roperty or great and mndo would bo likely to bal11nce thb nod make the minimum recovery speci-
increasing \"nlue. intimntoly relnted to materlnl progress in the ioduatriai nr!s. fied uot too large.
This 1>ro1>ert;y was recognized In the atntute booksl111lf a century aner tho 11dop- The blil provides only for recovery l'rom the manufacturer who manufact
tion orpntent lnws for mecbnnlcnl Inventions, and art.er a body or Cl\90 lnw and urcs for purposes or anle,nnd from tho dcl\lers whocnn be proved to have been
J>reccdcnt lmd grown up around those patent laws nnd the sanctions nnd reme- in nctual conspirac;y with such mo.nufncturcr in tho lnCringement, and therefore
dies they pro\ided, nnd WllS recoJ.nlzed by the ennctment of laws nuthorizing an innocent denier or user is not affected. .
ti:;t~uo of letters po.tent or the nited Stales Cot designs, such lnws pro\iding '!'he bill has reference to an Infringement 'by the use of the design patented
or of nny eoiornblo lruitntion thereof. The Inst pbraae does not extend the
"Ali tho regulations anrl provisions which npply to obtaining or protecting present rule ns to what constitut~ inCring-~ment or a. deshtn patent, but. mcrc1y
pnlents for inl"entlons ordisco,eries. not inconsistent with the provisions of this e.:presscs nnd ndopts it, (Seo Gorman 1\10.nufncturlng Company .:1. \Vhite.14
title, shnll npply to pntcnlll for designs." (Rev. Stnt., sees. 4929-4933.) Wnlll\ce Reports.)
'fho provisions which npply w protecting patents for mechanical lnvontlops 'l'ho bill le11ves tho present cleslgn pntent lnw Jud as It Is, and In 1111 second
were O~st npplied by !ho Supreme Court CIC tho United Stnles tQ tho cnse or le- section 811\"es nil the rights of defendnnts against cmy possiblo double recovery
sign patents In April of 11\llt year, to wit, In tho on!IC or Dobson ngnlnst tho Big- for tho same Infringement.
elow Olrpct Compan;y nnd tho so.me ngninst the llartfol"d Carpet Compnny, re- Your committee therefore recommend thnt tbe bill pass.
ported In tho hst \"Olumo of the United Stnlcs Ueporls, nnd with the result of Mr. MARTIN. That report, as the House perceives, is n very elo.b
showlnl:' those provisions nnd remedir.s to be wlloll;y nnd essentiall;y inapplicn-
blc to tho Cl\l!O of n consumtnntcd infringement of n design p.'\tent, the patentee omto ooe, covering all the points, nnd it seems to m11 that it lea.ves very
being turned out of court \vith an ndmitted right. but withoutn remedy. '!'ho littlo to be said. Therefore, if there be no objection to the bill, and
Supremo Court held In substance thnt tho complnlnant must clcnrlvprovo whnt if no member wishes to discuss it, I will now renew my demand for
pllrt ofhis own dnwage, or what pnrtol defendant's whole profit on the articles
lD<lde nnd sold Wl\8 directly due to tho o.ppcnranco of those nrtlcies as distin- the previons question, in orcler to put the bill upon its passage.
guished from their mntcrial. thei' fabric, their utllit), &:c.; tho desiirn, to wit, Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. To what p:irticular kind of designs
tbe nppearance, being tho only thing patented.
H hns been nbundantly shown, even i( any such showing'l'l'cro ncccssnry, tbnt docs this bill npply?
the proof thus co.lied for cnn never be furnished. Mr. MARTIN. It applies to clesigns for carpets, oil-cloth, wall-
'!'he CC?urt auggeot thnt tho dilfe_rence in price bet,vecn articles or equal qnal paper, &c. Tho object of the bill is nothing more uor less thnn to
!ty, havmll', ono the patented design and tho other any other design freo to be ennble n party to enjoy tho benefit of his pa.tent. Under n recent de-
used, contd be rcco\ored under tbo e.:lsting stntute; bnt U Ima been proved to
your committee !hat designs do not Increase the selling price, but only the quan- cision of tho Supreme Court, it is quite impossible for him to recover
tity sold of the articles on which they nppeo.r. AJPlill, license foes are unltnown anything by an action for damages in the case, or to protect himself by
under design patents, tho vnlue or the property bcmg nsshort-livcd ns the co.price
or purchasers, and residing in tho exclusive character or the use, the property means of an injunction. Tho recent int.erpretntions given to the two
eomewbnt pnrtakiag of the character and elfect of trode-m11rk propert> statutes referred to are of such n chnrncter as virtually to annul the

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 6 Document 258-3


1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 835
patent law with reference to designs, nnd this bill is intended to remedy lllr. HAMMOND. I bn.ve nsked the question for this reason: Io the
that. Wo bavo found no one who wishes to bnve the patent law in clecisiou which bas been referred to, the Supreme Court held thnt in
respect to designs changed or set :uiide, but we have found ri great body cases of this kind tl1ere can be no recovery except for actual damages
of persons who are engaged in the manufacture of goods in which sustained by the unauthorized use of n patented design; ancl it is be-
designs nre the principal feature and who are clamorous for this legisla- cause of this decision that the Committee on Patents has reported this
tion. I will stnte further, for the information of tho House, that I bill for the ameuclmentof the existing law. Now the Snprcme Court,
presume no subject hns been more elaborately or more ably discussed in this case of Dobson i:s. the Hartford Carpet Company, United States
during the presontsession of Congress tbnn this bill which we are now Repott, page 444, s.-iys:
discl1ssing. This court hns, In o. series or clcclslons, 1111<1 clown rules ns to "'hnt nrc lo bo
'l'his measure was brought up for consideration in tlte Senate; and regarded as "profits to lw RCCOunted for by the defondnnt," and wltat113 "nclunl
parties interested in the question appeared before the Senato commit- d11mnges," In suits for tho Infringement or pntenl<!; nud no rulo bns been S.'\nc
tloued which will nllow. In tho Cl\90 or 1> pnt.cnt for n design for orn:uucntl\I flg-
tee. 'l'ho whole matter in all its length and breadth was taken up and urcs crented In Iha wcnving or o. cnr1>ct,or imprinted on it, tho entire )>rofiHrom
most thoroughly discussed. Every objection raised was answered and the mnnufo.cturo nnd enlo or tho c:nr1>ot,ns profile or d11mnges, inclu<lmg nil tho
entirely overcome to the satisfaction of the Senate committee, who, I profits from tho Cl\rding,apinning,dyclng,l\11tl wcnvfng, thus rcgnrding tho en
tire profits ns duo to tho figuro or pnttcrn. unless it is shown, by rcliuble ovi
run informed, made a unanimous report in favorofthe bill. denco, that tho entire profit is duo to tho llguro or pnllern.
The bill was then considered by the Committee on Patents of this
Honse, and the same elaborate discussion of the subject was had, et'ery In that ca.,e, therefore, tho court held thnt oat/such damages could
solitary objection which was raised being answered; and the House bo recovered as were shown to ha.ve accrued by the improper use of
committee uoanimonsly directed a favorable report of the bill. a.uother man's patent. The concluding sentence of the paragrn1ih is
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Will my friend from Alabama kindly this:
say whether any estimate has been fonned as to the amount of prop- There Is but one snfo rnlc-tho nclunl dnmngcs or profits, lo be esL'\blishcd
erty which will be covered annually by this bill? by trustworthy lcgnl proor.
llfr. llIARTIN. I do not know that I ca.n make any statement on This being the decision, the Committee on Patents now comes in
that point. here with a bill declaring not only that the infringer of a patente(l
llir. ANDERSON, of Kansas. How much is the bill worth to these design shall be liable to n fiue of $250 and the costs in the Federal
mnnulacturers? court where he mny bo convicted, but if the whole amount of the
Mr. MARTIN. Well, it is worth a. gre.'\t deal to them, bec.'\use it is profits on the goods sold to which the patent is fraudulently or \vitlt-
be1ievcd the bill will opera.to very effectually in preventing these in- ont authority applied shall exceed $250, the plaintiff may recover the
fringements. It is not eitpected that nny gre:i.t amount of damages entire profit upon the article of product, without nny proof that this
will be reoovered. The object is simply that, after manufacturers have arises from the us.e of the design in question.
expended their money in getting artists to furnish these designs which Mr. MARTIN. I will lllly in reply to the gentleman, I can not pnt
add value to carpeting, oil-cloths, wall-paper, and things of that sort, any such construction on this la\V,
the advantages to which the manufacturers are entitled by reason of Mr. H.!.lllMOND. Permit me further. If that is not the right con-
securing theso designs, shall not be taken from them by infringements. struction, then why undertake to cbauge the lnw at all, for the Supreme
ll:l:r. HUCK. The gentleman will allow mo to say that the passage Court have alreacly decfared in this case of Bigelow, in the ouo hun-
of a bill of this ltiud has been made necessary by reason of a decision dred and fourteenth volume, you can recover all ar.tual damages yon
of the Supreme Court of the United States. can prove; bat you do not sa.y in t11e act the damages l1ere arising from
Mr. 11!.A.RTIN. Practically, under the existing law, no danrngc.s tho nse of snch patented design shall be recovered, but nil the profits
can be recovered in a c.ise of this kind. that the dcfendaut hns made on the article covered by the design.
Mr. DINGLEY. Will the gentleman ffom Alabama be kind enouglt Mr. MARTIN. l\:(r. Spenkl!r, I see it will be ne<.'CS!.'\ry for me to
to eitplain what is intended by the phrase "nor any colorable intima- cousumealittle more timo than I had intended in order that this sub-
tion thereof?" Is not that language a little too strong? ject may be brought fully to the attention of the Hoose. 'l'he patent
111r. llIARTIN. I am really not prepared to answer the gentleman is obtained for a certnin figure, or figures, which will be employe1l in
in the way I would like to do, because I do not pretend to be os familiar making carpet, or oil-cloth, or wall-pa.per, or anything of that kiocl.
with the lnngttage employed about patents as, perhaps, I ought to be, Here is a piece of carpet with a certain design on it; \Ve will tnke it
in order to answer him. for illustration. Suppose there is no design on that article at all, there
Mr. BUCK. The gentleman from Alabama will allow me to suggest would be the cost of spinning the thread and of weaving it by the manu-
to the gentleman from Maine that the language referred to applies to facturer oftbe goods. It would be practically os good 119 with the de-
a case where the imitation is substruitially like the original, although sign printed on it; but if it bad not a design which attracted the eye
not practica.lly the same. nnd tnacle it desirable, then no one would think of buying the carpet.
ll:l:r. DING LEY. Why not, then, use the word "substantial" in- A man making carpet, or oil-cloth, or wall-paper, or anything of that
stead of "colornble? " kind, goes to ao artist and gets him to furnish a design which be thinks
111r. BUCK. Possibly that language might be sufficient; but I can will captivate the eye nnd fancy of the purchaser. The moment be
see no objection to the language used in the bill. gets a patent for thnt design there must be left in the Patent Office a
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It has been held over and over again that lithograph of it; nod that lithograph can be obtained by any one who
tho imitation must be practically the ea.me thing; must be so close nn wants it for a. few cents. Those who infringe the patent purchase these
imitation as to mislead anybody. lithogr:i.pbs of de.signs. They have n full description of the design nod
Mr. BUCK. The difficulty nt present is that nfter these :manufact- make an exact counterfeit, or imitation; so exnct hardlynny man can
urera have obtained from artistB valnablo designs and have applied for see the difference between them. What we want in the law is this-
patents, some other person, interested in thesame bra.nchofmanufactnre, in the case referred to of Dobson ngainst the Hartford Cnrpet Compnny
comes in and copies the design; and within a few days after the issue tho trouble was this:
of the new patent other manufacturers will be found making carpets The Supreme Court. said t.o him, yon are entitlecl to your action on
or wall-papers the design of which is colorably or substantially nn imi- the case to recover such damages as you say yon sustained. Now what
tation, though not exactly the same; and in this waytheealesoftbose are those damnges? Damages which exist by reason of the carpet be-
who honestly secure designs and have them patented are seriously of. ing made more desirable by reason of the design placed upon it? Who
fected. can say? How far can we arrive at the measure of damages iu refer-
llir. MARTIN. I will sa.y to my friend from Maine that I do not ence to this carpet, which bas been selected because of its deaign? I
see that any mischief can result from retaining in the bill the word say it is practically impossible to fix auythiog but nominal damages
"colornble," because the expression is one wbi ch is well understood in in nn action of that kind. No one can tell whether this carpet wns
connection with patent law, besides having, as n genera.l legnl term, a. bought purely for thedesigu or not. No one can tell whether another
peculiar technical meaning, which is well recognized. piece having a different design would not have been selected. Men
Mr. HAMMOND. Will the gentleman from Alabamn allow mo a will disagree, in my judgment, 119 my friend observed iu reference to it.
question? There is a law allowing a man a. patent for his design. He has now
llir. MARTIN. Cerbinly. two remedies: action on the c:ise for damage for use of it, aud relief by
Mr. HAMMOND. In cases ofviolntions of patents under ibe exist- injunction to prevent tbemauufactnro of tbe goods. Both of them, I
ing law the plaintiff recovers simply the 11amages which accrue t6 him will soy, are pmctic.'\lly useless and futile as means to be employed for
by reason of the unauthorized use of Ms patent. Does not this bill preventing infringement A design only lh'es for a year; and bow can
undertake t.o give to the man whose patent is infringed all the profits you prevent a man making a carpet of n certain design without know
made on the article embodying the infringement, whether those profits ing be is engaged in making it? How do you know be is makin11: it?
arise from the use of the desil?ll alone or from various other circum- It cannot be known until the cmJ>et is mndeaud put upon the market.
stances which may enter into the manufacture? The remedy, when the carJ.>et hns been manufactured and put on tbs.
Mr. MARTIN. I will answer the gentleman by saying that when market, is by the n.ction on the case. The patentee bad another rem-
this bill was before the Committee on Patents that question was asked edy by injuuetioo. Every la.WYer knows the reroecly by injunction is
and it was stated explicitly that no such purpose was had in view by
one who favored or urged the p:issage of the bUl.
o.ny a preventive remedy, and that in order to avail yourself of the benefit
of it you must know of the contemplated injury in time to prevent the
Mr. BUCK. The language of the bill will not allow that. commission of it. So I say the remedy by injunction for a man who

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 6 Document 258-3


..
836 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 20,
hllS a patent design amounts to notl1ing. What this bill seeks to cor the cases of thuse who are willing to pay for the privilege of viol:i.ting
rect is sufficient, of itselt; to commend it to all men. the law.
We C'lD not protect the mnu on his patent and in the possession of Mr. CROXTON. It 1nust be n. willfnl violation?
Jiis patented rights unless we attach a. penl\lty for the infringement of 111r. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
the same; and that is simply what the bill does. Mr. HOLMAN. Bot does my friend think, in view of tbe large
Mr. BUTTERWOR'.l'H. In this cn.~e, ns I underst:md it, no man rights now posse.ssed by the owners of p:itents that there eboultl be so
will suffer either penalty or damage unless he willftllly nppropriates material an enlargement ancl extension of the benefits intended to be
the property of another. conferred?
Mr. MARTIN. None,vhatever. Mr. MARTIN. In this case I think such nn extension is impcrn.
Mr. BUCK. And makes a profit on doing so. tively demanded.
Mr. MARTIN. That is the provision of the bill. Mr. MAI~TlN. I now renew my motion for the previous qncslion.
Mr. Speaker, I uow ask the previous question-- The previous question was ordered.
Mr. HA~IMOND. Before doiug that, I trust my friend from Ala- The bill wna ordered to a third reading, :md was accordingly 1e:ul tlle
bnma will permit me o. moment. third time, anti passed; tbere beiug, on I\ 1livision-a.)t'es 70, noes 10.
Mr. MARTIN. Certainly. llfr. MARTIN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill w:is
Mr. HAMMOND~ I have no dispo!ition to interfere with the stat- passed; nnd also movecl that the motion to reconsider be laid on the
ute proposed to be enacted, if it is correct; bnt we should certainly nn- table.
derst.'\nd what we are doing. I see much force in what the gentleman The lotter motion was agreed to.
says, bot there seems an objection to this bill which I would like to J\Ir. MARTIN. I ask leave to extend my remarks upon this bill in
have either cotTected by an amendment or satisfo.ctorily explained by tbe RECORD.
the gentleman from Alabama. I appreciate the difficulties which lie The SPEAKER. IC there be no objection, the House bill on tbe same
suggests, but i11 it not enough tbat in this statute you make tbe in- sul\ject will be laid on the table.
fringement of the patent a. crime sul\ject to a penalty of $' fiue by There was no objection.
the courts, witbout giving additionnl damages to the infringed party
ORDER 01> DUSINESS.
and all of t11e profits growing out of the whole bl18iness of the mnn who
infringes, although not oue cent may have .been received by him on ac- The SPEAKER. If the Committee on Pntenta has no further busi-
count oftbe misappropriation? ness to submit, the call now rests with the Committee on Invalid .Pen
Mr. BUCK. Hot many manufncturers would be \Villing a.ud gla<l sions.
to pay $2.50 for the privilege of infringing. MESSAGE FROM TB~: SENATE.
.Mr. HAMMOND. But if h!' infringes, a.s you suggest, be is liable A message Crom the Senate, by Mr. lllcCooK, its Secretnrj, informed
to the penalty of$250 if ho seJJs one yard of material; then he would tbe House tbn-t the Senate bud agreed to the report of the committee of
be liable further ton pennltyof$250 on tbe next bolt, and $250 on the conference on the dis:i.greeing votes of the two Houses on tbe amend-
next bolt, and so on indefinitely as long as be continued to infringe. ments of the Honse of Hepreseotatives to the bill (S. 9) to fix the day
Mr. BUCK. You would have to brivg so many different snits, and for the meeting of tbe electors of President nnd YiceP1-esident, ancl to
it would be rather 1m expensive proceeding. provide for and re11:ulnte the counting of the votes for .President nncl
Mr. HAMJ\lOND. No; there would be 110 suit at nil. Yon wouhl Vice-Pre11idcnt, and tho decision of questions arising thereon.
go to the foreman of the United States grand jury nod make your com- PENSION FQR DEAFNESS.
pl11int. Bot you propose to do here what I do not believe exists in ref-
erence to any other Jaw of patents, that is, to give to a man whose Mr. CONGER. I nm instructed by the Committee on Invalid Pen
patent is violated or infringed the profits of the whole factory or estab- sions to call up for present consideration tbe bill (H. R. 5871) granting
Iishruentof the otber man who is the infringing party, wherea1J he runy an increase of the rate of pension now provided for deafness. I ask
have done it innocently. unanimous consent tba.t the Committee of the Whole Hoose be dis-
Mr. BUCK. Allow me to suggest thnt it is not a criminal procce1l charged from the further. consideration of the bill, nod that it be con
ing at nil, but only a measure of damages ni;:ninst him. sidered in the Hoose n.q in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. HAMMOND. It says he shall be indicted nnd fined. The SPEAKER. Tbe bill will be read, after which the Chair will
Mr. BUCK. No; bot that be shall be liable, either by action at Jaw ask for o~jections to the requesi of the gentleman from Iowa.
or by a bill in equity, for nn injunction. The bill was rend, as follows:
Jllr. HOLMAN. There is no provision for an indictment, and it is Dcitenactdd. 4:e., That on and after the pnesngo or this act,all soldiers and
lltlilors who Rr6 now pensioned, or wbo may hereafter be pe11sioned, on at-eaunt
not a. criminal proceeding, as I read the law. It provides that the party of total denlncss or both eurs, shall be entltle<I to recei\'e the sum or t:io a 111011\h
sh111l be liable ton penalty of $250, and if the profit macle by ltim on for such <lis1>bility; nml all soldiers and 6411ora who aro now on the pcnsion-
the infringement sball exceed $250 he shall be further liable for the ex rolls, or shnll herenller be plnood on the penslon-roll1,on nccount or db<abillLy
rroru loss of t>earini; in a degrco less than total deafness, aha.II be cntiU~d to re
cess of such profit. ccivo a pension proportiOnl\\e to tbo rule prO\'lded herein for Iota) deafness or
.Mr. HUCK. Aud ho bns got to be sued for it. both ears.
Mr. HAMMOND. I beg pardon, I was rega.rding it on a. casual The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentJernan
rcRding as pro,irling for nn indictment. from Iowa?
Mr. HOLMAN. No, sir; it ma.kes no such provision. I would like Mr. COWLES. I object.
to usk my friend from Alabama one single question. Mr. CONGER. I move that the Honse resolve itself intoCorumitteo
Mr. Mh.RTlN. Certainly. of the Whole House ou the state of the Union for the purpose of con-
Mr. HOLMAN. Is there nny other instance where the party whoso sidering this bill.
right l111s been infringed upon is entitled to recover a specific sum in The motion was agreed to.
thll event of infringement, and, in addition, wha.tever damages may be 'l'he House accordingly resolYed itself into Committee of the Whole
11us1ained? '!'bis statute gives the party rur liquidated damages the on the state of tho Union, lllr. SPIUNOER. in the chair.
sum of $250 for such infringement. ns well as whatever may be recov- The CMAIH~IAN. The House is now in Committee of the Wbole
er~d for the infringement; nnd then the additional bounty which may for the purpose of considering the bill (H. R. 5!l7J) which the Clerk
be the nmount m:1cle by the infringed party from the sale of the article will rend.
which is in part the result of the patent. I ask, then, is there any The bill wa.s again rend.
other statute in the interest of patents that contains both of tbese pro- l\Ir. CONGER. l\lr. Chairman, it seems to me tlui.t it is only neces-
visions-one for t.he recovery of a specifi.,: sum in liquidated damages, sary to call tho attention of the House to tbe rate of pension which is
nut by way of penalty or a tine in crimina.I proceedin@, but by liqui now prescribed for total deafness and compare that with the rutcs for
duted damage in a. civil snit, and also the udd itional damage which the other specific disabilities to convince every member of tbi.~ Honse that
party may h1\ve st1stained? these unlortunate pensioners ha.vo been very greatly neglected. The
Mr. MAlt'fIN. I know of no otber instance in the patent law ora.ny rate of pension fixed by statute now for total dea.fuess is only $13 a.
nectl of auy provision of n similnr character. The necessity for fix.iug mouth. If it was oot fired by statute the Commissioner of Pensions
n cert.11in amount ns the a.mount in liq oidated damages a.rises from tbe would be permitted to incre:130 it under his judgment as be is for other
peculiar cbaracter of the subject patented; nnd parties havo been en- disabilities, the rate of which is not specified by law.
abled heretofore to recover nothing 'vhateve1 on account of such dnm- The rate of pension for the loss of a hand or foot is now $30; nnd it
ngtlll by reason of the species of property which the pa.tent represents. seems to me that no gentleman will disagree with the statement that
'.l'he object in putting in the furtber clnuse that the party may recover for a person to be totally deaf is a greater affiict.ion than to have lost n.
any additional dniuagcs is this: It is believed tha.t this will be prevent- band or a foot. In fact, I can conceive of no greater disability except
ivl:l in its cbamcter, and no man would be likely to infringe when a perhaps it be the loss of both eyes or the loss of both arms than for one
recovery nguiust him for such infringement will involve the sum of$250, to be totally deaf.
ns well ns the total earnings of the busin~ss from tba.t source; because The present rate fixed by law for the loss of a. tbumb and one finger
there are many cases where parties would be willing to pay $250 for is $12; for tbe loss of a thumb a.nd two fingers, $14; for the loss of
tho privilege of infringing, because the manufacture which be would tbree fingers, $12. So you may go through the whole loog listaud yon
undertake woulcl enable him to make many hundreds of dollars on such will find there are none of these pensions for other disabilities with
a smnll outlay; and tbis provision is put in for the purpose of meeting 'v hicb the rate for deafness will at all com pare.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 6 Document 258-3


REPORT
{ No'. 206.

OF THE UNITED STATBS.

MARCH 9, 1886.-0rdered to be printed.

y, from the Committee on submitted the


0
LTo accompau;v bill S. 1818.]
minittee OD Patents, to which was referred Senate bill 1034,
l the same under consideration, respectfully reports the same
the recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed, and
following original bill with the recommendation that it pass.
appears that the design patent laws provide no remedy for a
ted infringement. This is the practical result of a t.est case
1 April last by the Supreme Court, of the United States. Since
on the receipts of the Patent Office in the desii::11 department
weekly issue of patents have fallen off 50 per

(which are defined as works of art


intended for sale and use) is a HAoAAon+n

intimately related to material


strhtl arts. This property was on thti
a centar.y after the adoption of patent laws for mechanical
after a body of case law and precedent had grown
se patent laws and the sanctions and remedies they
oguized by the enactment of laws authorizing
nt of the United States for designs, snch laws

latio1rn and provisions which apply to obtaining or protecting patents


or discoveries not inconsistent with the provisions of this title shall
ts for desigus. (Sec. 4929-4938, United Statet1 Revised Statutes.)
.r>ions which apply to protecting patents for mechanical in-
~:te first applied by the,Supreme Uourt of the United States
!?f c!esign patents in April of last ye:u, to wit, in the
.agamst the Company, and the same
1 Carpet in the last volume of the
rts, and result of those provisions and
.be wholly and to the case of a con-
!lfringemeut of a being turned
with an admitted CThe Su-
t h~ld in substance the complainant must prove
f hrn own or what of defendant's profit
e made and was due to the cippearance of those

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 6 Document 258-3


SE~A:TE OF THE UNITED

MARCH

th~ Committee on Pensions, sul


rr:
R. 1319.]
[To
original exists
for the issue of letters t,
injunction restrain . infringements f.
consummated infringement, the profits.
existing h:i,w is fontid to provide
rule of damages prescribed
on account of their peculiar
this emergency, and provides a.
nnr
" 0 That the emergency i;;hould
0

patent laws should be co1itinued. in


emergency. will be a vi.rtu:.al repea.1. of . those I..
never discussed until th<p goods ar,e in theh
design patentee caJiuot practically get ou.t
dealers if he were williug so to suetl1
own customers. law is practically a right wi
.is provided of reaching the infringing inanuf:
the caseof an infringement wvuu.v"'' 0
would in the majority of cases b~
Ul:tll)<;~;(lillo{ an,d (fo;;astrOUS t() tJle patentee; and
"'.. . . profit in .dolla;rs a.rn:l .cents cannot.be
tlie technical the l,aw ,asJaid .dow11 by the Sup,rei:(Je
. case referred to, prescribing a J'.!linimum recovery onll
the nominal damages Vvhich'WOUld otherwise be .the result
majority of;suits brought for infringer en ts of this kind.
It .is th~ 1nethod of the English statute, which prescribes
on proof a violation of a. design registration, a law
successful operation upwards of forty years'.
TM bill . provides for .a recovery from the
iariufactures . . . of sale, . and. from the
}),roved to h,~:ve ~tctual c0nspimcy with sucli
infringement. . . . .. . .. .
The bill Ii.as refe.rence to an. iufriugement by the us.e
patented "or any colorable imitatiori thereof." The hist
note:z;ten~ th~ present.r11Ie as to wl:i,<tt. c(lnstitu.te~.JJ1f1:i1!g~1c1
.sign pa,.t~nti, but u.1erely expresses and adopt,s it:. (See qor
facturig Om11pany.vs. White, Ll WallaceReports.) . ..
. ;Th.e. bi!Peaves th,e 1rre~ent design patent law just a:s it>.
se~ol)d ~~gtio11.sa:v;es alltl:i,e i'ights of defendants against\
aoubler()covery for tl:ie'same irifringemenk ,. . .
\'~_" -_ / - '.-.:->---,-,;,- -"<--- ,' _:. ':'' ' -- ,_- - , - -- <, "".

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 6 Document 258-3


Exhibi t B

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 66 Document 258-4


E )( 15

PA 1914040

11Q)A"1D,11Q>'NU-:DM!r.mlrE9'; HBES~1!!~ ~~MtE:;;


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office

March 08, 2013

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ANNEXED HERETO IS A TRUE COPY FROM


THE RECORDS OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE OF THOSE PAPERS OF THE BELOW IDENTIFIED PATENT
APPLICATION THAT MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE GRANTED A
FILING DATE UNDER 35 use 111.

APPLICATION NUMBER: 101328,279


FILING DATE: December 23, 2002
PATENT NUMBER: 6,834,409
ISSUE DATE: December 28, 2004

THE COUNTRY CODE AND NUMBER OF YOUR PRIORITY


APPLICATION, TO BE USED FOR FILING ABROAD UNDER THE PARIS
CONVENTION, IS USJ0/328,279

By Authority of the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

hO.n. c... 0l)vv\. '""D


~I~MURRAY
Certifying Officer

A6206
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 66 Document 258-4
}'),/,/!Iv,~
. /II{ . OYf/' 1)1'/ ..... ..:~. -,.
... 0. - 1 ~ ' ....~ ~-~ IC
tr.:... .,;::J: io:;;; ... .... .. w~. -~.:::r::: r:-. 11..;a r;..
I - .L/__.b

... PTOISll.'05 (0:Mlt)


'""""-"" - " - I013tl2002. OMll 08S.t.<J032
1,1.S. P.,_ - T - n Olllo; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
~ ... P__..R-lv<Aaf tll95,fl0...,_.. ... ..,re<11o_.rtoe_d_,,._,,_., .-oM8contlOIClmbw. "_..1n, ==
: UTILITY Attomey Oocf<el Num4782-2
PATENT APPLICATION First Inventor Denis Gleason
.. TRANSMITTAL 11thJ DOCK LEVELER
(Only tor,_ nonptOV/sionM applleatiOnS
under 37 CFR 1.53(b)) EV0973 I 820SUS No. of
APPLICATION ELEMENTS Assistant Commissioner for Patents
ADDRESS TO: Box Patent Application
See MPEP chspter 600 conceming utifly pal8flf epplicatlon contents. Washington, DC 20231
1. [1811
......
Fee Transmittal Form (e.g., PTO/SB/17)
(Submit en originel and a duplicate for foe processing)
1 . t:;f!it11 CO.ROM or CD-R in duplicate, large table, mlcrofiehe or
:~ Computer Program (Appendix)
8. Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Submission
2. ~1 Applicant claims sman entity status.
(if applicable, sl/ nece&SBl')I)
!.!ei'l See 37 CFR 1.27.
3. Specification (Total pages ~ l
(pteferred errangement Dt fotth below)
a. fliJj Computer Readable Form (CFR)
b. Specilication Sequence Listing on:
Desc:rtptiv title of the Invention
Cross Reference to Related Applications
Statement Regarding Fed sponsored R & D
i. Jm CD-ROM or CD-R (2 copies); or.

Reference to sequenc:e Hating, a table. ii. Paper


or a con"4)u1et program listing appendix
Background of the Invention c. [llJ JStalements verifying Identity of atxwe copies
Brief Summary of the Invention
Brief Description of the Drawings (if lllecl) ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION PARTS
- Detailed Oescrlptlon
Claims(s)
9. \ill: Assignment Papers (cover sheet & document(s))
Abstract of the Disclosure 10 ;~;. 37CFR3.73(b)Statement ~."\ Powerof
.. '.~l (when them is an assignee) !~.\ Attomey
4. E] Drawing(s) (35 U.S.C. 113) ( Tola/ Sheets 17 )
,.t@)j
I
11. English Tr-lation Document (if applicable)
5. Oath or Declaration ( Tola/ Pag11s --2-
'j~~f
12 '.lffil Information dlscloaure Copies of IDS
a.

b.
Newly executed (original or copy) ---
Copy from a prior application (37 CFR 1.63(d))
(for contfnuallonldfvlsJonal with Box 111 completed)
13. m
~.Statement (IOS)/PT0-1449

!i!tiill
Preliminary Amendment
Retum Rec;elpt Postcard (MPEP 503)
t~i Citations

i. !'ftt.'-
DELETION OF INVENTOR(S) 14. S
:e
SIQned statement attached deleting lnventor(s)
(Should be spec"1ce/ly itemized)
named In the prior application, - 37 CFR 15 ~j Certllled Copy of Priority Document()
1.83(d){2) and t .33(b). ' ~ (If fon1i{Jn priority is i:Jelmed)
c. fl'iitl
lncorporat1on By Relenlrce (useble II Box 5b Is cller:k!Mll.
~B The entire Oiackllula of Ille prior allPficallOn, from wlllcll a 16. Cl NonpubllcaUon Request under 35 U.S.C. 122
(b)2)(B)(i). Applicant must attach form PTO/SB/35
mpy ol "'9 oMll or -mlon la -piled under box 4b la
..,,,._being pwt of Ille dlldosure ol Iha or Its equivalent. .
~ applicllllon and .. het1!by ~ ~
re-..:. !herein. 17. 00 Other: Postcard
6 Appllcatlon Data Sheel Sea 37 CFR 1.76

If a CONTINUING APPLICATION. check BPPIODffafe box, and supply the requisile infrxmation below 8t1d in a preliminary amandmsnt. ol in an
Applicalfon Data Shael under 37 CFR 1. 76: ,
18. lll Continuation !IJioivisionat !tijjcontlnuatlon-ln-pait {CIP) of prior application No.:
Mr"'*"'*"'~ ~ Gloof>Alll.tl4':
.....,...._.Box
..,_
FwCONTINUATION OA OMSlClNAl.APPS~ 11oe enllle-Gffleprior ........... lonn-oalh , . _ . , ..
., ... ~...- .. -....i~nlo.....,,_.,.._llJ .......... Tlle~!il!l.l!!!r.bt,...._w._oparllon""'-.fn-'1omillod-
5b.lo~a1>111alfleclldosure

111111
26753 or

N8/Tlf1 Jeffrey S. Sokol


ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP
Address 100 East Wisconsin A venue, Suite 1100
City Milwaukee State WI Zip Code 53202
Counll)' USA Telephone 414-271-7590 Fax 414-271-5770
Name (Printffype) Jeffrey S. SokoJ Reglstndion No. {Altomey/Agent) 35,686
Date

t _ _1_3_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
__on_0_3_108l20
Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW lmeg~_D_a_t_ab_...

A6207
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 66 Document 258-4
....
'l.
.
,..,. Applicant: Denis GJeasQD Attorney Docket No. __4;;..;7-=8;;::2:...::-2=----

CERTIFICATE OF EXPRESS MAIL


This is to certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service as
EXPRESS MAIL POST OFFICE TO ADDRESSEE (Express Mail Label No. EV097318205U
in an envelope addressed to Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Washi8gton D.C. 20231
on the 23 day of December , 2002.

Veronica K. Haqpt 7.J~ K.~-


Name Date

--------
0 13
~lllllllllllllliCopiiyipl~.~.diediibylUSiiPi~ilfilomiii~i11F.wiiiilmiagiieiDia~ibiaseiiionl03ii'/08/20iili
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

A6208
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 66 Document 258-4
.--'. .. ~few u
lhroucti. 1Gl3112002. OM8 0651-0032
PTOISB/17 (IHI!)
U.S. Plllanl _... Ttdomk Olfioe, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
. ._._..,. p___.. ReduClian Ad ol 1985, n o - . , . , . ... ...._.._._. to colectionol infomle,ionusWu ii oon&aln& v.iid OMB conttol--ber.
Comolete H Known
FEE TRANSMITTAL Appllcallan Number
for FY 2002 Flllng Date

Patent fees ere subject to annual revision First Named Inventor Denis Gleason
Examiner Name
ft8.lj Applleant claims sman entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27
GroupMUnil
TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENT I ($) 559 Attorney Docket No. 4782-2

I
METHOD OF PAYMENT (checl< all that apply) FEE CALCULATION (continued)

11 mi~=, ~Cleher mNone 3. ADDITIOHAL FEES

.=
. Cheek Cnldl card .
Large Entitr Small Entity
. Deposi Accouflt:
Fee Fee F.. Pald

N-
""
105
Fee
CGd ($)
130
Cod ($)
205 65
F" O.scription

Surcharge - late Ung fee or oalh


Depasl ---
,._
Account 127 50 2TT ~ Sun:harge - late provisional llng lee or
---
I
CIOY8rsMel
TlMt Comlnllalllnef 11 aufllorlnd ID: (check 1111 lhal tlfJIJI;/
Cllalge lee(s) lndlcaled below ~ Cred~ any ave,.,.,,._
139 130
147 2,520
139 130
147 2,520
Non-English specillcation
For liing a request for ex plllfe teeumlnalion
---
Chalge 9l'f addlional lee(s) d..;.gthe
pendency of tNs application 112 920' 112 920' Requesllng a plllllcallon of SIR pfior lo ---
Charlie lee() ind"ocated below, except far Ille flllllg IH
lo the 1bQve.ldentlied depoeil
account. 112 1,840'
Examiner action
113 1,840' =~olSIReller
---
1. BASIC FILING FEE
FEE CALCULATION
115 110 215 55 Extension for reply within lrsl monlh
---
~

LarpEntlly Smll&tlty 118 400 216 200 Elclenslon for reply with second month
F F
Code ($)
F F
Coda ($)
Fee Ptag!p!lon f .. Pald 117 920 217 460 Extension for reply wltlkl tlllrd month
---
101 740 201 370 Ulllty lllng lee 370
118 1,440 218 720
---
106 330 206 165 Detlgn llllng fee
128 1,980
Ex1ension for reply wttl*1 loulth monlh
---
107 510 207 255 Planl!lllnglee
Reissue ID'!l lee 119 320
228
219
980
160
Extension for re.,i, wllNn llfth rncrill
---
108 740
114 180
208 370
214 ao Provlslonal llllng lee 120 320 220 160
Nollce ol Appeal
---
F"olng a brief In suppoo1 of an appeal
---
SUBTOTAL (1) ($) 370 121 280
138 1,510
221 140
138 1,510
Relll*t let oral '-"'!!
---
2. EXTRA CLAIM FEES FOR UTILITY AND REISSUE
FMflom 140 110 240 55
Peliion to insdule public use proceeding
---
i:xtr. Clalma Hlow F"Pld
1,280 241
Petition lo r1Nlve UllllVOldllble
---
Totaletama
41
-- -20--
-- --- ---
21 x 9 " 189
141 840 PeWon lo ...... - .nntenlional
r.e (or l8fslue) ---
~
--
3 -3-
-- --- . ---
0 0 x =
142 1.280 242 840 ~Issue
---
MLliple Dependent
143 460 243 230 Oeaign issue lee
---
--- --- 144 620 244 310 Planl Issue lee
---
La11.,_
Fee FM
SmalEllllty
F F
F11RllS!!l!!!!!!I
122 130 122 130 Palillons to the ConVlllalOner
---
Coda ($) Code ($)
123 50
180
123
126
50 Processing lee l.lldlr 37 Cl'R 1.17(q)
---
126 180 Submission ol lnfolmallon Oiscloeute Simi
---
103
102
104
18
84
2IO
203
202
204 140
9
42
Clahs In exceas of 20

lndependenl l:llinlS in-ol 3


Mulllple dependelt dam, wnol paid
581

146
40

740
581

246
40

370
R~ P*,. as,slarmenl per
property rUnber ol piq>ettleS)
Fi~ subn8lon after llnal rejeclJon
(37 R1.129(a))
---
---
149 740 249 370 For each llddllanal lnvenllon lo be
-=-~~-dainla
109 84 209 42 examined (37 Cl'R 5 1.129(b))
---
110 18 210 9 .. ReiNue dalnl In -o120
and - orv1na1 ..-m
179
169
740
900
279
169
370
900
Requeil '9r Conli.....i EXlllftllon (RCE)
Reci-IS for~ uamlnallon ---
---
_
of a design
SUBTOTAL (2) ($) 189
- rxnumberpnwlouslypMd. ilgntalet; F<X-.... - -
Other fee (spedly)
-------..
"Reduced by Baalc Fllng Fee Paid
----~- .. ------
SUBTOTAL (3) ($) ---
SUBMITll!D BY ...........
IJeffrey S. Sokol I ... I lrelepllone I 4t4-211-1s90
, 35,686
--
IVMntltPnnvr-1 --
._..__,,,,,..
~ I ./""7
""'
.-
--.
_J'
Ioa1e I 12/23/oz
~

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Databaae on 03/08/2013

A6209
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 66 Document 258-4
--- :..._

DOCK LEVELER

TECHNICAL FIELD OF TIIE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a dock leveler with a deck lift assembly that

allows a deck and extended lip to rest on and float with a trailer bed as it is unloaded, a

lip extension mechanism that activates when the deck is raised and deactivates when it is

lowered, and a deck assembly with a combination lip lug and header plate hinge

attachment.

A6210
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 66 Document 258-4
.. "'
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Dock levelers are used to transfer goods between a building and a truck traiier.

Dock levers bridge the gap between the building floor to the bed of the trailer or similar

carrier. Dock levelers include a frame or support structure for mounting the leveler in a

pit of a loading dock. The rear end of a conventional dock leveler is hinged to the

building floor. The opposite end has an extendable lip plate that pivots out and onto the

trailer bed. Levelers are adapted to move from a generally horizontal position where the

upper surface of the deck is flush with the surface of the building floor to a second

generally inclined position to provide a ramp between the bed of the truck and the dock

floor.

Dock levelers are typically actuated by springs, hydraulics or the like. U.S. Patent

No. 3,137,017 pertains to a spring actuated leveler. U.S. Patent Nos. 4,619,008 and

4,955,923 pertain to hydraulic levelers. Other dock levers are shown and described in

U.S. Patent Nos. 3,299,456; 3,368,229; 3,530,488, 3,835,497; 3,858,264;3,877,102;

3,995,342; 4,126,909; 4,279,050; 4,328,602; 4,455,703 and 4,922,568, the disclosures of

which are incorporated by reference herein.

Mechanically actuated dock levelers typically support the weight of the deck by

springs. The springs are biased to propel the deck upward when a hold down device is

released. An operator releases the hold down mechanism to initiate the loading cycle or

to reposition the leveler when finished loading. The front lip plate pivots from a hanging

or pendant position to an extended position when the ramp is rising or when the operator

walks the ramp down. The lip is typically extended by an actuator and held in its

extended position by another mechanism. For example, the lip can be extended by a

Copy provided by USPTO from.the l,FW Image Oatab- on 03/0812013

A6211
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 7 of 66 Document 258-4
'.,-:.,,-;r,.
.. .n., 1t..r: ...;.- ::i:,..,. -~ -.... IC..
.~,;.. ,, .. ~ 11:.;., .;r
,J .,;a:
"'I
.1t1 ,.,, ..
:io 2 ....-:.....ta ,,...
K' .. ll..,P, -:ii
~~.,,

chain attached to the lower frame that tightens as the deck reaches the top of its travel as

in U.S. Patent No. 3,137,017. The lip is held in the extended position by a latch until the

dock leveler is "walked down" to a proper position where the lip makes contact with the

bed of the trailer. The lip is then supported by the truck, and the latch falls away.

A problem with conventional dock levelers is that the hold down device does not

properly allow the deck to rise with the trailer bed as the trailer is unloaded. The hold

down device typically has a brake that is allowed to slip or a float spring that compress.

Unfortunately, both of these designs have inherent flaws. The slipping action of the

brake-type devices causes wear. Adjustment is often required to keep the proper tension.

This adjustment varies with different leveler sizes and if not done properly will either slip

too easily or hold too tightly and increase wear. Eventually, breakage occurs due to the

constant applied friction. The use of a float spring removes the need for adjustment by

replacing the slip action with a hold down spring. The problem with float springs is that

they cause a "bouncing effect" that allows the lip plate and deck plate to separate during

loading, increasing the frequency of impacts and stress on the front hinge area where

most structural failures occur. This problem increases in time as the springs fatigue,

weakening its holding ability and increasing the bounce and impact stress.

Another problem with conventional dock levelers is that they tend to lose their

abiJity to fully extend the lip..The lip extension mechanisms begins to fail due to wear

and other environmental considerations, a lack of lubrication or spring fatigue. Instead of

latching and holding in an outward position, the lip tends to fall back to its pendent

position. The leveler remains inoperative until proper lip extension is restored by

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Dalab- on 03/0812013

A6212
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 8 of 66 Document 258-4
periodic preventive maintenance or adjustment of the springs. Even a short outage can be

significant given that these devices typically operate in a heavy industrial context.

Other levelers replace the mechanical latch with a hydraulic damper that permits

the lip to be extended freely but restricted its retraction. Even if the lip is not fully

extend, the damper will retard its retraction long enough for the operator to walk the

leveler down to the truck bed. Hydraulic dampers also quickly retract under high load,

which can protect the lip mechanism from damage when the lip is accidentally struck by

a truck that backs into the lip while still extended. Still, hydraulic dampers have two

significant drawbacks. First. the damper begins to retract as soon as the load is applied,

and the operator must walk the leveler down immediately. Second, the viscosity of the

hydraulic fluid is sensitive to changes in temperature. In warm temperatures, the lip falls

too quickly for it to come to rest on the truck bed. In cold temperatures, the lip falJs too

slowly when the leveler is removed from the truck.

A further problem with conventional dock levelers is that the wider, longer or

thicker the lip, the harder it is to extend and hold the lip in position. A loaded spring is

typically used to assist in extending the lip. Although the assist spring is loaded at all

times, the available force of the assist spring is contained when the lip is in its pendent or

parked position. The assist spring typically does not start to work until the dock leveler is

raised and the lip has already begun to extend. This loss of effective power occurs at the

start of its extension, when the assist spring is needed most. Yet, increasing the tension

or force of the assist springs makes it harder to walk the unit down.

A still further problem with dock leveler design is controlJing the rate the lip

retracts from its extended position to its pendent position. Conventional levelers use a

A6213
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 9 of 66 Document 258-4
damper as part of the lip operation to control the rate of retraction of the lip. Different

dampers are required for different lip sizes and weights. One damper may allow a heavy

lip to fall too quickly, or a lightweight lip to retract too slowly. As noted above,

hydraulic dampers also suffer from variations in the viscosity of the hydraulic fluid due to

fluctuations in temperature.

A still further problem with dock levelers is the integrity and durability of the

hinge that joins the lip plate to the deck frame. This connection is a critical part of the

leveler as it must withstand concentrated stresses as the fork lift and the load it is carrying

traverse from the building to the trailer, or visa versa. Conventional dock leveler designs,

weld a tubular hinge to the lip plate and to the header plate. The header plate is welded to

the deck plate and deck support beams. The concentrated stresses on the tubular hinge

traditionally result in stress cracks in the plates and their welds. A second design uses lip

plate lugs to lessen these stresses. In lieu of a header plate, cooperating lugs are also

welded to the support beams and deck plate. A problem with this design is that the

unsupported front edge of the deck plate is more easily bent and dished between the

support beams.

The present invention is intended to solve these and other problems.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TIIE INVENTION

The present invention pertains to a mechanically actuated dock leveler with a

mounting frame secured in a pit of a loading dock, and a deck assembly with a deck and

extendable lip. A deck lift assembly biases the deck to move from a parked position to a

raised position to activate a lip extension assembly. As the deck is "walked down", the

A6214
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 10 of 66 Document 258-4
j)_ D::3: i2 8 2 -.7 9 ..:l.i::'":!' i~ :~: 0 2

lip is extended and the lip extension assembly is deactivated in a controlled manner so

that the deck and lip reach an engaged position against the trailer and are kept in place by

a hold down mechanism. The deck assembly has a float housing with a vertical slot for

releasably engaging the lift assembly to achieve a range of float positions where the deck

and lip rest on and float with the trailer as it is loaded and unloaded. The deck assembly

has a durable combined lip lug and header plate hinge construction.

One advantage of the present dock leveler invention is that its integrated lifting

mechanism combines an upward biased deck lift assembly with a hold down device

without permanently attaching the lift assembly or hold down device to the deck or ramp.

The deck assembly rests on and floats with the trailer bed as the trailer is unloaded and

loaded. The up and down float action created by the trailer springs is removed from the

hold down, which removes unnecessary stresses and wear and tear on the dock levelers.

Breaks and other friction devices that tend to wear out are avoided, as is the bouncing

effect created by the lifting springs or hold down float spring.

Another advantage of the present dock leveler is that the deck remains level

during storage and use. The deck lift assembly is centered symmetrically beneath the

deck assembly and pushes up against the deck assembly at a central location along its

width. The hold down device also attaches to the center of the deck lift assembly along

its width. This symmetrical structure eliminates twisting forces on the deck or ramp by

the deck lift assembly or the hold down device. Because the hold down is an integral part

of and centered within the deck lift assembly, twisting caused by the lift springs or hold

down device is avoided. As a result, the deck remains level during use and during

A6215
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 11 of 66 Document 258-4
storctge so that the deck is ]eve] to the floor of the dock and an overhead door can close

on top ofit.

A further advantage of the present dock leveler is that it cushions or controls the

rate of speed the floating deck drops down to its home position or raises up to its raised

position. A damper is attached directly to and between the deck and deck lift assembly.

This damper cushions or controls the rate of speed that the deck drops down when it

returns to its home position from a floating position, such as when a trailer is pulled away

from the dock when the deck and lip are still resting on the trailer. The damper also

cushions or controls the rate of speed of the deck lift assembly rises to engage the floating

deck assembly when the hold down mechanism is released and the deck and Jip are in a

floating position resting on the trailer bed. The deck damper reduces any impact forces

when either the trailer leaves while the lip is still engaged on its bed, or when the hold

down is released to raise the ramp before returning the ramp to its parked position.

A still further advantage of the present dock leveler is that the rear end of the lip

and the front end of the deck remain in a tight abutting engagement while the deck and

Jip are floating on the trailer bed. This tight abutting engagement eliminates the wear and

tear caused by constant impact forces when the lip pivots and separates from the deck,

and then slams back into abutting engagement with the deck.

A still further advantage of the present dock leveler invention is that it avoids the

aforementioned limitations of conventional lip extension mechanisms. The lip extends

when the deck is walked down by a lip extension damper that is directly linked to the lip.

The lip extension damper is used to extend the lip rapidly instead of only restricting the

retraction of the lip. This allows the lip damper to control lip extension and retraction.

A6216
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 12 of 66 Document 258-4

Fewer parts are needed, In addition, different size lips do not diminish the effectiveness

of the lip damper.

A still further advantage of the present dock leveler is its use of a lip assist spring

that activates as the ramp rises and deactivates when the ramp lowers. This allows for a

much easier lip extension resulting in a less walk-down force, more efficient use of

power and a less restricted lip retraction.

A still further advantage of the present dock leveler is that it provides a linkage

device that engages to initiate the lip extension when the deck assembly is raised, and

then disengages before the lip fully extends and before the hold down device is engaged.

This ensures that the lip cannot be left in an extended position to be impacted by an

incoming trailer. This also allows the lip to retract if an obstruction is present at the rear

of a trailer.

A still further advantage of the dock leveler is its solid and durable attachment of

the lip to the deck and deck frame. A header plate is used to support the front edge of the

deck plate across its full width. This header plate is combined with a lip plate lug type

hinges to reduce the concentrated stresses on the tubular hinge to provide a longer

structural life for the dock leveler.

Other aspects and advantages of the invention will become apparent upon making

reference to the specification, claims and drawings.

A6217
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 13 of 66 Document 258-4
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS ,

Figure 1 is a perspective view of a loading dock of a building equipped with the

present dock leveler invention, and a truck and trailer carrying a heavy load backed up to

the dock leveler.

Figure 2 is an enlarged view of Figure 1 showing the dock leveler in its parked

position with its deck even with the floor of the loading dock and slightly misaligned

with and higher than the trailer bed.

Figure 3 is a perspective view of the dock leveler in its parked position with the

deck and lip cut away to show the mounting frame, deck lift assembly and lip extension

mechanism.

Figure 4 is an enlarged view of a portion of Figure 3 showing the orientation and

structure of some of the components forming the deck lift assembly and lip extension

mechanism.

Figure 5 is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in its parked position and

showing the mounting frame, the deck assembly, and both the deek lift assembly and lip

extension mechanism.
'
Figure SA is a side sectional view of Figure 5 showing the mounting frame, deck

assembly and the deck lift assembly.

I Figure SB is a side sectional view of Figure 5 showing the mounting frame, deck

assembly and lip drive mechanism.

Figure 6A is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in a raised position showing

the mounting frame, deck assembly and deck lift assembly.

A6218
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 14 of 66 Document 258-4
Figure 68 is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in its raised position

showing the mounting frame, deck assembly and lip extension mechanism.

Figure 7 A is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in a dynamically extended

position and showing the mowiting frame, deck assembly and deck lift assembly.

Figure 7B is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in its dynamically extended

position showing the mounting frame, deck assembly and lip extension mechanism

raising the lip to an extended position.

Figure SA is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in an engaged position and

showing the mounting frame, deck assembly, and deck lift assembly with the lip

engaging the trailer bed.

Figure 88 is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in its engaged position and

showing the mounting frame, deck assembly, and lip extension mechanism with the lip

engaging the trailer bed.

Figure 9 is a side sectional view of the dock leveler in a floating position with the

lip supportably engaging the unloaded truck bed that has risen above the level of the

loading dock floor so that the deck lift assembly no longer supports the deck assembly.
,.
[
Figure IOA is a perspective view of the lip and hinge plate of the dock leveler,
~
showing the lip in its extended position, and showing the deck frame support beams, a
f,
drive bracket and opening, and an assist spring mounting bracket in phantom.

Figure JOB is a front view of the lip and hinge plate of the dock leveler.

Figure IOC is a rear view of the lip and hinge plate of the dock leveler.

Figure IOD is a top view of the lip and hinge plate of the dock leveler.

Figure IOE is a bottom view of the lip and hinge plate of the dock leveler.

10

A6219
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 15 of 66 Document 258-4
Figure 1OF is a side view of the lip and hinge plate of the dock leveler.

Figure lOG is a side view of the lip and hinge plate of the dock leveler.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

While this invention is susceptible of embodiment in many different forms, the

drawings show and the specification describes in detail a preferred embodiment of the

invention. It should be understood that the drawings and specification are to be

considered an exemplification of the principles of the invention. They are not intended to

limit the broad aspects of the invention to the embodiment illustrated.

Figure 1 shows a building or structure 4 with a loading dock S. The loading dock

5 has a generally flat, horizontal, elevated floor surface 7 and a generally vertical front

wall 8. The building 4 has a doorway 9 with an overhead door (not shown). The loading

dock 5 has a pit l 0 of sufficient depth to house a dock leveler. The pit 10 has a rear wall

or surface 11, a bottom floor or surface 12, opposed sidewalls or surfaces 13, and an open

front The floor 12 of the pit 10 is generally horizontal or slightly sloped for drainage,

and is spaced a desired distance from the floor 7 of the loading dock S. The walls 11 and

13 are generally vertical or normal to the floor surfaces 7 and 12. Although the walls of

I the building 4 and doorway 9 are shown set back from the front wall 8 of the loading

dock 5, it should be understood that the building walls and door could be aligned closer

to or flush with the front wall 8 without adversely impacting the invention. For example,

an overhead door can be positioned directly above the dock leveler toward the open front

end of the pit 10.

II

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03/0&!2013

A6220
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 16 of 66 Document 258-4
The loading dock 5 is designed to facilitate access to a trailer 15 of a truck 16 or

other carrier. The trailer 15 has a bed 17 upon which items 18 are placed for transport.

The trailer bed 17 is spaced above the road or surface on which the trailer is traveling,

and the floor 7 of the loading dock 5 is spaced a desired distance from its adjacent

driveway or approach 19 so that a trailer bed 17 is somewhat near the level of the dock

floor 7 when the rear end of the trailer 15 is backed up to the front of the dock. The floor

12 of the pit 10 is elevated a desired height above the driveway 19, but could be even

with or lower than the driveway depending on the particular circumstance without

departing from the broad aspects of the invention. The height of the trailer bed 17

relative to the dock floor 7 depends on a variety of factors that include the particular

trailer 15 involved and the weight of the item or items 18 on the trailer 15. The trailer

bed 17 rises and falls relative to the floor 7 as items 18 are placed on or removed from the

trailer 15."

The present invention relates to a dock leveler generally indicated by reference

number 20 and shown in Figures 2-5. The dock leveler 20 has a variety of components

including a mounting frame 30, a deck assembly 50 with an extendable lip 80, a deck lift

assembly 100 and a lip extension mechanism 200. The components are robustly designed

to support the weight of the deck assembly 50 and the loads it is intended to carry when

fork lifts and the like carry items 18 over the leveler 20. The components are generally

made of industrial grade steel or materials of similar strength and durability. The

components may be painted, coated or otherwise treated to inhibit rust or corrosion.

The mounting frame assembly 30 is located along the floor 12 and rear wall 11 of

the pit 10. The frame assembly 30 has front and rear ends, and includes a generally

12

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Databaae on 0310812013


b
A6221
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 17 of 66 Document 258-4
,
!
t

horizontal base frame or platform 31 that is bolted or otherwise rigidly anchored to the

floor 12, and a generally vertical riser frame 41 that is similarly anchored to the rear wall

11. The base frame 31 spans the length of the assembly 30, and includes two spaced

apart, generaUy parallel side beams 32 that are rigidly joined by a rear mounting channel

33 located at the rear end of the base frame. The base frame 3 l also includes two

forward mounting channels 34 located at its front end. The mounting channels 33 and 34

are rigidly anchored to the floor 12 of the pit 10, and the side beams 32 are welded,

bolted or otherwise rigidly secured to the mounts 33 and 34. A cross beam 35 is welded

or otherwise rigidly secured to the side beams 32 toward the mid section of the base 31.

The cross beam 35 has a bracket 36 rigidly secured to and extending forward from its

front surface. The bracket 36 supportably receives a pivot rod 36a. The base frame 31

I
I
~
also includes a longitudinal beam 37 located between and generally parallel to the side

beams 32. One end of the longitudinal beam 37 is rigidly secured to the cross beam 35

t and the other end is rigidly secured to the rear mounting channel 33. A post 38 extends

upwardly and generally vertical from the longitudinal beam 37. The post 38 has a top
i
t end that supportably receives a pivot rod 38a. The pivot rod 38a is spaced a

predetermined distance above the base frame 31 and floor 12. A lip support 39 is rigidly

fixed to the front surface of each front mount 34. The beams and post 32, 35, 37 and 38

preferably have a square cross-sectional shape, and the mounts 33 and 34 preferably have

an L-shaped cross-sectional shape.


t
I
The riser 41 is located along the rear wall 11 of the pit 10, and is preferably
i
i welded or otherwise rigidly secured to the rear end of the base frame 31. The riser 41
!

includes three evenly spaced, generally parallel side beams 42, joined together by an

13

A6222
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 18 of 66 Document 258-4
I

upper mounting channel 44 and the rear mount 33 of the base frame 31. The two outer

risers 42 are aligned with the side beams 32. The bottom ends of each riser 42 is rigidly

secured to the rear end of its respective side beam 32 or to the rear mount 33. Each of the

outer risers 42 has an angled brace 46. Each brace 46 is welded or otherwise rigidly

secured to its respective side beam 32 and riser 42. The mounting channel 44 is aligned

against and anchored to one or both of the top of the rear wall 11 and the floor 7 of the

loading dock 5. The risers 42 are rigidly secured to the upper mount 44 to firmly support

a fixed tubular hinge or pivot mount 48 for pivotally supporting the deck assembly 50.

The frame 30 is preferably permanently attached to case in steel in the building floor at

its rear pivot end.

The deck assembly 50 includes a support frame 51 and a deck 60. The deck

assembly 50 and deck 60 are movable through a range of inclined positions between

raised and lowered positions as discussed below. The frame 51 has six evenly spaced,

parallel beams 52a-f and side plates 53 joined together by a rear plate S4 and a header

plate SS. The front end of each beam S2a-f is welded or otherwise rigidly secured at

evenly spaced increments to the inside or front surface of the rear plate 54, and the front

end of each beam is welded or otherwise rigidly secured at the same evenly spaced

increments to the inside or rear surface of the header plate 55. The top of the outside or

rear surface of the rear plate 54 is finnly and pivotally secured to the hinge 48 at the top

of the risers 42 of the support frame 30. Two spring mounts are secured to the underside

of the deck frame S 1 as discussed below.

The header plate 55 has a rectangular shape and is aligned substantially vertical

and perpendicular to the lower and upper surfaces 66 and 67 of the deck 60 as best shown

14

A6223
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 19 of 66 Document 258-4
r.
I
in Figures Sand lOA-lOG. The plate 55 is aligned parallel to and offset a slight distance

rearwardly from the front edge 64 of the deck 60. The plate 55 has a predetermined

height defined by its parallel top and bottom ends 56a and 56b, a predetermined width

defined by its parallel side ends 57a and 57b, and a predetermined thickness defined by

its parallel front and rear surfaces 58a and 58b. Each side end 57 is generally evenly

aligned with its corresponding side end of the deck 60. The front surface 58a has a first

set of four evenly spaced, parallel lugs 59a-d, a central lug 59e, and a second set of four

evenly spaced lugs 59f-i.. Each lug 59a-i extends perpendicularly outward or forward

from the front surface 58a of the plate 55. Lugs 59b-d are each linearly aligned with one

corresponding beam of the beams 52a-c of the deck frame 51, and lugs 59f-g are each

linearly aligned with one corresponding beam of beams 52d-f.

The deck 60 is preferably a sheet or plate of metal. The deck 60 has a

predetermined length defined by its parallel rear and front ends 62 and 64. The rear end

62 is flushly aligned with the rear plate 54, and its front end 64 extends slightly beyond

the header plate 55. The deck 60 has a predetermined width defined by its parallel side

edges 65, each of which extends a slight distance beyond its corresponding side plate 53.

The deck 60 has a predetermined thickness defined by its parallel lower and upper

surfaces 66 and 67. The lower surface 66 is welded or otherwise rigidly secured to the

frame 51, and its upper surface 67 is generally flat and free and clear of obstructions.

The upper end of the rear plate 54 is continuously welded to the lower surface 66 of the

deck 60, and the upper end 56a of the header plate 55 is continuously welded to the lower

surface 66 from one side 65 and 57 of the deck and header plate to the other. The deck

assembly 50 is pivotally secured to hinge 48 so that the upper surface 67 of the deck is

IS

A6224
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 20 of 66 Document 258-4
parallel to the floor 7 of the deck S when the deck is in its home or ~ed position SOA

as shown in Figure S.

The deck assembly 50 includes a float housing 70. The float housing 70 has two

like-shaped, generally planar, spaced apart plates 72 that extend downwardly from the

deck 60. The upper end of each plate 72 is preferably welded or otherwise rigidly

secured the underside 66 of the deck 60, and are located about midway between the side

edges of the deck and between the support beams 52c and 52d Each plate 72 has a

substantially linear slot 74 with predetermined width and length dimensions. The plates

72 and their slots 74 are in substantial registry when viewed from the side and have upper

and lower ends 75 and 76. The slot 74 is substantially vertical when the deck 60 is in its

horizontal or parked position SOA.

The deck assembly 50 includes the extendable lip 80 that has a generally

rectangular shape and is hingably or otherwise pivotally secured to the header plate 55.

The lip 80 has a predetermined length defined by its parallel inner or hinged end 82 and

its outer or free end 84. The lip 80 has a predetermined width defined by its parallel side

edges 85, each of which is aligned in the same plane as its co~sponding side edge 65 of

the deck 60. The lip 60 has a predetennined thickness defined by its generally parallel

lower and upper surfaces 86 and 87. The upper surface 87 is slightly sloped toward the

lower surface 86 near outer end 84.

The lower surface 86 of the lip 80 has eight substantially evenly spaced, parallel

Jugs 88a-i located along its hinged inner end 82. One set of four lugs 88a-d is located

along the length of one half of the lip 80, a middle lug 88e is located at the center of the

lip, and a second set of four lugs 88f-i is located along the length of the other half of the

16

A6225
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 21 of 66 Document 258-4
lip. Each lug 88a-i is perpendicular to and extends rearwardly or downwardly from the

lower surface 86. Each lug 88a-h is aligned to flushly engage one corresponding lug 58a-

i of the header plate 5S. The side of each lip lug 88a-i flushly engages the side of its

corresponding header lug S9a-i. Lip lugs 88a-e engage the left side of their

corresponding header lug S8a-e, and lip Jugs 88f-i engage the right side of their

corresponding header lug S8f-i. Each header Jug 58a-i and each lip lug 88a-i has a hole.

These holes are linearly aligned holes to receive the pivot rod 89. The pivot rod 89

passes through each hole in the Jugs S8a-i and 88a-i to pivotally connect the lip 80 to the

deck assembly SO. The lip 80 is adapted to move between a pendant or hanging position

91 as in Figures 3, 5, 6A and 6B, and a fully extended position 92 as in Figures 9 and

lOAlOG, or any intermediate or partially extended there between such as positions 93 as

in Figure 7A and 7B. The lip 80 is biased into its hanging position 91 by its own weight.

When in its hanging position 91, the lip 80 is generally parallel to the header plate SS.

When lifted to its fully extended position 92, the rear of hinged end 82 of the lip 80 abuts

the front or free end 64 of the deck 60, and the lip is generally parallel to the deck.

The dock leveler 20 has a deck lift assembly 100 shown in Figures 3-5 for

releasably supporting the deck assembly SO and raising and lowering it through a range

of positions between upper and lower positions by pivoting or rotating it up or down

about hinge 48. Figures SA, 6A, 7A, 8A and 9 show the lift assembly 100 with the deck

assembly SO in its parked position SOA, raised position 508, dynamically extended

position SOC, engaged position SOD and float position SOE, respectively. The lift

assembly 100 includes a lower lift frame or ann I 02 with an inner pivoting end 103 and a

f~ end 104. The lower lift frame 102 is fonned by two spaced support or side beams

17

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW. Image Dalabaae on 03/08/2013

A6226
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 22 of 66 Document 258-4
105 that are integrally joined together at the inner end 106 by a cross mount 107 and at

the free end 104 by a cross beam 106 so that these components move in unison. The

support beams 105 are located between the side beams 32 of the base frame 31, and are

generally parallel to the beams 32 when the deck assembly 50 is in its home or parked

position 50A as in Figures 3, S and SA. The cross mount 107 is pivotally secured to the

pivot rod 36a of the base frame 31 so that the lower lift ann 102 is free to rotate about the

pivot rod.

A lift biasing mechanism 110 that continuously biases the deck into its fully

raised position SOB. The free end 104 of the lift arm l 02 rotates or pivots upwardly

about pivot rod 36a as in Figure 6A. The lift biasing mechanism is formed by a set of

two spring attachments 111. Each spring attachment J 11 includes a spring 112. an

adjustable mount 113 and a rigid mount 114. One adjustable mount l 13 is secured to

each of the two side beam 105 at a location a little more than half way toward its free end

I 04. This mount 113 includes a threaded rod and bolt for tightening or loosening the

tension on the spring 112. Each rigid mount 114 is secured between two adjacent beams

52 toward the rear of the deck frame 51. One mount 114 is secured to beams 52b and

52c, and the other is secured to beams 52d and 52e. Each rigid mount J 14hasarodl14a

that extends laterally between its respective beams 52b and 52c or 52d and 52e. One end

of each spring 112 is hooked or otherwise pivotally secured to its adjustable mount 113,

and the other end is hooked or otherwise pivotally secured to the rod 1 l 4a of its

corresponding rigid mount 114.

The deck lift assembly 100 includes an upper lift arm 120 with lower and upper

ends 123 and 124. The lift ann 120 is formed by two like-shaped struts 125, a hinge

18

A6227
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 23 of 66 Document 258-4
'-
mount 126 and a push rod 128. The struts 125 are parallel and spaced apart to straddle

the plates 72 of the float housing 70, and are generally planar to the plates 72. The lower

pinned end 123 of each strut 125 is pivotally attached to the hinge mowit 126 so that the

upper lift ann 120 is free to rotate or pivot about the hinge mount. The upper ends 124 of

the struts 125 have aligned holes for securely receiving the push rod 128. The push rod

128 has a predetermined diameter sized to snuggly fit and freely move inside the slot 74

of the float housing 70 from one end 75 of the slot to the other 76.

A hold down mechanism 130 is provided to hold the deck assembly 50 at its

parked position SOA as in Figures 3, S and SA or at a desired inclined position such as

engaged position SOD as in Figure SA. The deck lift assembly 100 continuously biases

the deck SO up toward its fully raised position SOB as in Figure 6A. The hold down

mechanism 130 includes a conventional telescoping hold down bar 13 J formed by a first

fixed bar 132, a telescoping bar 133 with an outer end 134, and a ratchet mechanism 135.

The fixed bar 132 has an end that is firmly pinned to the cross mount 106 of the lower lift

arm l 02. Its outer end is adapted to securely receive the one-way ratchet mechanism

135. The ratchet mechanism l3S includes a locking mechanism with a release lever 136

and release activation mechanism 137 formed by a cable and a handle t 38 that is

accessible from the deck 50. The locking mechanism is biased into a locked position.

Unlocking the lock mechanism to an unlocked position by rotating release lever 136 via

releasing activation mechanism 137 allows the telescoping bar 133 to telescope out or

retract.

The telescoping bar I 33 is notched along one face so that the length of the hold

down bar 131 can be set to a desired length by the ratchet mechanism 135. The

19

A6228
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 24 of 66 Document 258-4
telescoping bar 133 can extended through a range of extend positions between a retract

position and a fully extended position The ratchet mechanism 135 allows its overaU

length to shorten or retract at any time, but only allows its length to lengthen or telescope

out when the lever is released \)y the operator. The outer end 134 of the telescoping bar

133 passes between the plates 72 of the float housing, and securely and pivotally receives

push rod 128. The telescoping bar 131 is integrally and pivotally joined to the upper lift

arm 120 by the push rod 128 to fonn a joint that remains inside the slot 74. The lower

arm I 02, upper arm 120 and hold down mechanism 131 form a triangular structure 140

that can vary in its shape as discussed below. The lower arm I 02, upper arm 120 and

hold down mechanism 131 each form one side 141, 142 and 143 of the triangle 140,

respectively, as shown in Figure 5. The sides 141 and 142 formed by the lower and upper

arms 102 and 120 remain constant. The side 143 formed by the hold down 13 t varies

through a range of lengths between its retracted and fulJy extended lengths. The sides 141

and 142 of the triangle 140 formed by the lower and upper arms 102 and 120 form an

angle of about 45 when the deck assembly 50 is in its parked position SOA and an angle

of about 110 when in the raised position SOB.

A damper 150 controls the rate of speed the deck assembly 50 and lift assembly

I 00 move relative to each other, such as when the deck assembly is in a float position

SOE as in Figure 9. The damper 150 has a first half with a first end 152, and a mating

. second half with a second end 153. The first end 152 is pivotally secured to a bracket

154 welded to the cross beam I 07 at the outer end I 04 of the lower arm 102. The second

end 153 is pivotally secured to a bracket 155 welded to the underside of the deck 60.

When the push rod 128 is located at the upper end 75 of the slot 74 as in Figures S-8, the

20

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Datab on 03/0812013

A6229
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 25 of 66 Document 258-4
...
damper l 50 is in a retracted or deactivated position l 56. When the push rod l 28 is

spaced from the upper end 75 of the slot 74 as in Figure 9, the damper lSO is in an

extended or activated position 157. The deck damper 150 resists compression to control

the rate of speed that the deck assembly 50 drops when the trailer 1S leaves the dock 5

with the deck assembly SO in its floating position SOE. The deck damper 150 also

controls the rate of speed that the lift assembly l 00 rises when the hold down mechanism

l 30 is released and the deck assembly 50 is in the floating position SOE.

The dock leveler 20 has a lip extension assembly 200 shown in Figures 3-5 for

extending the lip 80 for engagement with a trailer bed 17. Figures SB, 6B, 7B and SB

show the lip extension assembly or mechanism 200 with the deck assembly 50 in its

parked position 50A, raised position SOB, dynamically extended position SOC and

engaged position 500, respectively. The mechanism 200 lifts or rotates the lip 80 from

its pendant position where it is substantially perpendicularly oriented to the deck 60 as in

Figure 6B to its extended position where it is substantially horizontal and relatively

planar to the deck 60 or dock floor 7 as in Figure 7B.

The lip extension mechanism 200 is formed by a number of components including

a push bar or drive member 210, a crank or connector 220, a drive link 240 and a drive

bracket 250. These components are arranged one adjacent to the other, and are connected

or otherwise securably or releasably linked together-in series to work in unison to extend

the lip 80 of the deck assembly SO. The components are permanently or releasably joined

or secured to the others in force transmitting commW.ication to enable the lip extension

assembly 200 to push or drive the lip plate 80 from its pendant position toward its

extended position. The push bar 2 l 0 has a predetermined length and first and second ends

21

Cop rovlded by USPTO from lhe IFW lmege Datab- on 03/08f2013

A6230
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 26 of 66 Document 258-4
2 t 3 and 214. The first or load bearing end 2 I 3 is pinned or otherwise pivotally secured

the pivot rod 38a on the post 37 of the base frame 31. The crank 220 is formed by a plate

221 having a predetermined length with opposed ends 222 and 223. The crank plate 221

has a wider mid section 224 so that it takes on a generally triangular shape with a third
end 225. One end 222 is pinned or otherwise pivotally secured to the underside of the

deck 60 via a mowiting bracket 226 and rod 226a. The mid section end 225 of the crank

plate 221 is pinned or otherwise pivotally secured to the second end 214 of the push bar

21 O via a rod 2 I 4a. A pair of studs 227 and 228 extend from one side of the crank plate

221. The first or drive stud 227 is located between free end 223 and mid section end 225.

The second or release stud 228 is slightly offset from the drive stud 227 in the direction

of the free end 223.

The drive link or rod 240 moves between engaged or disengaged. positions at

predetermined angles of deck incline to selectively extend the Jip 80 when the deck is

being lowered or to allow the lip to rotate wider its own weight to its pendant position 91.

The drive link 240 has a predetermined. length and first and second ends 242 and 243.

The second free end 243 has a notch 244 to receive and abutingly engage the drive stud

227. As the deck 50 is raised, as in Figure 6B, the crank plate 221 is pulled or rotated

back by the push bar 210 so that the drive stud 227 is above the release stud 228 and the

notched end 243 of the link 240 is aligned over the drive stud 227. The notched end 243

of the link 240 drops down under its own weight so that the drive stud 227 is received by

the notch 244. The drive link 240 is now in its engaged position 245. The degree of

incline needed to allow the crank 220 and drive link 240 to move into their engaged

position 245 is partially determined by the length of the drive link. When the drive link

22

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW Image Database on 03/0812013

A6231
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 27 of 66 Document 258-4
240 is in its engaged position 245 and the deck 60 is "walked down," the push bar 210

pushes the crank plate 221 and drive link 240 forward to extend or raise the lip 80. The

crank 220 and drive link 240 move toward their release or disengaged position 247 when

the deck assembly 50 approaches its dynamic extended position SOC as in Figure 78.

The release stud 228 engages the bottom side of the drive link 240 and pushes its free end

243 up and out of engagement with drive stud 227. The drive link 240 is shown in its

release position in Figure SB.

The drive bracket 250 is fonned by two like-shaped plates 252. The plates 252

are spaced apart and paraJlel when viewed from the front, and in registry when viewed

from the side. The plates 252 are joined by a bracket (not shown) so that they move in

unison. Each plate 252 has first and second ends 253 and 254. A pivot hole is located

toward the first end 253 of each plate 252 to pivotally receive pivot rod 89. The first end

253 has a flat abutment 255 adapted to flushly and releasably engage the underside 86 of

the lip 80. The second end 254 is pinned or otherwise pivotally secured to the first end

242 of the drive Jing 240 by a pivot rod 254a. When the drive link 240 is engaged and

the deck 60 is being lowered, the drive link 240 pushes the drive bracket 250 and rotates

it forward about pivot rod 89. The abutment 255 flushly engages the underside 86 of the

lip 80 and rotates the lip to an extended position. such as when the deck assembly 50 is in

its dynamically extended position SOC. The lip 80 is now substantially horiwntal to the

floor 7 and trailer bed 17, and its upper surface 87 approaches a generally parallel

alignment to the upper surface 67 of the deck 60. When the drive link 240 is disengaged

and the drive bracket 250 is not being forced forward, the weight of the lip 80 biases it to

rotate down until it engages the surface of the trailer bed 17. When the trailer 15 pulls

23

A6232
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 28 of 66 Document 258-4
:10328279 .. .:.122:302
...
away from the loading dock 5 or there is no trailer in front of the dock leveler 20 when it

is being lowered, the weight of the lip 80 biases it into its generally vertical pendant

position 91 so that its free end 84 is able to mate into or be received by the lip supports

39.

The lip extension 200 includes an assist spring 270 and a damper 280 for helping

extend the lip 80. The spring 270 is stretchable through a range of lengths. The spring

270 has a first end 272 that is hooked or otherwise pivotally secured to the free end 223

of the crank plate 221, and another end 273 that is hooked or otherwise pivotally secured

to a bracket 274 welded to the rear surface of the header plate 55. When the push bar 210

and crank 220 are pulled or rotated back as in Figure 68, the assist spring 270 is

stretched to an activated position 275 to help pull the crank 220 forward and extend the

lip 80 via the drive link 240 and drive bracket 250 to its extended position 93 as in

Figure 78. The decoupling of the drive link 240 from the crank 220 deactivates the

assist spring 270. When the lip 80 is extended and the deck 60 continues to be walked

down so that the lip engages the trailer bed 17 as in Figure SB, the spring 270 recoils and

is in a deactivated position 287 that does not resist the lip from falling back to its pendant

position 91. This resistance is controlled by the damper 280.

The damper 280 is movable between retracted and extended lengths. The damper

280 has a first balf283 with a shaft that fits between the two plates 252 of the <fnve

bracket 250. The end of the shaft has an opening for receiving rod 254a and pivotally

securing the damper 280 to the bracket 250. The damper 280 has a second half284 with

an opposed shaft. The end of this shaft is pivotally secured to the free end 223 of the

crank plate 221 in the vicinity of the drive stud 227 so that the damper is roughly parallel

24

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW Image Database on 03/08/2013

A6233
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 29 of 66 Document 258-4
to the drive link 240. When the deck assembly 50 is in its parked position SOA as in

Figure SB, the damper 280 is in a retracted or otherwise deactivated position 287. When

the deck assembly SO is raised and the push bar 210 and crank 220 are rotated back as in

Figure 6A, the damper 280 is pulled to an extended or activated position 285 in which

the damper is filled with air. The damper 280 is designed to freely allow it to open to its

extended position 285 so that it does not inhibit raising the deck assembly 50, and to

resist sudden closing to its retracted position 287. When the push bar 210 and crank 220

are pushed or rotated forward in a relatively quick manner, such as when the deck is

being walked down between Figures 7B and SB, the damper 280 resists being rapidly

pushed into its retracted position 287. Even though the drive link 240 disengages, the

damper 280 continues to maintain the lip 80 in its extended position 93 by actively

resisting the lip from rotating down during the relatively quick decent of the deck 60.

Operation of the Dock Leveler

Although the operation of the dock leveler should be apparent given the above

discussion, the following is provided to assist the reader. When the dock leveler 20 is in

its parked position SOA as in Figure 5, the operator pulls a handle 138 that releases the

hold down device 130, which allows the biasing mechanism 110 to raise the lower arm

102 upwardly by rotating it about pivot rod 36a This upward movement of the lower

ann 102 simultaneously causes the outer end 124 of upper arm 120, which must remain

in slot 74 of the float housing 70, to rotate away from the lower arm 102. The push rod

128 of the arm 120 pushes up against the upper end 75 of the float housing 70, which

causes the deck or ramp assembly 50 to pivot upwardly about its rear end 62 and hinge

48 so that the front end 64 rises to its raised position SOB as in Figure 6A. As the ramp

2S

A6234
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 30 of 66 Document 258-4
assembly 50 ascends, the push bar 210 pulls the extension crank 220 back. The crank

220 pivots about its pinned end 222, which is secured to the underside 66 of the ramp 60.

As the ramp assembly 50 approaches the extent of its upward motion, the linkage arm

240 slides from an inoperative position 247 to an operative or engaged position 245 by

locking its notched end 244 into secure engagement with the pivot pin or drive stud 227

of the crank 220 as in Figure 6B. As the deck assembly 50 rises, the lip assist spring 270

extends from an at rest position 277 to a stretched or powered position 275 to bias the

crank 220 and lip 80 forward, making it easier to extend the lip. As the deck assembly 50

rises, the damper 280 is also pulled in to an operative position 285.

With the linkage arm 240 engaged, the assist spring 270 and damper 280

activated, and the relative motion of the ramp 60 stopped in its raised position SOB, the

operator then walks forward on the deck or ramp 60 towards the lip 80 toward its front

edge 64. The weight of the operator overcomes the force oftbe lifting springs 112 and

the ramp descends as in Figures 7A and 7B. As the ramp 60 begins to descend, the lip

80 begins to extend via the interconnected drive bracket 250, linkage arm 240, extension

crank 220 and push bar 210 connected to the stationary frame 30. As the ramp assembly

50 rotates and moves forward and downward into its dynamic or intermediate position

SOC, the forward rotation of the extension crank 220 and the orientation of the drive and

release studs 227 and 228 cause the linkage arm 240 to unlock or disengage. The damper

280 does the final extension of the Jip 80 onto the trailer bed 17 to engaged position SOD.

At this time, the lip assist spring 270 reverts to its deactivated position 277. This allows

the lip 80 to retract or pivot down into its pendant position 91 restricted only by the

26

A6235
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 31 of 66 Document 258-4
damper 280 so that the lip retracts more quickly and more easily than a conventional

assisted lip.

As the ramp 60 continues to descend, the lip 80 extends onto the trailer bed 17

and into engaged position SOD as in Figures SA and SB. The operator is now free to

drive a forklift or lift truck in and out of the trailer across the ramp 60 and lip 80. As a

trailer 15 is unloaded. its suspension springs raise its trailer bed 17. As the trailer bed 17

raises, the lower ann 102, upper lift arm 120 and hold down 130 do not move. The

springs J 12 continue to pull with the same force on the lower lift ann 102, but the hold

down mechanism l30 continues to maintain the lower lift arm, upper lift ann 120 and

hold down mechanism in a fixed pattern 140. The ends 124 and 134 of the upper arm

120 and hold down mechanism 130 are pinned together by the push rod 128, which

remains inside the slot 74 of the float housing 70, but are not rigidly secured to the deck

assembly 50. This releasable attachment of the triangle 140 to the deck assembly 50

allows the opera~or to control the incline position of the deck 50. The releasable

attachment also allows the deck lift assembly I 00 and triangle J40 to release from the

deck 50 to aJlow its rear end 62 to pivot about hinge 48 and the forward end 64 and lip 80

to float atop a trailer lS as goods 19 are unloaded from or loaded onto the trailer. When

the lip 80 is fully extended and resting on the trailer bed J 7, the iMer or pinned rear end

82 of the lip 80 is in abutting engagement with the front end 64 of the deck 60, which

prevents further rotation of the lip and fixes the lip i1_1to parallel alignment with the deck

60. Thus, when the trailer bed 17 and lip rise, the lip pulls the front end 64 of the deck

assembly SO and ramp 60 in a generally vertical direction as in Figure 9. The full weight

of the ramp assembly SO and its lip 80 are applied to the trailer IS, less the weight carried

27

A6236
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 32 of 66 Document 258-4
by the hinge 48. As a result, the lift springs 112 are no longer applying force on the ramp

60, which eliminates the forces that cause a "bounce effect" as the fork lift moves across

the ramp and onto the trailer bed.

When the load 18 is placed on the trailer bed 17, the trailer bed drops down due to

the weight of the load. The lip 80 and deck assembly automatically pivotally adjust

downward so that the outer end 84 of the lip remains in engagement with the bed l 7. The

lip will initially pivot down under its own weight. The deck assembly 50 will pivot down

when a person or forklift travels back onto the deck 60 until the rear end 82 of the lip 80

is again in abutting engagement with the front end 64 of the deck 60. The deck assembly

SO can pivot down until its lower arm 102 bottoms out against the floor 12 of the pit 10. It

should be understood that the floor 12 can be recessed further beneath the lift assembly

l 00 to allow the deck assembly 50 to be pivoted downward or lowered significantly

below the surface 7 of the deck S without departing from the broad aspects of the

invention.

When the trailer IS has been loaded or unloaded and is ready to pull away, the

operator can use the handle 138 to release the hold down mechanism 130 to raise the

deck assembly 50 to an intermediate or slightly inclined position that is below the

dynamic position SOC so that the drive link 240 is not engaged. The lip 80 then pivots

down to its pendant position 91 generally perpendicular to the deck 60 and parallel to the

header plate SS. The operator then walks down the deck so that the deck assembly 50 is

in its parked position SOA where the lip 80 is received by or mates into and is supported

by the lip supports 39. Should the trailer pull away while the deck assembly 50 and its

lip 80 are floating and still engaging and supported by the trailer bed 17 as in Figure 9,

28

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Dalab.- on 03/0812013

A6237
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 33 of 66 Document 258-4
r .:1.0328279 '" .1223012

tlie deck assembly will simply pivot down until the push rod 128 of the lift assembly 100

engages the upper end 75 of the slot 74 of the float housing 70. The deck damper 150

controls the speed and cushions the decent of the deck assembly 50. The lip 80 will also

simply pivot down until it is in a generally vertical hanging position 91. The lip damper

280 controls the speed and cushions the decent of the Up 80. From this disengaged

position, the operator can walk down the deck to its parked position A if the free end 84

of the lip 80 is above the lip supports 39, or the operator can raise the deck assembly 50

to the intermediate or slightly inclined position and walk down the deck to put it in its

parked position 50A.

While the invention has been described with reference to a preferred embodiment,

it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and

equivalents may be substituted without departing from the broad aspects of the invention.

29

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03/08/2013

A6238
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 34 of 66 Document 258-4
CLAIMS

I claim:

1. A dock leveler for forming a bridge between a floor of a loading dock and a trailer

bed, the trailer bed being adapted to support a load and rise when that load is removed,

said dock leveler comprising:

a deck assembly with a first hinged end, a second outer end and a deck with a lip,

said deck being movable through a range of inclined positions between raised and

lowered positions;

a lift assembly including a lift member and a biasing mechanism, said lift member

releasably supporting said deck assembly and being upwardly and downwardly movable

through a range of positions between upper and lower positions, said biasing mechanism

biasing said lift member upwardly toward its said upper position and said deck toward its

said raised position;

a hold down mechanism joined to said lift member, said hold down mechanism

being operable to selectively prevent said lift member from moving upwardly toward its

said upper extended position, said lift assembly and bold down mechanism combining to

operably raise and lower said deck while said lift member remains in supporting

engagement with said deck assembly to position said lip on the trailer bed; and,

wherein said deck assembly releases from its said supporting engagement with

said lift member when the load is removed and the trailer bed rises, said deck and lip

being supported by and rising with the trailer bed.

30

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW lmege Database on 0310812013

A6239
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 35 of 66 Document 258-4
2. The dock leveler of Claim I. and wherein said outer end of said deck assembly is

suspended when supportably engaged by said lift assembly. said lift assembly supporting

said suspended deck assembly as it moves said deck through its said range of inclined

positions.

3. The dock leveler of Claim 2. and wherein said lift assembly and hold down

mechanism combine to biasingly hold said deck at a desired inclined position and allow

said deck to move to a lower incline position under a predet~nnined condition when said

outer end of said deck assembly is suspended.

4. The dock leveler of Claim 3. and wherein said predetermined condition is an

operator walking onto said deck and toward said outer end.

5. The dock leveler of Claim 4. and wherein said deck is horizontally flush with the

floor of the loading dock when said deck is in a parked position.

6. The dock leveler of Claim s. and wherein said lip is positioned above the bed of
the trailer when in said raised position. said deck and lift member moving down when the

operator walks onto said deck until said deck assembly and lip reach an engaged position

where said lip engages the trailer bed.

31

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03108/2013

A6240
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 36 of 66 Document 258-4
7. The dock leveler of Claim 3, and wherein said lip is hingably secured proximal

said outer end of said deck assembly, said lip being operably movable between pendant

and extended positions.

8. The dock leveler of Claim 1, and wherein the loading dock floor has a pit and said

dock leveler further includes a mounting frame rigidly secured inside the pit, and wherein

said first hinged end of said deck assembly is hingably secured to said mounting frame

proximal the floor of the loading dock, said first hinged end being flushly aligned with

the floor of the loading dock and said second outer end being pivotable about said first

hinged end, and said lift member and hold down mechanism are pivotally secured to said

mounting frame.

9. . The dock leveler of Claim 8,.and wherein said lift member is formed by lower and

upper lift arms, said lower lift arm being pivotaJly secured to said mounting frame, and

said upper lift arm being pivotally secured to said lower lift ann.

JO. The dock leveler of Claim 9, and wherein said deck has a float housing that forms

a slot, and said upper end of said slot fonns an abutment against whi~h said upper lift arm

engages to releasably support said deck.

11. The dock leveler of Claim 10, and wherein said lift member has an upper end, and

said hold down mechanism is pivotally connected to an upper end of said upper lift arm

at a joint, said joint being restricted to move in said slot.

32

A6241
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 37 of 66 Document 258-4
J2. The dock leveler of Claim l J. and wherein said slot is substantially perpendicular

to said deck.

13. The dock leveler of Claim 11, and wherein said hold down mechanism includes a

pivotally fixed member and a telescoping member extendably joined to said fixed

member. said telescoping member being extended through a range of extend positions

between a retract position and a fully extended position. and said locking mechanism

locks said telescoping member to its said fixed member to prevent outward extension of

said telescoping member and said upward movement of said lift member.

14. The dock leveler of Claim 13, and wherein said fixed member of said hold down

mechanism is pivotally secured to said pivot end of said lower lift arm and said

telescoping member is pivotally secured to said an outer end of said upper lift arm, said

lower and upper lift arms and said hold down mechanism each forming a side of a

triangle. said sides of said triangle formed by said lift anns remaining a constant length.

and said side of said triangle fonned by said hold down mechanism varying through a

range of lengths between retracted and fully extended lengths.

15. The dock leveler of Claim 14, and wherein said lift arms from an angle greater

than 90 degrees when said hold down mechanism is at its said fully extended length.

16. The dock leveler of Claim 9, and wherein said lift assembly includes a deck

damper secured between said deck assembly and said lower lift arm, said damper

33

A6242
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 38 of 66 Document 258-4
.:1.032'827"9 .. .:12i2302

controlling a rate of relative movement between said deck and Jift assembly when said

deck moves from supported engagement with the trailer bed into supported engagement

with said lift assembly.

17. The dock leveler of Claim 1. and wherein said biasing mechanism is a spring that

continuously biases said lift member upwardly toward its said upper position and said

deck toward its said raised position.

18. The dock leveler of Claim 17. and wherein said hold down mechanism has a

locking mechanism selectively moveable between locked and unlock positions, said hold

down mechanism allowing said lift member to move upwardly and downwardly through

its said range of positions when said locking mechanism is in its said unlocked position,

said hold down mechanism preventing said movement of said lift member toward said

upper position when said locking mechanism is in its said locked position, said lift

assembly and hold down mechanism combining to biasingly hold said lift member at a

specific position when said locking mechanism is locked, said hold down mechanism

allowing downward movement of said lift member when said locking mechanism is in

said locked position;

19. The dock leveler of Claim 18, and wherein said locking mechanism is biased to

its locked position, and is operably movable to its unlocked position.

34

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Dalaba- on 03/08/2013

A6243
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 39 of 66 Document 258-4
20. A dock leveler for forming a bridge between a floor of a loading dock and a trailer

bed, said dock leveler comprising:

a deck assembly including a deck with first and second ends, said deck being

movable through a range of inclined positions between raised and lowered inclined

positions;

a lip assembly including a lip plate with inner and outer ends, said lip plate being

operably movable between pendant and extended positions, said lip plate being biased

toward said pendant position, and said lip plate being substantially flush with said deck

when in said extended position;

a lip extension assembly having a series of linked components including a drive

member and a drive link, said lip extension assembly being movable between engaged

and disengaged positions, said drive member having a load bearing end offset from said

deck assembly, said drive member and said drive link being in driving communication

with said lip plat when in said engaged position, and one of said series of linked

components being released from pushing engagement with an other of said linked

components when in said disengaged position, said lip plate being movable between its

said extended and pendent positions when said lip extension assembly is in its said

disengaged position, said lip extension assembly being biased into said engaged position

when said deck is in said raised position and biased into said disengaged position when

said deck is below an inteJmediate inclined position, and said lip extension assembly

driving said lip plate toward its said extended position as said deck is lo'Wered toward

said intermediate inclined position and said lip extension assembly is in its said engaged

position.

35

A6244
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 40 of 66 Document 258-4
21. The dock leveler of Claim 20, and wherein said drive link is releasably joined to

said drive member. said drive link being movable between engaged and disengaged

positions. said drive link being in pushing engagement with said drive member when in

said engaged position. and said drive link being released from said pushing engagement

with said drive member when said lip extension assembly is in its said disengaged

position.

22. The dock leveler of Claim 21, and wherein said lip extension assembly includes a

crank connector to releasably join said drive link to said drive member when in said

engaged position. said crank connector being pivotally secured to said deck assembly and

releasably secured to said link when in said engaged position.

23. The dock leveler of Claim 22, and wherein said crank connector is a lever having

a fixed end and a free end, said fixed end of said lever being pivotally secured to said

deck assembly. said mid-section being secured to said drive member at a mid-location,

and said lever being releasably sec\U'ed to said link between said mid location and said

free end.

24. The dock leveler of Claim 23. and wherein said load bearing end of said drive

member is fixed relative to said deck assembly. and said drive member has an outer end

pivotally secured to said crank connector.

36

A6245
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 41 of 66 Document 258-4
25. The dock leveler of Claim 23, and wherein said lip extension assembly includes a

first lip assist mechanism, said lip assist mechanism being connected to said deck

assembly and proximal said free end of said lever, said first lip assist .mechanism biasing

said lip from said pendant position toward said extended position when said deck is in

said raised position.

26. The dock leveler of Claim 25, and wherein said first lip assist mechanism is a

spring stretchable through a range of lengths between relaxed and activated positions.

27. The dock leveler of Claim 25, and wherein said lip extension assembly includes a

bracket secured to said deck assembly, said bracket being.connected to said drive link

and abuttingly engaging said lip plate when in said engaged position.

28. The dock leveler of Claim 27, and wherein said lip extension assembly includes a

second lip assist mechanism, said second lip assist mechanism being connected to said

bracket and said lever, said second lip assist mechanism biasing said lip plate toward said

extended position when said deck moves from said raised position toward said lowered

position.

29. The dock leveler of Claim 28, and wherein said second assist mechanism is a

. damper movable between a retracted and extended lengths, said damper being adapted to

freely expand toward said extended length and resist compression back toward a retracted

length, and said damper is connected to said lever proximal its said mid location.

37

A6246
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 42 of 66 Document 258-4
30. The dock leveler of Claim 29, and wherein said damper extends to an activated

position when said deck is at its said raised position and remains activated when said

deck is moved toward its said intermediate incline position, said damper continuing to

bias said lip plate toward its said extended position when said deck is lowered below said

intermediate position toward said lowered position.

31. The dock leveler of Claim 24, and further including a mounting frame, said first

end of said deck assembly being pivotally secured to said mounting frame, and said load

bearing end of said drive member being pivotally secured to said mounting frame, said

lever moving toward said first end of said deck assembly when said deck is raised toward

said raised position, and said lever moving toward said second end of said deck assembly

when said deck is lowered toward said lowered position.

32. The dock leveler of Claim 28, and wherein and said lever has first and second

studs, said inner end of said drive link drivingly engaging said first stud when in said

engaged position, and said second stud forcibly engaging said drive link to dislodge said

drive link from its said engaged position with said first stud to release said drive link to

its said disengaged position when said deck is lowered past its said intermediate incline

position.

33. The dock leveler ofClafui 20, and further including a lift assembly adapted to

move said deck between its said inclined positions. said lift assembly biasing said deck

38

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW Image Dalabaae on 03/08/2013

A6247
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 43 of 66 Document 258-4
toward its said raised position, said lift extension assembly cocking said lip extension

assembly into its said engaged position when said deck is in said raised position.

34. The dock leveler of Claim 33, and further comprising a hold down mechanism

connected to said lift assembly, said hold down mechanism being operable to selectively

prevent said lift assembly from biasing said deck toward its said raised position, said lip

extension assembly, lift assembly and hold down mechanism combining to operably

position said deck and lip atop the trailer bed.

35. The dock leveler of Claim 34, and wherein said lip plate is biased by its own

weight toward its said pendant position.

36. A dock leveler comprising:

a deck assembly including a deck and a support frame, said deck having upper

and lower surfaces, inner and outer longitudinal ends and first and second lateral sides,

said support frame having a plurality of spaced apart, substantially parallel support beams

including two outermost beams, each of said beams being supportably positioned beneath

said lower surface of said deck, and each beam having an outer longitudinal end

substantially aligned with said outer longitudinal end of said deck, and said outennost

beams extending along said lateral sides of said deck;

a header plate having inner and outer surfaces and upper, lower and lateral edges,

said upper edge of said header plate being flushly aligned with and rigidly secured to said

lower surface of said deck proximal its said outer longitudinal end and said inner surface

39

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03/0812013

A6248
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 44 of 66 Document 258-4
being rigidJy secured proximal said outer end of each of said beams, said outermost

beams being rigidly secured to said lateral edges of said header plate, said header plate

extending from one side of said deck to said other side of said deck, and said header plate

being substantially perpendicular to said lower surface of said deck and substantialJy

perpendicularly to said beams;

a set of header lugs rigidly secured to and extending outwardly from said outer

surface of said header plate along its said upper edge, each header lug being substantially

linearly aUgned with one of said beams of said support frame;

a lip plate having upper and lower surfaces and inner, outer and lateral edges. said

lateral edges of said lip plate being in substantial registry with said lateral edges of said

header plate;

a set of lip lugs rigidly secured to and extending from said lower surface of said

Jip plate aJong its said inner edge, each of said lip lugs hingably joining one

corresponding Jug of said set of header lugs, and said lip plate is hingably movable

between pendant and extended positions relative to said deck, said upper surface of said

lip plate being substantially flushly aligned with said upper surface of said deck when in

said extended position.

37. The dock leveler ofCJahn 36. and wherein each header lug and lip Jug has a hinge

opening. each of said hinge opening being linearly aligned to matingly received a

continuous rod, said lip plate being hingably movable between said pendant and extended

positions about said rod.

40

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW Image Databaae on 03/08/2013

A6249
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 45 of 66 Document 258-4
... ..
38. The dock leveler of Claim 37, and wherein said support beams are formed by two

sets of beams and a central beam, each of said support beams in said two sets of beams

being unifonnly spaced apart.

39. The dock leveler of Claim 38, and wherein said inner edge of said lip plate abuts

said outer longitudinal end of said deck when in said extended position.

40. The dock leveler of Claim 39, and wherein said lip plate is substantially parallel

to said header plate when in said pendant position.

41. The dock leveler of Claim 40, and wherein said longitudinal outer ends of said

beams arc recessed a slight distance from said outer longitudinal end of said deck.

41

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Datab... on 03/0812013

A6250
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 46 of 66 Document 258-4
ABSTRACT

The present invention pertains to a mechanically actuated dock leveler with a

mounting frame secured in a pit ofa loading dock, and a deck assembly with a deck and

extendable lip. A deck lift assembly biases the deck to move from a parked position to a

raised position to activate a lip extension assembly. As the deck is "walked down", the

lip is extended and the lip extension assembly is deactivated in a controlled manner so

that the deck and Up reach an engaged position against the trailer and are kept in place by

a hold down mechanism. The deck assembly has a float housing with a slot for

releasably engaging the lift assembly to achieve a range of float positions where the deck

and lip rest on and float with the trailer as it is loaded and unloaded. The deck assembly

has a durable combined lip lug and header plate hinge construction.

42

A6251
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 47 of 66 Document 258-4
Type a plus sign(+) Inside this box(+] Approved for use through 9/30/00
Patent and Trademark Offtce U ..
S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PTO/SB/01 Attomev Docket Number I 4782-2
(8196) First Named Inventor I Denis Gleason
DECLARATION COMPLETt; IF KNOWN
Declaration OR Declaration Anftllcation Number
llD Submitted with a Submitted after Filina Date
Initial Filing Initial Filing Groun Art Unit
Examiner Name
As a below named inventor, I hereby declare that:

My residence, post office address, and citizenship are as stated below next to my name.

I beHeve I am the original, first and sole inventor (If only one name la listed below) or an original, first and joint inventor (if
plural names are listed below) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention
entitled:

I DOCK LEVELER
(Title of the Invention)
I
the specification of which J
llD is attached hereto

OR

a was filed on (MMIDDIVYYY)


I I as United States Application Number or PCT

lntemational Number
(if applicable).
I I and was amended on (MM/DDIVYYY) I I
I hereby state that I have reviewed and understand the contents of the above identified apeclfic:ation, Including the clalms, aa
amended by any amendment speclflcally referred to above.

I acknowledge the duly to disclose tntonnatton which Is material to patentability as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.58, Including for
continuation-In-part appUcaUons, material Information which became available between the filing date of the prior application
and the national or PCT international flOnn date of the continuatlon-ln-nart annllcatlon.
I hereby claim foreign priority benefits under Title 35, United States Code 119(a)-(d) or 365(b) of any foreign applicatlon(s)
for patent, invento(s or plant breeder's rights eertlficate(s), or 365(a) of any PCT international application which designed at
least one country other than the United States of America, Hsted below and have also identified below, by checking the box,
any foreign appllcation for patent, inventor's or breeder's rights eertlficate(s), or of any PCT international application having a
ftffno date before that of the aoolicallon on which .........uv is claimed.
Prior Foreign Country Foreign Filing Date Priority Not Copy Attached?
AoolicaUon Numhl>rls) tMMIODIYYvv'i Claimed YES NO
a a a
a a a
0 a a
a a a
a a a
0 AddiUonal forAinn anr lcaUon numbers are listed on a sunniemental ortnritv sheet attached hereto:
I hereby daim the benefit under Trtle 35, United States Code 119(e) of any United Stain provisional application(s) Usted
below.
AoDlicatlon Number(a\ l'jllna Date IMM/DOIYYYY\ Additional prOll!sional
a Application numbers are
listed on a supplemental
priority sheet attached
hereto.

(Page 1 of2}

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03/0812013

A6252
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 48 of 66 Document 258-4
,:l:032Bi?.7'91 .. :.1.D.,?,i23ll2

Type a plus sign (+)Inside this box (+)

I
DECLARATION

1 hereby aim the bene under Title 35, United tates Code 12 of any United Slates ap lcation(s), or 3650 o any P T
international appHcation designated the United Stales of Ameri<;a, listed below and, insofar as the subject matter Of each of
the claims of this application is not disclosed In the prior United States of PCT lnlemational application in the manner
provided by the firat paragraph of Title 35, United States Code 112. I acknowledge the duty to disclose informatiOn which is
material to patentablllty as defined In Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations 1.56 which became available between the filing
date of the rlor a licaUon and Iha national or PCT international fill date of this a lion.
. Parent Ap caliOn PC Parent Number Parent Filing te Parent Patent Number
Number MIOD if a licable)

ame Registration
Number
Daniel D. Fetterley Joseph D. Kubom 40,689
George H. Sotveson Jeffrey S. SOkol 35,686
Gary A. Essmann William L. Falk 27,709
Thomas M. Wozny
Michael E. Taken
Joseph J. Jochman, Jr.

Ci Bowmanvllle, ontarlo Count canada

0 Addlllonal inventors are bel

(Page 2 of2)

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFWlmage Datab- on 03/0812013

A6253
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 49 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER .10 3 2:a~~ 7 g .. .:IL 2.2 3UJ!i:-.?
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney D~ket Np. 4782-2

.:.
Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Datab- on 03/0812013

A6254
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 50 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Docket NQ. 4782-2

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Da...,_ on 03/0812013

A6255
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 51 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER .::t'U32B2~79,,, .::L2"23ClK::?.
Inventor: Denis Gleason
.
Attorney Docket No.
\"
4782-2

t0
(!) ''
Li...

,,
)
I

\ \

'v'

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW Image Daiei>. . . on 03108/2013

A6256
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 52 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER ..:t.1r..11:~; i?!.S 2 .7 9 .. .:l 2.~~ ~;::n i2
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Do~ket No. 4782-2

/
/
/
,,...
--
-

I
I

I
I
I
'
.~ /

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW lm11ge D11tab- on 03/08/2013

A6257
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 53 of 66 Document 258-4
DO CK LE VE LE R
Inv en tor : De nis Gl eas ;:D.OT::;:L-:rS27F.l ...
:.1,;;i:2.:a>o2
Attorney Do ck et No . 47 on
. 82-2
\'

IJ\
-{ :l
to- I I

() -.iJ
,...U\ Cl!>.
~
.,,.
'3

LO

Co y pro vid ed by US
PTO fro m the IFW Ima ge Da
\ab - on 03/08/2013

[ A 62 58 ]
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 54 of 66 Document 258-4
6/17
FIG. SA
E
; 17 JS
s.
c~~~
Q.

l
~
i
'V
~ Ill 80 >_
3' s=
=~o
!I
f
(II
'<o(:)
ao
t):"! ~
~ ~ Ot""
~Qt'TI
3'1 '.3Ua
31 ic;;ra

00 II
I
FIG. 58. . 0 ' SOA
J __ 8'1
oOt""'
..,_n

~
-t:rl
~
-.i~ ,...
~g

jd

J.:~~~6
I
SI
---=(======.!:====---- 1---============iz?-
~
~
cot
&;~=='1'---
'fg. 62
~ ,,\._J ---=====--- 1- <t20 -
.. ",,v...__
4 -z,'t./
--.
0
l;J
::-~~
U------------- -------------------- iiJ
\'.tJ
:;~ 80
ru
>.,,J

'
"- I I pd I
{
)
cl~ ..a
~
rJ
.,.. 31 3 z. 3'1 rJ
ij
0
tv

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 55 of 66 Document 258-4


DOCK LEVELER .:1. 0 '.32 S E\7 9 .. .:11.. C:.!!2 3: 0 i2'
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Do~ket N?. 4782-2

~
\\
\\
\\
\\ ,,
'~, \J\ C;:)
'''t':' '1:-
\~-~-.lr--~,-
~
~-~'".~If!>-'
'
' ,,,,
,,
\\ \
\\ \
\\ \
CC) __../_, ''-' \
\
-~ \\ \
\J) \\ \
~~ \
\
U\
,,
\\ \
\
~__)),, \
~ ,,\\ \
\
,, \
\
\\ \
\\
\\
,, \\
\\
\\
\\
\\
,,
\\
\\
,, \\
\\
,,
<( \\

c.o
' ,,
\\

\\
\\

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03/08/2013

A6260
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 56 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCKLEVELER .:l CU 3?. 82 7 9 .J. Eii?. 3 Ui2
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Doi;ket N{>. 4782-2

~ ,,
\\

~~'~,
~ '~,
\\\\
"'~
\\
\\
,,
\\
C)~
\J\ \\
,,
\\
,,
\\
C) _....,,

..g '~, '\ \


\\
\\
,, \
\
\
\\
\\
,, \
\
\
\\
\\ \
\\ \

,,,,
\\ \
\

,, \
\

,,
\\ \
\
\
\\
CD \\ \
\
c.o \\
\\
,, \
\
\\ \
\\ '""' \

""'~, ' ) '-


\ ..
<::I:) ~;;o> '
---~====~::;::::::=!:;l..._J

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Datab- on 03/08/2013

A6261
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 57 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney
. Docket No.,..4182-2
~

-
N

I
\I
,"\. II
~
~~II
"
\J) II
"" .
I

'(;)~ " I
I

\S\ "11. \ti'\


,-
~
"
11
\I
'II .
~-ii
\I ' I

"" \I
I

''
"" I
I

" II 'I
"" '
I

"" I
\
" 11
I
I

"II '
""
""
\
I
II

""
"

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Datab- on 03/0812013

A6262
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 58 of 66 Document 258-4
l
1I DOCK LEVELER 1032a279r .. .1i2!i23-r.J2
Inventor: Denis Gleason
..
I
Attorney Docket No. 4782-2
...

~
~
""
'f> ---;>~
""
" \\
'\I
~--.!---
U\ II
'iI
"
\\ \I

<:)~ I
"9 I\ \
\\ I
\I I
\I I
\I I
/ II \
\\ I
II I
" \I
II
\I
I
" I\
II
\\
I
" \\ \I

"
\I \\
\I I
\\ \
II I
II I
\\ I
II I
.\\ \
\\ \
11 I
\\ \
It'""' I
"
~,.
-:::,.
\\ .)
\

...... \
\

:::

Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03/0812013

A6263
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 59 of 66 Document 258-4
'
'
J DOCK LEVELER
-Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Docket No. 4782-2
r
;:LD329.i279 ...::\L2i2~30i?.

to-
-
'.

N I I
I
I e--~ I I

LJ ~ u~
~
N "'~~
II\

ti

~ ~

. '-Sl \Q ~
N
....
~
~

~
"'- I
I
~~II
IJ'I II
"'
~
II
II
(:)

,,,,
N

~
= ....
II~ N
~
II
II
-
"....-
............
....-
Ul
-._a.
II
II
II
II
--
'.;:) \J\ '--::--
(':')
II
II
II
ft\

....- ~
II
II
...<> ..... _::
~-.II II
II
II ~
II \\>
II
II
\"'\ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
<::) II
f'I\ II
II
II
II
II
II
~
<( CD n t"\
co co II
~

.
(.!) (.!)
II
II
II """
LL. LL.
~
~ :-
":t
;::r
:;::

Copy provided by USPTO from the lfW Image Database on 03/08/2013

A6264
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 60 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER :l. O 3 2 :C:l 2 -;;- 9 .1. 22 3 (J 2
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Do~et Nq. 4782-2

lu :.
~~=~
II ti'\
""
n
0 II
\.I'\ II
--...}--.
II
C)

~--=II
u

II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II ":i,

-
U -"lo

"::r=:::;~.L.---n
II

"II
II

Copy provided by USPTO from the I Image Datab- on 03/0812013


----~~~~~~~~~~

A6265
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 61 of 66 Document 258-4
1

DOCK LEVELER
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Docket
.. .N9.
r 4782-2

i
l

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe IFW Image Oalab- on 03/0812013

A6266
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 62 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Doc~et_No~4782-2

co 1
()
0 I 0
....-

'-'
t
I
. "
I l..J._ I ~
IL
.
i I
I
I
I ... ..
I
~

I
~

...
==,
~\
--~
,r-~
,.., = .. ,
r---,
I
' ~
....-
.- I ~\
"-.\
~ r-
I
I
I
l ___ JI
: r

""'
..q-
....-
.I <:)
~
~
I ---, I
~
I
I
LI\
___ JI U)

......t .... ~
I

~'
r-
I
I
~\~
llF!-
I " ==JJ
I m1
....I '
=i:
I N""
\.t1
II ~~
-.;:,~
~
I
\

Copy provided by USPTo from the IFW Image Detabaae on 03/08/2013


- -- . --

I A6267 I
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 63 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCK LEVELER
Inventor: Denis Gleason
Attorney Docket No. 4782-2
~ ~, r

t C)
I 0
........ t..i ~
"'9 IJ) ~ ~
J
cj ,--L __ 1

I
\
LL:: I -"'
~.
I
\ I
~r, -J:.
".:::-"
I
..
---\, ~\:
'~~
I

I ' F==f ~- .. . ..

~I
F~~~
~I
I ~ ~\
"'~
I r-
,.......
l
'
I
I
l.{)
........ I
I
n C\I.
i-<xl ".:::"'
I

Fl

~-

~~
\\~

p ,
I

\.
~1--~
IS) ..

.
---J I
?I .,.;::""

,, ~
L_ ___._
-- I~

''

~.!.!!:.ovlded by usPTO from lhe IFW Image Dlab- on 03/0812013

A6268
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 64 of 66 Document 258-4
DOCKDenis
Inventor: LEVELER
Gleason .1. O :;~ i2 f.1: 2 7 9 ...1. 2 2 3 Di~:?
Attorney Doq.etN~ 4782-2

w
0

I
I

i
I
~I
11

j_ ___ lit~'
J=r-----
, ~- -~
f-L ____ ,~~- ~\
-,,----- '
::::E

~ --b--~---IPSb
"' r-7-. --~ I
L ---
,...ta
- _ ...JJ;tfttt:::pEl--_
I
_---1

Copy provided by USPTO from lhe I Image Database on 03/08/2013

I A6269
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 65 of 66 Document 258-4
Inv~~~5~J:5r!"son .:IL 0 ::~ i2 8 i~ :7 9 ... .::1.. ir:~ ii:~: 3-Dii:i.!:
Attorney Docket No. 4782-2
/ .,. ... ~-

17 /17

FIG. 10F 131 go


t,n 1
l,U 4t ''"''

B'f fj' 55

-
L Copy provided by USPTO from the IFW Image Database on 03/0812013

A6270
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 66 of 66 Document 258-4
Exhibit C

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 27 Document 258-5



f: > I (t;o
I11~111111111~ Ill~ 11111~1111111 IUI ~1111
US006834409B2

02) United States Patent (IO) Patent No.: us 6,834,409 82


Gleason (45) Date or Patent: Dec. 28. 2004

(S4} DOCK LEVELER S,001,799 A 311991 Alwander Cl al ............ l4nl.1


5,097,S.S7 A 311992 Salman et al ................ 14171.1
(75) Inventor: Deals Gleuon. Rowmanville (CA) S.111.~6 A S/11)92 Hthll a Ill. ...... l4nl .3
S,117,526 A 611992 Alcaander .................. 14fll.7
(73) Assignee: Nordock, Inc. (CA) S.303,443 A 411994 Alcunclcr - 14171.1
SJ96,676 A 311995 Alcxlllldcr cc al ............ 14171.1
Subject 10 any disclaimer, the term or this 5.440,771 A 8/1995 Sprinacrd al .............. 14/69.S
( ) Notice: 5,113,072 A 9119'8 Alcnllder .................. 14/71.1
patent is eKtendcd or adjusted under JS S,826.291 A 10/1998 Alexander .................. l4nJ.3
U.S.C. IS4(b) by 0 days. 6.125.491 A l0l2000 AlcxMdcr ........ W69.S

(21) Appl. No.: 10/328,179 cited by examiner


Priniary uon1i11er-Robert E. Pc;i:wlo
(22) Filed: Dec. 23, lOOl
Arsi.rlall/ fu:aminer -Alc1t1nd1'11 PcGhbold
(65) Prior Publicalion Data (74) AllDmt)I Agait. or Firm-Andnis. Scales, Starke cl
Sawall, U.P
US 20().f/OI 17927 Al Jun. 2.4, 1004
(57) ABSl"RACT
(SI) Int. CJ.' .................................................. EOlD 1/00
(52) U.S. Cl......................................................... t4n1.3 The present invention penains to a mechanically tcluat.ed
(SS) Field or Search ................................. 14169.S. 71.l, dock leveler wi1h a mounling rrame &ecurcd in a pit of a
14171.3, 71.S, 71.7 loadina dock, and a deck assembly with a deck and e1ticnd-
able lip. A deck lift aucmbly biases lhc deck 10 move from
(S6) Ref'crcncea Cited a puked position to a raised position 10 activate: a lip
extension assembly. As the deck is "walked down'", the lip
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS is e1ttendcd and lhc lip exicnsion assembly is dcactival(d in
3.68.S.077 A 811972 W'ICller ct al .................. 14nl 1 controlled manlleT so thal the deck and lip ruch an
3,llS,497 A 911974 Smith ............................ 1-'nt engaged position against the trailer and arc kepi in place by
3,882,563 A 511915 Smith ct al. ................. I4nl .3 a hold down mechanism. The deck assembly has a ffo11
3,967,:l37 A 711976 Anabcracr .................. 1"71.S housina with a slOl for rclcasably engaging the lift assembly
4,847,935 A 711989 Alexander ca al. ........... 1"71.3 to achic1te A range of Roat positions where the deck and lip
4,928,340 A. S/1990 Alcxandu .................. 14nt.3 fCSI on '1!d noat wllh lhe traiJCI' IS ii is loaded and unloaded.
4,937,906 A. 711990 Alc.andcr .................. l4nt.I
4,944,()62 A 711990 Wlkcr ....................... J4nl.3 The deck assembly has a durable combined lip lug and
4,974,276 A. ll/1990 AltHndcc .................. 1"71.3 header plate hinge col'\SlNetion.
4,9n,63S A 1211990 Alcundcr .................. 1-4171.J
4.979.253 A 1211990 Alexander .......... 1-4171.7 19 Claims, 17 Drawing Shuts

soc
128
eo I
50 \
.............. .
... ., .... $~
~
...... 133

41

30 360 31

NOR00004

A6271
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet J of 17 US 6,834,409 B2

NOR00005

A6272
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 2 of 17 us 6,834,409 82

NOR 00006

A6273
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 3of17 US 6,834,409 B2

NOR00007

I A6274 I
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 4of17 US 6,834,409 B2

0
0

/
/

I
\

I
/
I

'
/
/
/

NOR 00008

A6275
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 27 Document 258-5
~
.00
""C
~

""'
~
FIG. 5 ~

0
~
~
~
~

00 41
i
...
Ul

-
0

......

19

~
120 rJ'J
142
'
Oo
~
A
1:..
Q
"-=
z
0
=
N

:;d
0
8
0
\0

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 7 of 27 Document 258-5


~
.~
FIG. 5A 50A ""'d
~
"""'
~
::s
"""'

.,.
t::
!"
N
80 ~
N
0
0
~

00 46
FIG. 58
62
'
-- 36 \360
51
1ci6

506 (0
10s

SlOA
,, 113 250
::n
::I"
..."'
=-"'

;;!~
0
-.
M"'"="== .. ======-- \ \
42-....... K \. - J - - : :: : - -
--
\
......... ""'~~~ 221 220222 ....:I

80
~
00
I \ a-.
I 132
31
Qo
!;...,>
A
33 .35 ~A
0
'D
z 0:
~
0
:;ti
0
g
-
0

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 8 of 27 Document 258-5


U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 7of17 US 6,834,409 B2

If)~
...- I I
I I

~~J
0
(X)

en
(()

0
N

IX>
N

,,
CD ~ '~ I')
0 ,,/" ,, P') \
lf'1 ,, ... \
\\

o----'x
"
~~
\
If) "

o_/\ '\
tO \\,, ''
"
\\ ' \

",,,,
\I '\
\\
'' \

,,
\I

<(
<.D

NOR 00011

A6278
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 9 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec.28,2004 Sheet 8of17 US 6,834,409 B2

I I

~-u
0
CD

0
..-
N
I

"\\,, '\
' \
\\
,,,, \
\
\
\\
\
\\
\\ \
\\
\
" \\ \

",, \
\
\
\\

co \\
\\
\
\

c.o \\ \
\\ """ \
~ \ '
\\ ) ~ &
"' "I-.

NOR 00012

A6279
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 10 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 20()4 Sheet 9 or 17 US 6,834,409 B2

0 ---"
-
0 II
l/'J " ,.,
" I")
' \I

o~
II)
II
II
II
O__.):,
IO ~

""
II

""
"II

0
n

NOR 00013

A6280
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 11 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 10 of 17 US 6,834,409 B2

~--fl
..- I I
I I

~ ~--u

"
~

g----~
I{) II
IIQ
llN
\\('>I
u
....
~~ I')

"\\ 0
g~
"
'"..
.
""
II

II
'l
I
\

" 'I
1\
U
...
U
II
'
I
''
I
I

,.
II \
' 0,...,

NOR00014

A6281
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 12 of 27 Document 258-5
0
~

48
FIG. 8A
so so
500
I i2a 82 17
-
~
~
f t)

....::s
===~==:======~=-------~133 -__{_J-.....!..
C~-
0
~
130 !)

41 ~
~
~

30 ~1 102 105 er.

00
::r

I ---
~
500
92
FIG. 88
~- : ~: ~: =
( (.
60 50

==.. ,. " === .. = =;. == " = = =-' == = ===: " =:: ~' - ;;~ == ::: = ::: = -.- = =
80 ) 17

.- -
i,
-.J

M l__ __
--------------- ~ ---------
41
11 ~ [C 210 277- ~
{/)
Q\
Oo
~
~
30 31 ):.
Q
\e
t:i:i
z N
0
:;ti
0

-
0
0
I .I\

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 13 of 27 Document 258-5


U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 12 of 17 US 6,834,409 B2

l()
ON
N .-

,....
0

-----olO....
... ,,..
,,,,,
II
11,.,, N
11.- 0
11
II
....
0 11 0
LO"'- Iv l'l
~It
11
~~:
u
a
n
II

--
v -
.-

0
I")

-
v

NOR 00016

A6283
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 14 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 13 of 17 US 6,834,409 B2

NOR 00017

A6284
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 15 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 14 of 17 US 6,834,409 B2

en
0
CX)\ I
0
0
""'"" - - ..
11
I
I ~~'
'! .!....1
~-

I
I
I
'!~ ~
=-1
I ~\
~~
I
1--~
I'! -I ,,. :~J,
:'
0
co ' - I ,_ I
L---J
I l

... - 'J
I
'---," '\~
~. 0
tO
~
'~
',~
I! ) I
I
___ JI

. I . .
-'
==J
in
If)

I ,,--.....
I ~I
I
~\
'\\~

L':l-r - :;J
I
I
I ~I
~...;
I

I
I
~

--
~
,~~
-
N
\(')

I ~
~'*
'~

" ...
I
.
'~

~/ \. 0
Ol

NOR 00018

A6285
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 16 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Du. 28, 2004 Sheet lS or 17 US 6,834,409 B2

0 c.o If)
CX)
0 ii)
CD
~

0
.
u.. '
\

....
~
-F --\,
\

~I
ro1
~
,~~
'~
;~1.1

f-==i I v

F--~~
QC)

~\
""'~
l I
I

I
I '~.
I

~ I/)
\() ~\
"'\

p,
I

~-t---~
I/) ~--I ...~

~
,
/ I
~~
'~
L _ _____

~
IX)

NOR 00019

A6286
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 17 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 16 of 17 US 6,834,409 B2

U1
w c

,----- aJ
>
0 co
or--
.

____
0
lJ_ '\
~~

~-t-\ ~
l() _ \_ _ _

F--L--
-,---
'

F_--,--
L __
I ~\
"~~

0
co
I ..
I --
J
I
I
'\\
I $1
FJ---- ~I
I

.....
a:>
r----
I If)

Fi__-~-
r----
\~
~::;;..

--t-~~---
~ -,---
I
~~
L _____ I

en
I{) ~

NOR00020

I A6287 I
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 18 of 27 Document 258-5
U.S. Patent Dec. 28, 2004 Sheet 17 of 17 us 6,834,409 82

FIG. 1OF
87 80 82
\
......
\
84 86 88i
55 I

--~
52f

FIG. 1OG
80 87

6l__ _[ __ e~4f""'"a~2::-:::~==~"~==:::;:~~===~
~ t';
', 560 j

,) 55--- 86 84
I

'f~- . . .
520 ....
56b

NOR 00021

I A6288 I
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 19 of 27 Document 258-5
US 6,834,409 B2
l 2
DOCK LEVELER Anolhcr problem wilh convcn1ional dock levelers is 1ha1
they tend IO lose 1hcir ability to fully extend the lip. The lip
TiiCHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION cxrcnsion mechanisms begins IO fail due t0 wear and Olher
cn~ironmcntal ennsldctalions, a lack of lubrication or spring
The present invention rel11u 1n a dock leveler with a deck s fatrg~. Instead of lalehiog and holding in an oulward
lift assembly that allows a deck alld estcndcd lip lO l'Cil on posi1ion. lhc lip 1cnt:b lO fall bad 10 its pendent position. The
and n~1 with a 1nilcr bed u it ia unloa&d. a lip extension
leveler remains i11opcra1ive u111il proper lip c:xt.cnsion is
mcc:hani.sm 1h11 aedvatcs when the deck is raised and
de1ctiv11CS when it is loWCfcd, lllll a dcc:lt ISSCll'lbly wilh a resiorcd by periodic: preventive maintenance: or adjusuncn1
combin.11ion lip lug and header plaic hin.11e auacllmeni. of the springs. Even a short outage can b& significanl given
to that these devicu 1ypieally opera~ in a heavy indUSlrial
BACKGROUND OF nra INVENTION COlllCXl.
Dock levelers arc used lo transfer goods between a Olhc I I
building and a truck trailer. Dock levers bridge the gap . r eve en n:place the mechanical latch with a hydrau
bctWten thc building ftoor 101hc bed of the trailer or simill.f he d_amric:r 1ha1 pcnnits the lip lO he extended freely but
carrier. Dock levelers i~llldo: . (ramc or supeon llnlCture res1nctcd us retraction. EYCn if the lip is not fully exiend, 1he
1
for moun1ing the leveler 1n 1 pit of a loadin,g dock. The rear S damper will re.lard its rcrracion Ieng enough for the operator
end of a conven1ional doc~ leveler is hinged lO the 'building to wallt lhe leveler clown IO the lnlck bed. Hydraulic
ftoor. The opposi1e end hann extcndable lip plate thal piV01$ dampers also quickly re1rac1 under high load. which can
e>ut and onto rhe tnilcr bed. Lcvclen 1re adapted to move prn~~ lhe lip mcc:hanism from damaae when the lip is
from 1 scnerally hnri;(l)fttal position where the 1tppcr surface ~1den1ally s1~'1t by a llU~k that backs into the _lip _while
20 sull cx1cndcd. Sull, hydrauhc da':"pcn have 1wo s1gnilicant
of lhc deck is Rush with the surfllcc or the building Door 10
a - d gcncr11ly inclined position 10 provide a ramp dr~s ..First, the damper begins to retract as JMn as the
helwecn the bed of 1hc truck and lhc doclt ftoor. !oad u _applied, and the operalOr must walk the leveler down
Doclt. levelers are typically actuated by springs, hydrau- 1mn~ately. Second: the viscosity of the hydraulic fluid is
lies or lhe like. U.S. P11. No. 3,137.017 pcnains to 1 spring 2S sens!hvc lO changu rn tempcr.uurc. In warm icmpcraturcs.
aaualed le~ler. U.S . .Pat Nos. 4,619,008 and 4.955,92.l lhe hp falls 100 quielcly for i11_0 come 10 rcSI on the truck bed.
pertain 10 hydraulic lcvclen. Other dock levers arc shown In cold. l.Clllpera1urcs. the hp falls too slowly wben the
and described in U.S. Pa1. Nos. 3.299,456; 3.368,229; J,S30 leveler as removed from the 1rue1t.
488. 3.835.497; 3.BS8.264;3.8n, I02: J,995,~2; 4.126.9()9; A ~unher Problem with conventional dnck lcvclcn is 1ha1
4,279.05(); 4,JlB.602; 4.455,703 and 4.922,S68, 1he disclo- 30 lhe wider. l":Qcr or thielccr 1he lip. 1hc harder his to extend
sures of which arc incorporated by reference herein. and hold lhe ltp in position. A loaded spring is typiully used
Mcdlanic.ally actuaicd dock. lc:vclen typically support ttic 10 assisl in e~lcnding Ute ~P Although lhc: assiSI sprin is
weish1 of the deck by sprinss. The springs arc biased 10 loa~ at all umcs. I~ ~v~la~le force of the assist spri_ng Is
propel the deck upward wheo a hold down device is CMl81~d w~ the l~p as m tlS pendent or parked posnion.
released. Alt operator n:lcascl 1be hold down mechanism lo 3S The assist s~ng 'Ptcally does not sum to work until 1he
ini1i11c: the loading cycle or to rcposi1ion the leveler when dock level~ S raised ~ lhe lip 111$ already begun 10
finished lo~i~g. The frOftl lip plate piVOIS from a hanging or eJlc:ncl: Thrs loss Of Cll"CCl~VC po".'er ~Un II Ille Stan of ill
pcndarit posruon 10 an CKtcnded position when 1hc ramp is ~xtens'?n. when ~he ass1sr spnns 1s needed mosi. Yet.
risins or when 1he ope111or walks rhc: ranip clown. The lip is rncreas1n1 the 1cns1on .or force of lhe wist springs makes it
typically extended by an ICluaior and held in its ex.tended 40 harder to walk the uru1 down.
posi\ion by another mechmrism. Por example, the lip can be A_ still further problem with dnc:k leveler design il con
eic.\Ctldcd by a c"hein allached 10 the lower frame lh111ightcns &rolling lhc nta the lip retracts from ilS ex1ended posilion 10
as the deck reaches lhc iop o( its 1ravel as in U.S. Pal. No. its pendent .position. Conven1ionail levelers use a damper as
l, 137,017. The lip is held in 1hl: extended position by a latch pan of 1hc hp opcra1ion to con1rol 1he rare of IClraction of 1he
lllllil the dock leveler is '"walwt down~ io a proper pnsition 45 Up.. Dlacrcnt dampen are required for di!fcrcn1 lip sizes and
whclc the lip makes contact with lhe bed or the tJailer. lhe wc11hls. One damper may allow 1 heavy lip tn fall 100
lip is lben supponed by 1he uuck. and the latch falls away. quickly. or a Hahl.weight lip 111 re1rac:1 100 slowly. As noted
A problem with ccnvcntional dock levelers ia that. the hold above, hydnulic dampers also suffer from variaiiON in lhc
clown device does not properly allow 1he dcdc to rise with viscosity of lhe hydraulic lluid due: to ftuc111aaiolls in tem
the trailer bed as the trailer is unloaded. The hold down .50 perature.
device typically has a brake that is allowed 10 slip or a lloa1 A still further problem with dock levelers ic the in1egri1y
spri~ that eomprw. Unronunau:ly, both of lheJC clcsips and durabilily of the hinge thal joins the lip plate to 1he deck
have 1nhcrcn1 naws. The slipping ac:tion of (ht brllr.c-type frame. This COMCClion is a critical pan of the leveler as it
devices e1uses wear. Adjustment is often required 10 ltcep must withsuind cooccnualtd suesse. as the fOflc lifl and Che
the proper 1ension. This adjiutrncnt varies wilh different S$ lolld it i$ carryina tnvcne from the buildin& 10 the trailer, or
lev~lcr si1.es and if no1 clone properly will either slip 100 vica versa. Conventional doclt leveler designs, weld a 1ubu-
eas1ly or hold 100 lightly and incrcau wear. Evcn1ually. tu hinge lo lhc lip plate and IO the header plate. The header
brukage occurs due to the cons11n1 applied fri"ion. Tiie use plate is welded to the de.ck pla1e and deck suppott be.am&.
of a lloac spring removes the need for adjustment by rq>lae The concenlrltcd strscs on the tubular hinge traditionally
ing lhc slip action with a hold down spring. The problem 60 rc.11111 in t1re.u cradcs in the places and their welds. A second
with n1111 springs is that they cause a ''bouncing eS"cct" 1ha1 deaian UIC$ lip plate lug to ltssen these &tresses. In lieu of
allows the lip plate and dcc:k plare lo separare d\trin& hctdcr plate, Ct!Opc:rating lugs ate also welded 10 the
loading, inc:rcating the frequency or impac1s and strcu on support WIN and deck plalc. A problem with this design il
the front hinge: area whetc most slructurll failures occur. lhll the unsupponed front cd&c: of the deck pla4I: is mort
This problem incrcasca in time as the sprinss faligue. 6S c.tsily bclll and dished between the svppon beams.
~enlng its holdina ability and Increasing the bounce and The present invcntioo is intended to i;olvc these and other
impact Slrcss. problcnu.

NOR00022

A6289
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 20 of 27 Document 258-5
US 6,834,409 B2
3 4
BRIEF D~CRIPT!ON Of THE INVENTION A still runhcr achoantagc o( 1hc prctcnt dock leveler
The present invention penains 101 mtehanieally aciuatcd invention is 1ha1 ii avoids the aforcmcnlioncd limila1ion~ of
dock leveler with a mounting frame secured in a pit of 1 CQnvenlional lip extent.ion mechanisms. The Up ex1ench
toadin& dock, and 1 deck assembly wilh a deck and e.1t1cnd- when tbc: deck is walked down by a lip extension damper
able lip. A deck lirl assembly biases the dcclt to move from S th11 is direcily linked 10 lhc lip. The lip extension clamper is
a partccd posilion 1o a raised position to activate 1 lip used to extend lhe lip rapidly instelld or only rcslrlctin& the
ex1cn:sion assembly. As the deck is "walked down", the lip rcltaction or the lip. This allows the lip damper to control lip
is exicnded and ihc lip extension assembly is deactivaied in extension and retraction. Fewer pans uc '!lecded. In
a con&rollcd manner so thal lhe deck and lip reach an addition, diacrcnt si7..c lips do not diminish the caectivcncn
engaged posilion agains1 Ille 1railcr and an: kepi in place by IO of the lip damper.
a hold down mechanism. The deck assembly has 1 Roat A slill funhcr adva11111e or Ille pre&em dock leveler is irs
housing with a venical slot for rc&easably engaging 1he liC1 use oCa lip wi" spring that ae1iv11cs as the ramp rises and
urernbl)' 10 achieve a range of ftoat posi1ions where the deck dcactiYllcs when the ra111p lnwcrs. This allows for a mucll
Ind lip rest on and float with the 1railcr as it is loaded and easier lip extension rcsultin& in a less walk-down force.
unloadtd. Thc dcclc assembly has a durable combined lip lug 15 more clliclcn1 use of pnwcr and a less rcsuiacd lip rctrac
and heacltr plate hinge conS1ruetion. lion.
One advuitase or lhc present dock leveler il\Vcntion is A still runhcr advancagc of the fl'C'Cl1t dock Jcvdcr is Iha!
that its in1c1raccd lifting mechanism combine& an upward ii proviclts a linkage dcvicc that engages 10 initillc lhc lip
bia.~ed dee\: Ii~ assembly with 1 hold down device withou1 cxlCllSion when lhe dcck assemhly is raised. and then
20
pcnnancntly auaching the lift mcmbly or hold down device disengages be(orc the lip Mly cxtcods and before the hold
10 the dcc1c or ramp. The dcclt a.uembly l'CSIS on and noau dnwn device is engaged. This ensures that the lip cannot be
wirh the iraile:r bed as tbe trailer Is uoloadcd and loaded. The ten in an extended position to be impae1ed by an incoming
up and down ftoat 1t1ion created by the tl'lliler springs is trailer. This also allows the lip 10 retract if an obstlllC(ion is
removed from the hold down, which removes unaccessary present at lhc rear of a !railer.
15
SlrCSses and wear and tear on the dock lcvclcn. Breaks and A 1ti11 (unhcr advalllagc or the dock leveler is ils solid and
other rriction devices that lend to wear out arc avoided, as durable auachmcnt or 1hc lip 10 1hc deck and dcek frame. A
is the bouncing cacct crea1cd by 1he lirlina springs or hold header plate is used to suppon 1he froni cd&e or 1he deck
down l\o111 spring. plate acrou its full widch. This hcidcr plate is cnn1bincd
Another advan1a1c of the prcscnl doclc leveler is 1hat the 30 with a lip plate lug type llinacs 10 reduce 1hc conccntra1cd
deck remains level during storage and use. The clcek lift SU'CUCS on the rubular hi11gc to provide a longer stNCNral
assembly is centered symmetrically beneath the deck wem- life for the dock leveler.
bly and pushes up against the deck assembly 11 a central Other aspccis and adva111agcs of the invention will
localion along ils width. The hold down device also au~ bnmc apparent upon m.ating relcrcncc to the specification,
10 lhc cc111cr of the dcclc lifl assembly along ils width. This lS clai"" and drawin&'
symmetrical SllllCturc eliminates 1wis1ing forces on lhe deck
or ramp by 1he deck till assembly or the hold down device. BRJEF DescRIPTJON 01' TH! DRAWINOS
B~ the hold ~wn is an in1e~~ pan of and ccntu~d FIO. I is a pcrspcaivc view o( a k>adin' dock o( a
w11~1n the deck hfi auc_mb!Y t~suna c:au&ed by the hn building equipped wilh lhc present dock leveler inven1ion.
spnng.s or hold down device is avotclcd. As a result, 1he deck 40 and a truck and !railer carrying 1 heavy load bacltcd up 10 the
remains levet during use and during siorage so 1h1t the dec:k dock leveler.
is level 10 Ille ft~ or he dock and an ovcrhcacl door can flO. 1 ls an enlarsed view of FIG. t showin& ihe dock
close on top or 11. leveler in its parked position with its deck even wilh the Roor
A further advantage of lhe present dock leveler is thal ii or the loading dock and sli1h1ly misaligned with 3lld hi&hct
cushions or controls the rile or speed the Roa1ing elect drops ~s than the trailer bed.
down to its. home pnsiti~ or raises up to l1s rai$cd po~ition. FIG. 3 is a perspective view of lhe dock lcvdcr in iis
A ~per is attached .dllCClly to ~between the deck and partccd podtion wilh the deck and lip cut away to show the
dcdc liA assembly. Th11 damper cushions or controls the ra1c mounting frame deck lir1 assembly and lip cxtt11sion
of speed 1hat the deck drops down when it returns lo ilS home mechanism. '
pos1tion from a ftoa1ing position, such as when ~ 1railcr .is so FIG. 4 ii an enlarged view of a ponion of AG. J showins
pul~ away fro~ 1he dock when the deck ~ hp arc sun the oricn1ation and strucl\lrc or some or the componenu
rcstm& on lhc Lrllltr. T1lc dai:nper alta cus.hon& CM controls (ormin& 1hc deck lif\ assembly uid lip ex1cnsion rncchallisrn.
the rue or spwt or the deck hft assembly nacs to cnaaic 1hc . . . .
ftoa1in1 deck ssemhly when the hold down mcchani~m is FIO. s ~ ~ Side W:l~I VICW or th~ dock leveler tn llS
released and 1hc deck and lip are i11 a noaiin& position resting SS parked pos111on and 1howin1 .the mounllng (ra~. Ille d~
on the railer bed. T1lc deck dllmper reduces any impact assembly. lllld bnlh 1hc dcclc l1ft assembly and hp extension
forces wticn eilltu the trailer lcaVC4 1vhUe 1hc lip is still mechanism'. . . .
CAga&ed on i1s bed. or wlicn 1he hold down is released 10 FIG: SA IS a side secuonal view of l'IG. S ~howuig 1he
raise the ramp before returning the ramp to iu parlced moun11n1 frame, deck asscmoly and the deck ltft as.sc:mbly.
position. 60 flCi. 58 is a side sectional view of FIG. S showing the
A aill fllrtltcr advantaac of the prcscn1 dock leveler i11h11 mounting frame. deck assembly and lip drive 111C(banism.
lhc rear end or the lip and the front end of the dcclr remain FIO. 6A is 11 licit sectional view of the dock leveler in a
in a 1ighi ab1111in1 engaaenicnt while the deck and lip an: 111iscd position showing the mounting frame, deck assembly
Roating on the 1railcr bed. Thi$ tight abutting engagement and deck lift assembly.
eliminaies 1he wear and tear caused by constant impact 6S FIG. 68 is a side sce1ional view of thc dock JeycJcr in iis
rorccs when 1he lip pivocs and 1cpara1es from 1he deck, and raised position showin& the mounting frame, dcdc assembly
thcll &IMIS back into abuuing engagement with the deck.. and lip extension mechanism.

NOR00023

A6290
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 21 of 27 Document 258-5
US 6,834,409 B2
s 6
FIG. 7 A is a side sectiOllal view of the doclc lcYelcr in a The lo3ding dock S is designed 10 racilitare access 10 a
dynamically extended position and showing the mounting trailct 15 of a truck 16 or Olhcf carrier. The trailer IS has a
fnimc, deck llSSCmbly and deck liO as~cmbly. bed 17 upon which items IA an: placed for transport The
FIG. 70 is a side scctionlll view or the dock lcYClcr in its trailer bed 17 is spaced above the road or surface oo which
dynamically elllendcd position showing the mounting r~mc, the trailer is traveling, and the ftoor 7 or the loading doc.le s
deck assembly and lip extension mcc;hanism raising the lip is spaced a desired distance from its adjacent driveway or
to an extended position. approach 19 so that a trailer bed 17 is somewhat near the
level or the dock noor 7 when tbc rear end of lhc trailer ts
FIG. BA is a side scetional view of the dock leveler in an is backed up to lhc lnml of Ille doclc. The Roar 11 of the pit
engaged position and showing the mounling frame, deck 10 10 is elevated a desired heigh! above the driveway 19, bul
asscmhly, and deck lin assembly with the lip engaging the could be even wilh or lower than the driveway depending on
trailer bed. the puticular circumstance without departing from the broad
FIG. BB is a side sectional view of 1he dock leveler in i\s aspects of the invention. The heigh! or the trailtl' bed 17
engaged position and showing lhc mounting frame, deck relative to the dock noor 7 depends on a variety nr factor&
auembly, and lip extension mechanism with the lip engag- that include the panicular trailer 15 involved and the weight
15
ing the traUer bed. of the item or iicnu 11 on the uailcr JS. The trailer bed J7
Fl~. 9 is ..side ~cctional ~icw of the dock lcvc~er in a rises and rails relative to the Roor 7 as items 18 arc placed
noanng posmon wnh the hp supponably engaging the on or removed from the uailer JS.
u11loaded 1ruek bed that has risen ~bovc the level of the The present inven&ion relates to a dock leveler generally
loading dock floor so chat the deck hi\ assembly no longer 20
illdicatcd by rcfcrcnc.c number 2& and shown in FIGS. 2-S.
supporlS the .deck asscm~y. . . . The dock leveler 20 has a variety of componcn11 including
PIG. 101\ 1s a pcrspcct!ve vt~ o~ l~ hp and htnge .P.late a moun1ing frame JO. a deck assembly 50 with an extendablc
or the <IOC:k leveler, showing 1hc hp tn us cxtcn~d pos111on, lip 80, a dcek lift assembly 100 and a lip extension mccha-
and showing the deck rra~c su~n beams,~ drive brack~ nism 200. The componcols arc robustly designed to suppon
and optnln1, and UI ass1it spnn1 mountm& brackcl in 25 the weight or the deck assembly SO and the loads it is
phantom. illW!dcd to carry when foitc lins and the like cany items 18
Fto. !OB is a rronl view or the lip and hinge pla~ or the over the leveler 20.. The components are generally made of
dock leveler. industrial grade Ste.ti or materials of similar sucngth and
FIG. toe is a rear view of the lip and hinge place or the durability. The componcnis may be paintro, coated or oth-
dock leveler. lO crwi~c treated to inhibic rust or corrosion.
AG. 100 is a IOp view or lhc lip and hinge pla1e or the The mounting frame assembly 30 is located along the
dock leveler. ftoor 12 and rear wall 1J Of lhc pit 10. The fnmc UM:mbly
FIC. lOEis a bouom view of the lip and hinge plate of the 30 has fron1 and rear ends, and includes a ~enlly hori
dock leveler. l.Ontal base frame or plllform Jl th11 is bolted or otherwise
FIG. IOF is a side view of 1hc lip and hinge plate of the 35 rigidly anchored 10 the floor 12. and a generally vcttical riser
dock leveler. frame 41 lha1 is similarly anchored 10 the rear wall JI. The
FIG. lOG is a side view of the lip and hill8C pl11c of the base frame 31 spans lhc lcn11h of the assembly 30. and
dock lcvclet. includes two spaced apan, generally parallel $idc beams 31
thal are rigidly joined by a rear mounting chanriol .33 locaicd
DESCRl'P'I10N OP THB PREFERRED O at the rear end or the base frame. Tbc base frame 31 also
EMBODIMENTS includes 11110 forward mounting channels 34 localed at ii&
While this inventioo is susceptible of cmbodimcnl in front end. The mounting channels 33 and 34 arc rigidly
many dilTcrcnt forms, 1hc drawings show and the 5pctilica- anchored 10 the lloor 11 of the pit JO, and the side beams 31
1ion describes in detail a prcfc!l'ed embodiment or lhe arc welded, bolted or otherwise rigidly secured l.O the
invention. It should be underslood that the drawings and S mounts 33 and 34. A cross beam 35 is welded or Olhcrwise
spccilicalion arc to be considered an exemplification of the rigidly secured 10 the side beams 31 toward the mid seclion
principles of 11\c invention. 111cy arc nor intended 10 limit the of lhc base 31. The cross beam 35 has a bracket 36 rigidly
broad aspccU of the inYCntion to the embodiment illu~tratcd. sceurod to and cxtcndina forward from its front surface. The
FIG. I shows a building or structure 4 wi1h a loading dock brackci. 36 supportably receives a piYOl rod 36a. The base
S. The loading dock 5 has a generally Ral, hori~ontal, 50 frame 31 also includes a longitudinal hcam 37 located
elevated noor surfau 7 and a generally vcnical front wall 8. between and generally parallel to the side beams 31. One
The building 4 has a doorway 9 with an overhead door (n0t end or the longitudinal beam 37 is rigidly secured 10 lhe
shown). The loading dock 5 has a pit 10 or sullicicnl depth cross beam JS and the other end is rigidly secured lo the rear
to house a doc.le leveler. Tbc pit 10 has a rear wall or surface mounting channel 33. A post 38 extends upwardly and
JI, a bouom ftooc or surface 12, opposed sidc111llls or ss generally Yenical from the lonai1udinal beam 37. The post
surfaces 13, and an open fron1. The lloor 11of1hc pit 10 is 38 has a top end that $Upponably receives a pivot rod J&o.
generally horizontal or slightly sloped for drainage. and is The pivot rod 38a is spaced a prcdctennincd distance above
spaced 1 desired diStance from the floor 7 of the loadin& the base frame 31 and ftoor 11. />,. lip suppon 39 is rigidly
dock S. The walls 1t and 13 arc generally vertical or normal fixed to the l'ronl surface of each front mount 34. The beams
10 the noor surfaces 7 and 12. Although the walls of the 60 and post 32, JS, 31 and 38 preferably have a square
building 4 11r1d doorway 9 arc shown set back from the front crossscctional shape, and 1he moun1& 33 and 34 prafcnbly
wall 8 of tho loadina dock S, il should be undcntood that the have an L-shaped cross-sectional shape.
buildin& walls and door could be aligned closer to or Rush The riser 41 is lacated along 1hc rear wall t 1 ol the pit 10,
with the rron1 wall I withouc adversely impactin& the and is preferably welded or otherwise rigidly secured to the
invention. For example, an overhead door can be positioned 6S rear end of the base frame 31. The riser 41 includes three
directly above tho dock leveler toward the open front end of evenly spaced, gencnlly parallel side beams 41. joined
the pil 10. together by an upper mounting channel 44 and 1hc rear

NOR00024

A6291
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 22 of 27 Document 258-5
us 6,834,409 82
7 8
mount 33 of lhc base fram~. JI. The 1wo ou1cr risers 41 are The tlcck iusr.mbly !(0 inr.11111<'~ 11 Rnllt ho11iins 711. TN-
aligned with lhc side beaim 31. The bo110t11 ends of each Roal housing 70 has &wo lilie-shaped, generally pll'l'lar,
riscr42 is rigidly secured 10 lbc n;ar end of ils rcspce1ivc side spaced apan pla1cs 72 lhal cx1end downw~rdly from 1hc
hcam 32 or to the rear moum 33. Each of the outer risers 42 deck 60. The upper end of each pla1e 72 is preferably welded
hlS an analcd bfac:c 4,. Each brace 411 is welded or Olhcrwisc 5 or otherwise ri&idly secured 1he underside 66 of lhc deck 110.
rigidly scaired lO its rcspeciivc side beam 32 and riser 42. and are loca1od about midway between lhc side cd1c1 of the
The moun1ing channel 4.c is aligned agaillSl and anchored 10 deck and between the suppon beams Slc and S2d. F.ach
one or bolll of the lop or 1hc rear wall 11 and the Roor 7 of pla<c 72 has a subs1antially linear slOI 74 wilh prcdc1ermincd
the lolding dock S. The risen 42 ac rigidly secured 10 1hc width and lcna1h dimensions. The places 72and1heir slots 74
upper moun1 44 10 firmly suppon a. fixed 111bular hinge or 10 are in suhstaniial rcgisiry w'hcll viewed from the side and
pivo1 mount 48 for pivocally supponing the deck assembly have upper and lower ends 7S and 76. The slot 74 is
SO. The frame JO is prefc.rably pcm111ncntly lllJ<:hcd tu c;~ subs1an1ially vcnical whert 1he deck 60 is in iu horiznn1al or
in slW in 1hc building 11~ al its rear pillOI end. parked position SOA.
The dcclc assembly SO includes a auppon frame 51 and a The clcclc wcmbly SO include.' 1he eatcndable lip 80 that
deck 60. The deck ~~bly SO .a~ clcclc 60 arc !"vablc 15 has a acnerally red1n1ul11 $hapc and is hi11gably or other
throu&h a r~~&c nf 1n;chned positions bdYICCll raised ~ wise pivotally secured to the header plate SS. The lip 80 has
lowered pos111ons as discussed below. The frame SI lw six .
evenly spaced, parallel be.ams S2a-/ and side platei S3 a. prcdclcmuncd l~tth defined by llS pvallc_I inner or
joillcd iogcal\cr by a rear plate S4 alld a header plate ss. The h1J1Bcd en~ 12 ~ us ou1er or frc~ end 14. ~ hp 80 has a
front end o( each beam 52a-/is welded or O\herwisc rigidly p~deMlnru~. w~ de~ncd by 11s panlld ~1dc edges 15.
secured 11 evenly spaced incrcmcnlS 10 1he inside or from 10 each of which is aligned 1n lhc same plane as ns correspond
surface of the rur plate 54, and chc front end of each beam in~ side ~c 65 or the deck. 60. The lip tlO has a prcde1er
is welded or 111hcrwisc rigidly secured 11 the same evenly mined thickness defined by Ht pnerally parallel lower 111d
spaced inercmcntt 10 the inside or rear surface of 1he header upper surfaces 8'and 87. The upper surface 87 is slighdy
or
pla1c SS. The top Che outside: or rear surfact. of the rear sloped toward the lower EUrfacc 86 near ouccr end 14.
plate S4 is firmly and pivo19lly SC(Urcd LO the hinge 48 111hc 2S The lower surface 16 of che lip 80 has ci1h1 subsrarulally
1op of lhc risers 42 of the suppon frame JO. Two spriJlg evenly spaoerl, pualld lu&s 18a-i located along its hinged
mounts arc secured 10 the underside or lhe deck (rune 51 as inner end 81. Ones of fourlugs Ua-d is located along the
discussed below. length or one half or the lip 80, a middle lug Ille is loca1cd
The header pi.ce. SS has a rcc1J111ul11 shape and is aligned at the ecn1er or the lip. and a second se.r. of rout lu1s 88/-i
SUbStanlially vertical and pupendicular lO lhe lower Ind 30 is localed alMg lhe lcnglb Of the Olhcr half or the lip. Each
upper surfaces 66 and '7 or 1he deck 60 as besl shown in lug lla-i is perpendicular 10 and eiucnds rearwardly or
FIGS. 5 and IOA-100. The plate 55 is aligned parallel to downwardly from the lo111er surface ff. Each Jug~ is
and oO'sct a slight discancc rcarwardly from the front edge 64 ali&ncd to llushly engage one concsponding lug saa..; orthc
o{ lhc clcclc 60. The plalc 55 has a predc1ermi11ed heigh! header plaLC SS. The side of each lip lug 88a-i llushly
defined by i1s pnllcl rop and bouom ends S6o and 56b. a " engages the side of its corresponding header lug 59a-i. Up
prcdclcrmillcd width defined by ill parallel side ends 57a lugs Slo-c engage the left side of the.ir CO(Tcspollding header
and S?b, and a pccdc1crmincd thickness defined by its lu& SBa--e, and lip lugs 88/-i engage the right side of 1hcir
parallel front and rear surfaces S8o and Sib. Each side end comlSponding header lug S3f-i. Each header lua Slo-i and
57 is generally evenly aligned with ilS concspo11din& side each lip lug 18a-i has a hole. l1ac holes arc 1i11CM)y
end llf the deck 60. The front sunace Slo has a flnt set of 40 aligned holu 10 rccdvc the pNot rod 89. The pivo1 rod 19
four evenly apaecd. parallel lugs 59a-d, a central lu& 59~. passea throuah each hole in the lugs S8o-i and 88o .; 10
and a sccnnd sci or four evenly spactd lugs S9f i. Each lug pivotally connect the lip 80 to the deck assembly SO. The lip
59a i ex1ends llCJllCNlicularly outward or foiward from the IO is adapwl 10 move bc:twccn a pe.ndant or hanging position
front surface Sia of 1hc plate SS. Lugs 591Hl arc each 91 as in FIGS. 3. S. llA 111d 68, and a fully exlCndcd position
lillClfly ali&ncd with one correspondin1 beam of 1hc hcams ~5 92 as in PIGS. 9 and IOA-100, or any intermediate or
SJo-c of the decJc rrame 51. and luas S'J/-1 are each linearly partially extended there between such a& posi1inns 93 as in
aligned wilh one com.'pondin& beam or beams 52d-/. PIGS. 7 A and 78. The lip IO is biased into its hanging
The deck 60 is preferably a sheet or pla1e or lllCl.ll. The position 91 by ii$ own weigh&. When in iu hangjng posi1ion
deck 60 has a predc&cnnlnr.d 1en11h deftnr.d by ill parallel 91, the lip 80 is generally parallel 10 the header plate SS.
rear and from ends 62 and 64. The rear end '2 ia llushly so When lined 10 i1s fully extended polilion '2. 1bc rear of
aligned wilh the rear place 54. and iu fronc end 64 ciuends hinsed end 82or1hc lip 80 abuts he front or free end '4 of
sli&hlly beyond 1hc header plalc SS. The deck 60 has a lhc deck 60. and the lip is generally parallel 10 the deck.
prcdclcrmined width defined by its parallel side ed&es '5. The dock leveler .20 has a declc lift assembly 100 shown
each of which e11cnds a slighl dis11nce beyond ilS corrc- in FIGS. 3-5 for rclcasably supporting chc deck assembly SO
sponding side: plate 53. The deck 110 has 1 prodewmined 55 and raising and lowering it 1hrough 1 ran1c of po1i1ions
thickness defined by iis parallel lower and UJlpcr surfaces 6' belwccn upper and lower posilions by pivo&ing Ill" routing it
and 67. The lower iurfacc" is welded or 01herwisc ricidly up or down about hinge 48. FIGS. SA, 6A, 7A, 8A and 9
securedtorhc frame SI, and iuuppersurfau67 i$ generally show the lift assembly 100 with lhe deck a.sscmbly SO in its
ftal 111d free and cleat or obstniclions. The upper end of the parted position 50A, raised poai1ion SOB, dynamically
rear plate S4 i& continuously welded IO 11\c lower surface 66 60 extended position SOC. engaged posi1ion SOD and noat
of the deck '8, and the upper end S6o of !he header plate SS position SOE. re.speaively. The lift wcmbly 100 includes a
ic continuously welded 10 the lower surfecc 66 rro111 one side lower lift frame or arm 102 with an inner pi11a1ing end 103
65 arid 57of1hc dc:.ek and header plate 10 the othcr.1ltc cleck and a free end 104. "Jbc lower lift frame 102 is formed by
assembly SO is pivotally sccumd to hinge 48 so that the 1wo spaced suppon or side beams IOS thal arc integrally
upper surracc 67 or lhc dock is panllcl to the floor 7 of the 6S joined 1ogc1hcr at the inner end J06 by 1 erou mount 107
deck 5 "1hcn 1hc deck is in its home Of parked position SOA and al lhe free end 104 by a cross beam 18' so th11111eJe
as shown in FtG. 5. cnmponcnlS 111ove in unison. The suppon beams 105 are

NOR00025

A6292
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 23 of 27 Document 258-5
US 6,834,409 B2
9 10
loca1td hctMcn lhc side beams 32 or111e base fr;irnc 31, and pla1cs 72 or lhc noa1 h<lusing, and securely and pi\'Utally
arc generally parallel IO lite beams 32 when lite decir receives push rod 128. The 1cl~pin1 bar 131 is i111cgrally
as.,cmbly SO is in its llome or parked posi1ion SOA as in and pivnially joined 1n lhc upper lif1 ann 120 by lhe push rod
FIGS. 3,5 and SA. Tile cross mount 107is pivotally seaired 12810 form ajoint thal remains insidc1heslo174. The lower
to 1hc pivot rod 36a of lhc !lase (ranic JI w 1ha1 1hc lower arm lt>1, upper arm 120 and hold doo&.n mc:chanism tJI
li(l arm 102 is Cree to roui1c about 1hc pivot roe!. form 11 1ri:1ngular suue111rc t..eo 1ha1 can vary in i1s shape u
A liC1 biasing mechanism 110 lhll eonrinuously bia~ 1hc discussed bet-. The lower arm I 01, upper :arm 120 and
~ inlO it fully raised posilion SOB. The free end 104 of hold down mechanism 131 c1ch form one side 141, 142 and
the Iii\ 11111 102 rotllles or pivo15 upwardly about piv04 rod 143 of tllc: lrianglc 1...0, rupcctivcly, as shown in AG. S. '111c
36a as in liCi. ,A. 'The liCl biasing mcehanbm is fomlCll by 10 side.' 141 and 142 formed by the lower and upper arms 101
a set or 1wo spring attachmcnls 111. Each spring auachmcnt and 120 remain c.on.\lant. The side 143 formed by lhc hold
U1 includes. 11 spring 112. an adjuslablc mounl 113 Ind a down U I varies 1hrough a range of lcngrhs bctwcc.n its
rigid moun1 114. One adjuaablc mou111 113 is secured to retracted and fully extended lengths. The $ides 14J and 142
each o( 1hc lWO side beam 105 at a location a liulc mon: lhan of the 1rian11e 140 formed hy 1hc lower and upper anns 102
half way 10ward its free end UM. Thit lllOUnl 113 lncludcs IS and 12~Horm an analc of about 45 when 1hc dk assembly
a threaded rod and bolt for tighc.cning ar looscnin1 lhc SO is i11 its parted posilion SOA and an angle of aboul I 10
rensfon on lite sprin& 112. Each rigid mount 114 is stcurcd when in !he raised posilion SOB.
between 1wo adjacc:nl beams S2 toward !he rear of lhe deck A dampcr ISO conrrols lhe rate of spcc.d 1he deck a.ucm
frame SJ. One mounl 114 is secured to beami 52.b and 52.c, bfy SO and lift ASSCmbly 100 rnove rclalivc 10 each othet,
and lhe other is secured In bclms SU and ~- Each rigid 20 such ax when 1hc deck auembly is in a Ooat posilion SOE. as
mount 114 has a rod t14a that extends laterally between irs in FIO. 9. The dam!lC{ 1SO hn a lits1 half wilh a lirsr end
rcspt.ctive beams 52.b and 52.c or SU and S2c. One end or 152. and a mating second hatr with a sceond end 153. The
each spring 112 is hooked or ochcrwisc pill04ally secured to lint end 152 is pill04ally secured 10 a braclicr 154 welded 10
ils adjusiable mount 113, and lhc 01hcr end is hooked OI' rhe c.rou hcam 107 at the ouier end UM of rhe Iowa arm
othctwisc pivoially secured 10 the rod ll4a of its com: u 101. The second end 153 is pivorally secured to a brae.kc.I
sponding rigid mount 114. 155 welded to rhc undcuide of lite dcelc '4. When the push
The deck lift ISSCll\hly 100 includ an upper lif1 um 120 rod JU is locared al lhe upper end 7S of 1he slOl 74 as in
wilh lower and upper ends 123 and 124. The lifl arm 120 is FIOS. S-8. lhc damper ISO is in a re1racu:d or dcactivarcd
formed by two like-shaped srruu llS, a hinge mount J2' posirion IS6. When rhc push rod 12& is spaced from lhc
and a pudl rod 121. Tile struts 125 arc parallel and spACCd 30 upper end 75 of the slot 74 as in AG. 9, the damper !SO is
apan lo waddle lhc pities 71 of lhe ftoal housing 70, and arc in an exrcndcd or activated position 157. The deck damper
gc:ncrally planar to 1hc plates 71. The lower pinllcd end 113 1SO resiSIS compression to con1rol 1he r11t of speed 1ha11he
of each suut 125is piVOlally auached tolhe hinge mount 126 deck assembly 50 dropl when lite miler JS leaves lhc dock
so thal the upper Ii ft 11111 120 Is free 10 ro111e or pivot abour 5 wirh 1hc deck ASSCmbly SO in ils ftoating posirion SOE. The
rhc hinge mount. The upper ends J24 of the saru1s 125 have )S dc:elc damper ISO also controls the ra1c of speed rhat lite lift
aligned holes for securely rueivin& lite push rod 128. The ilSSCmbly 100 rises when the hold dnwn mechanism 130 is
push rod 121 has a ptedetumincd diameier cizcd to snugly rele~ and the deck assembly SO is in rhc lloatin& posirion
Iii and Creely move inside the slot 74 of the Ooat housing 70 SOE.
from one end 1S of the slol 10 lite other 76. The dock leveler 1.0 has 1 lip extension assembly 200
A hold down mcclwli&m 130 Is provided 10 hold 1he dc.l:k 40 shown in FIOS. 3-S for exlCllding lite Hp 10 for engagemcnr
assembly SO at its puked posirion SOA as in FIOS. 3, S and with a trailci bed 17. FlGS. SB, ,8, 78 and 88 show Ille lip
SA or at a desired inclillcd poci1ion such as engaged position c111cosion assembly or rocdlanism 200 with the deck assent
SOD as in 1110. SA. Tile deck lift wcrnbly 100 cOC1tinoously bly SO in i11 parlted position SOA, raised position SOB,
biucs the deck 50 up toward its folly nisecl posilioa SOB as dynamically c1rendcd positioo SOC and engaged position
in FIO. ftA. The hold down mcchanitrn 130 includes a ,s SOD, respectively. The mechanism 200 lifts or rotares 1he lip
convcnlional telescoping hold down bat 131 formed by a 80 from iu pcndlrit position whcte it ~ rubstanrially per
lim lixcd bar 131, a 1elCS(()Jlina bar 133 wirh an outer end pcndicularly oricnwf to lhc deck 60 as in FIO. 68 10 iti
134, and a ratchet mtehanicm 135. The liud har 131 has an excendcd posilion where il is sub&Wltially horizontal and
end lhat is limlly pinned IO the "ou moun( 106 of lhc lower relatively planar 10 rhe deck 60 OI' dock ftooc 7 u in l'IO. 78.
lift arm 102. lrs llUICI end is adapted IO sccurdy receive the so The lip extension rncch1nism 200 is fonncd by a number
one-way ratchet mechanism 135. The ralchct mechanism of compoMnls including a push bar or drive member 110. a
135 includes a locking mechanism with a ielease lever 136 crank or connccror 220, a drive link 240 and a drive bracket
and rclca.~c acti vOlion mcchalliam J37 fnrmcd by a cable and 250. These compone111& are arranged one adjacent to rile
a handk: 131 thal is accessible from lilt deck. SO. The locking O&hcr. wt ase c.onncacd or otherwise .stC\lrably or rclcas-
mc.chanism i' biased into a locked pos&rion. Unlocking the ss :ahly linked 1ogcthcr in scri~ to woclc in uniM to cxacnd lhc
lo'k mcc:hanisrn IO an unlocked posi1inn by rota1ing rdcasc lip 80 o( the deck assembly SO. The components arc per
lever 136 via rclcasina ac.tivalion mcdlanism 137 allows the mancnrly or releasably joined or secured lo the 0thcn in
telescopina bar 133 IO iclcseopc. out or retract. fOl'cc transmining communic.iion 10 enable rhe lip cim:nsion
"Ille telescoping bar 133 i.s nOlchtd alon1 one race co thlll assembly 200 to pvsh or drive the lip plate IO rrom irs
the lcn&th of lhc hold down bar 131 can be SCI to a desired 60 pead1111 posi1ion rowarct its cxlcnded posilion. The push bar
length by rhe ratchet lllCChanism 135. The lelew>ping bv 110 has a prcdeletmincd length and ftTsl and st.COlld ends
133 can extended through a nnge of CllWld positions 213 and 214. The lint or load bearing end 113 is pinned or
between a rc1rnct posirinn and a fully e11cndcd posirioa The olhcrwisc plvorally secured rhc pivol rod J8o on 1he post :Tl
ratdtcl mc:dlanism 135 allows itsovcnll length 10 shoflcnor of the base frame 31. 'The crank 220is formed by 1 pla1c 211
rClracl 11 any rime, bur only allows its lcn&lh to lcnglhcn or '5 hiving a prcdclumincd length with opposed ends 111 and
telcsce>pe out whcll 1he levu is released by the operator. The 223. The a:ank plate 211 has a widel' mid sccrion 27.A sn lhal
ourer end 134 of tlle telescoping bar 233 passes bcrwc.cn lhe it likes on a generally lriangular shape with a third end 125.

NOR00026

A6293
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 24 of 27 Document 258-5
us 6,834,409 82
n 12
011!' end 2ll is pinned or othcrwi5<1 piYOtally iccirt.d 10 the strelr.hahlc 1hrouah a range of length~. The sprina 170 hu
underside or Ille deck 60 via a mountin& bnckct 22' and rod ftrsc end 211 that is hooked or <11hcrwisc pivotally secured 10
226a. Tiie mid section end 125 of Ille crank p(aic 121 is the free end l2J oflhc CJank plate 121, and another end 273
pinned or OlhcJWisc pivotally SCQJrcd to 1hc second end 114 that is honked or otherwise pivo1ally scc:urcd to a bracket
of Ilic push bar lJO via a rod 114a. A pair o( 11uds ll? and s 2'4 welded lO the rear surface nf 1hc header pl1c SS. When
2ll cinend from one side of lhc cnnk plllc 221. The first or the push har 210 and crank 220 arc pulled or rota1cd back as
drive stud 127 ii IOQICd between fRC end 213 and mid in flG. 68, 1he assist spring 210 is sirciched 10 an activated
section end 2l5. The second or release stud 2ll is 1li1htly position 175 1o help pull the crank 210 forward and extend
offset from the drive 51ud 217 in lhc di~tion of the free end 1hc lip 110 via 1hc drive link 240 and drive bracket 250 to its
223. 10 extended position 93 as in AG. 78. The decoupling of the
The drive link or rod 240 ll\O\IC$ between cnaaacd or
disengaged posi1ionsat predetermined i\llJICS of deck incline
to 1clce1ivcly e..1cnc1 1he lip ao When the deck is bcina
drive link 240 from the crank 120 deactivates the auist
sprina 210. When 1hc lip 80 is ex1cndcd and the dc:cl<
conlinuca to be walllcd clnwn !() that the lip cngascs the
'
lowered or to allow the lip to rotate under ilS own wci&ht to trailer bed 11 as in FICi. 88, 1hc ~pring 170 recoils and is in
itS pendant position !H. The dril/O link 240 has 1 prcdetcr IS a dcaaiva1cd ""ition 28'7 1ha1 docs 1101 rcsis1 the lip rrom
mined length and lirst and second cnd5 242 and 243. The ,.....
seconclftcc end 243 has a llOICll 244 to receive and abutinaty falling !lack 10 its pendant position 91. This rcsistanoc is
cnaa&c the drive stud 221. As the deck SO is raiACd, as in controlled by lhe damper lM.
)'10. 68, the crank plaic 221 ii pulled or rotalcd back by the The damper 280 is movahle between retracted and
push bar 210 so that the dri"'e stud 221 is above the release cx1cndcd lcn11hs. The damper 280 has a lil'Sl half 283 with
stud 228 and the: notdled end 243 o( the link 240 Is aligned :io a shaft 1ha1 fits be1wccn the 1wo plates 252 of the drive
over the drive stud 227. The no1c.M.d end 243 of the link 140 bracke1 250. The end or 1hc: shaf\ has an opening for
drops down under its own weiahl so 1ha1 the chive stud 227 receiving rod 1S4o and pivotally sccurina the damper 28010
is received by the notch 244. The drive link 240 is now in che bfackCI 250. The damper 280 has a sccnnd half 284 with
its engaged position 24S. "'.he ~grcc of Incline needed ~ an opposed shaft. The end or 1his shalt is pivotally secured
allow the c~~ 110 ~ drive hnk 240 lo move Into 1he1r " to the free end 223 of chc crank plate 111 in the vicinity or
cnga&~d ~s111on 24S 1s pani~lly ~1erml~ ~Y ~length or che drive stud 121 so lhat the damper is roughly parallel 10
1hc dnvc hnk. When the drive hnll 240 1s 111 llS eng;,gcd the drive link 240. Wheft the deck assembly SO i1 in its
Po$ilinn 245 and the deck 60 is "walk~ do":"'" he push bar parked Jl0$ition SOA as in AG. SB, 1hc damper 280 is in a
210 pushes thc_eranlc ~Ile 221 and dri"'c link 240 ~rw~rd retracicd or othciwi~ deactivated position 217. When the
10 cx1cncl or raise the ."P llO. The er~ 220 and ~~ve hnk JO deck wcmbly so is railed and the push bar 110 and e11nk
240 move 1ow-.ird their release or d1scn111cd pos1uon ~ 224 are roc1tcd back in FIG. ,A, the damper 280 is pulled
when the deck assembly SO approachc1 11 dynamic 10 an extended or activated position 215 Jn which the damper
extended position ~ IS in FTO . 18: The rdcasc smd ~ is ftllcd with air. The damper 280 is designed to freely allow
Cft&1es Ilic bononl side of the dnvc link ~ ~ pushes 111 it 111 open 10 its cittcndcd position 215 so 1hal ii docs not
free c~ 24~ up and.ouL or en~aacmcnt will! d~~c stud 12?. l$ inhibit raising the deck auembly so. and t0 resist sudden
The dnvc hnk 240 11 shown 1n Its rdusc pos111on in F\O. closin& 1o iis reiracled position 281. When 1bc push bar 110
88. and crank 220 are pushed or rotated rorward in a rela1ivcly
The drive bn1ckct 250 is fonncd by two like-shaped pla1cs quick manner, such l l when lhc deck is being walked down
251. The plates 252 arc spaced apan and parallel when hctwecn F10S. 78 and 88, the damper 280 resists being
viewed from the front, and in registry when viewed from lhc O rapidly pushed into ilS rc1raatd position 217. Even though
side. The plates 252 arc joined by a brackCI (not lhown) 10 lhc drive link 240 disengages. the damper 2IO continues 10
that they move in unison. Each plate 252 baa lint and second maintain the Up 80 in ht cittended position 93 by actively
ends 253 and 254. A pivot hole is located k\wud lbe lint end l'Clisting the lip from rotating down durin& the relatively
25J Of each plllC 252 10 pivotally IUCiVC pivot rod 89. The quick decenl of lhc dcek 60.
ftrsl encl 253 hu a flat abutment 255 adapted 10 ftushly and s .
relcas.ably enaage 1hc underside 116 of the lip 80. The second Opcrauon of the Dock Leveler
end 2S4 is pinned or otherwise pivotally $CCW'cd 10 the ftrst Allhllugh the operation of 1hc dock leveler should be
end 24lofthe drive ling 240 by a pivot rod 1S4o. When the apparcnt 1iven che ahove discuMion, the following is pro-
drivc link .240 is engaged and I.he deck 60 is being le>wcrcd, vidcd 10 will lhe reader. When the dock leveler 20 is in its
the drive lillk .240 pushes Ille drive brackCI 250 and rOUJtes so parked po.si1ion SOA as in FlCi. 5, the operator pulls a handle
ii forward about pivot rod 89. The abullllelll 1S5 Rushly 138 that releases the hl\ld dnwn device 130, which allows
tn&8'Cl lhe underside 86 or the lip 80 and rGIJICS the lip tO lhe biasing mechanism 110 to raise lhe lower arm 102
an ext.ended posiliGn, such u when the deck assembly 50 is upwardly by rotating it abouL pivot rod 36o. This upward
in its dyna.,.caUy ex~ncJcd position SOC. 'l'hc liplO is now movement or the lower arm 102 simultaneously eau!t1 chc
substantially horiion1al 10 the ftoor 7 and trailer bed 17, and " outer end 124 or upper arm 120, which musl rcroain in slot

ment IO the Ul'JlCI' surface 67 of the dcck '


its upper surface 11 approaches a 1c11Ually parallel align
Wbcn the drive
link 240 is disengage.cl and Ille drive bracket 250 is not being
74or1hc Roat hc>using 70, 10 rotate away rrom the lower arm
102. The push rod Jl8 or the arm J10 pushes up against the
upper end ?S or the ftoal housing 70, which cau.~s the deck
forced rorward. the wcighl of the lip SO biases il to ro111e or ramp assembly SO 10 pivot upwardly about Its rear end 62
down until it engages the aurfacc oflhe tniler bed 11. When 60 and hinge 41 so lhat the front end 64 rises to Its raised
Ille trailer IS pulls away rrom the loading dock S ttr there is position SOB as in FICi. 6A. As the ramp assembly SO
no Ir.Iller in front of the dock levclu 20 wltcn ic is being ascends, the push bar 210 pulls the extension crank 220
lowered, chc wci&hl of the lip 80 biases it in10 its &entrally beck. The crank 220 piwts about its pinned end 122. which
venial pendant posllie>n 91 so thal its free end 114 is able to is SUJCd 10 the undcnidc '6 or the nmp 60. As the ramp
mace into Of' be received by tile lip suppons 39. u anembly 50 approaches the c1ttcn1 oflcs upward motion. the
The lip extct1sion 100 includes an aui11 sprina %70 and a linlcaae arrn 240 'lide& from an inoperative pnsition 247 to
damper 280 for helping extend the lip 80. The spring %70 is an opcracivc or engaacd posit.ion 245 by locking iis notched

NOR00027

A6294
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 25 of 27 Document 258-5
US 6,834,409 B2
13 14
end 244 into SC(:urc engagement with the piVOI pin or drive the bed 17. The lip will initially pivOI down under i11 own
Slud 227 or the crank 120 as in FIG. 68. As the deck weight The deck mcmbly SO will pivot down when a
assembly SO riics, the lip assis1 sprin1 170 eJUcnds rrom an person or rorltli ntravcll back onto the deck 60 until the rear
at rest position 277 to a stretched or powered position 27S end 12 or the lip 10 is again in abutting cngasement with the
10 hias the crank 220 and lip 10 (orwMd. making ii easier to s front end 64 of 1hc deck 60. The deck assembly SO can pivot
extend the lip. As the dcA:k assembly 50 ri~ the damper down until its lower arm J02 bounms out againSI 1hc floor
2IO is also pulled in to an operative position 285. 12 or the pit 10. Jt should be undcntood 1ha1 the ftoor ll can
Wilh 1hc link11c ann 2AO engaged. the wist spring 270 be: racs.~ funhcr beneath the lift assembly 1.0010 allow the
and damper 280 activated, and tllc relative motion of the <lute ahClllbly 50 10 be piVOICd downward or lowered
ramp 60 stopped in its raised position SOB, the opcratorthctl 10 si&n.ificantly below the surface 7 or the deck 5 without
walks forward on the deck ' ramp 60 towards Ille lip IO dcpllting from the broad upcc1s or the invention.
toward its fronr edge 64. 1bc weigh! or the operator over- When the trailer 15 has been loaded or unloaded and is
cnmc.~ the force of lhc liOing springs lll and the ramp ready 10 pull away, the operator can use the: handle 138 10
dc$CCnds as in FIGS. 7A and 78. ~the ramp 60 begins 10 re~ the hold down mechanism 130 to raise the dcdc
dc$0Cnd, tbc lip 80 begins to extend via lhc: i11tCfCOllnc:clc:d 1s assembly 50 1o an imctmedi11c or slighlly inclined posiliM
drive bracket 250, linltagc m 240, extension crank 220 and rhat is below 1he dynamic posilion SOC so thal tbc drive link
push bM 210 conncClcd to lhe swionary rrarnc 30. As the 240 il ROI engaged. lbc lip 80 then pivo1 dowo 10 its
Unlp assembly 50 rOlates and 11\0VCS ror:ward and downward pendant posilion 91 generally perpendicular 10 the dcclc 60
into its dynamic or intc:nncdiate position SOC, 1hc forward and parallel to 1he headct plate 55. ll\c operator lhcn walks
roca1ion ofthe cxrcnsion crank 1lO and the orientation of lhc: 2ll down ihe deck so that the deck assembly 50 is in irs parked
drive and release studs l27 and 228 ca11sc the linbgc arm posi1ion SOA where: the lip IO is received by or mates into
240 to unlock or disengage. The danipcr 2&0 does the final and is supporwl by the lip suppona 39. Should the trailer
extension o( che lip 80 onlo the lnilcr hcd 17 to engaged pull away while the deck assembly 50 and its lip 80 an:
posilion SOD. At chis time, 1he lip assist spring 270 rcvcns Roaaint and 11 mcnaaging and supported by 1hc trailer bed
to its deactivated po.~ition 117. This allows the lip IO to lS 17 as in FIG. 9, lhc dtck assemhly will simply pivot down
rc1rac:1 nr pivot down into ils pc:ndw position 91 rcsiricttd uni.ii the push rod 128 of the Ii.fl assembly 100 engages 1he
only by the ~mper 280 ao that i_hc lip~' more quicllly upper end 7S of the sloc 74 or the Roat housing 70. The deck
and more ustly than a convenuonal assisted lip. damper ISO con1rols the spud and cushions the clccen1 of
As lbc: mo.p 60 continues to descend, the lip 11& extends the deck assembly SO. The lip 80 will also simply pi11ot
onto the tDiler bed 17 and into engaged posilion SOD es in lO down un1il it is in a generally vcnical han&ina po1i1ion 91.
FIGS. IA and IB. The operator is now free 10 drive a for\lifl The lip damper llO C6RllOI& the spcc:d and cushions 1he
or lift lruck in and OUl or the trailer across the Dmp 60 and dccc:nl or the: lip 80. From lhia disengaged position, Ille
lip IO. tu a trailer 15 is unloaded. its suspension springs operator can walk down the deck co iii parked posi1ion A if
raise its ttailcr bed 17. As the trailer bed 17 raises. the lower the riu end 84 of lhe lip IO is above lhe lip suppons 39, or
arm 102,upperli(tarm 120and hold down 130donot move. lS 1hc opcraror can raise the deck uscmbly SO to lhc inten11c
'The springs 112 continue 10 pull wi1h lhe ume f~ on the diate or sligh1ly inclined position and walk down the deck to
lower lift arm 102, but the hold down mechanism 130 put it in its parted po1ition SOA.
continues to maintain the lower liCI arm, upper lin 11'1'11 120 While the invention 1w hecn described wilh rcfctcnce to
and hold down mechanism in a fixed pattern 140. The ends 1 prcrcrrc4 embodiment, il will he underslood by 1hosc
l~ and 134 of. the upper arm 120 and hold down ~ 40 stilled in 1he an that 11ari1111& chanacs may be made alld
n1sm. ~ ~ ptnnc:d IQ&CCher by the pus.h rod 118, which equivalents may be substituted wi1houl depaning from the
rematns inside the slOl 74 of the no11 hou&111g 70, but arc n01 broad aspccu or the invention.
rigidly sca1rcd to the ~ 11.ucmbly 50. This relca.tablc 1 claim
a11achmcnt of the triangle 140 .to ~he ~ assenibly SO 1. A d~k leveler for formfns 1 bridae between a ftoor of
allow11he Ol)C(lltor IO collll'OI the mchnc pos11ion nr the~ 4$ 1 IOldint dock and a trUler bed, 1hc trailer bed being adapced
50. TIIC releasable .auachmcnt also allows the declt ltft 10 suppon a load and rise when 1ha1 load is removed. said
assembly 180 and tnanglc: 140 to rclc:ate from the deck SO dock Jcvclc:r cnmprisina:
to allow i1s re11 encl 61 tn pivot ahout hin&e 41 and tile: . .
forward encl 64 and lip 11& 10 noat alop 1 railer 15 u goods a deck assembly ~uh a ~nt b1n1ed end, a suoncl OU!ct
19 uc unloaded frnm Of loaded onto ihe trailer. When the lip so e~. a ~lit housing ~11h an abu1mcn1 and deck wuh
IO is fully extended and resting on the trailer bed 17. the ~ h~, said ~ being mova~lc ihrough a range ~r
inner or pinned rear end A2 or the lifl 80 il in abulling i~h~ poa1tioiu between raitcd and lowered pos1-
en1agemcnt with the front end 64 or lhc declc 60, which t~, . . . . .
pn:venlS funher rotation of the lip and fixes the lip intO a ltfl 'IC!>IY ~ncl_ud1ng a bf\ member and a .bias1n1
p11rallc:l alignment with 1he declc 60. Thw. when Ille: trailer ss mcch11115m, Wd hf1 member rc:leasably &~flPOf\1111 said
bed 17 and lip rise, the lip pulls the front encl 64 nfthc deck deck assembly 11 said abu1mc111 and being up~'!'dly
assembly SO and ramp 60 in a generally vcnical dirc:ction as and downWllJ'dly movable throug~ ~ range ~f ~m?ns
in FIG. 9. The: full wci&hl of the: ramp asscmhly 50 and its betwcc:~ up~r. and .lo":'er positions. said bming
lip 80 arc applied 10 the tr.ailer 15, leu the weigh! carried hy ~~ism bta.\1n~ ;Ud lift ~bcr upwardly _iow~d
the hinge 48. As a result, che lift springs 112 arc: no Jonser 60 11~ said u~r position and s11d deck inward 11 wd
applying fora: on the: ramp 60, which elimin111es che forces raised poa1uon;
that CllllC a "bounce eR'Ul" as the fork lift mo\'CS across the: a hold down mechanitm jnincd to laid Iii'\ member. uid
ramp and 01110 the trailer bed. hold down mcch111ism bci11a operable to selcctivcly
When 11te load 18 is placed on the trailer bed 17, the trailer pre~t said lift member fro.~ movi?& ~pwardly toward
bed drops down due to che weight or 1he l~d. The lip IO and 6S its uid upper cxtc:~ posn!? said Iii\ assembly and
dtdc assembly automatically pivOIAlly adJUSI downward _so hold dow.n mcc:llams"!' co'":'>1n1_ng to opcrably rai!e a~
tha1 the outer end &4 or the lip remains in engagcmcnl with lowet" Slld deck whale said hrt rnembcr remains in

NOR00028

A6295
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 26 of 27 Document 258-5
US 6,834,409 B2
IS 16
supponi11g c111agcmen1 wih ~id dee~. ~n~bly 10 J1 Thr. W,k l1w~l~r nr claim 11, aiwl wherein ~aid ~1111 i$
posilion said lip on lhe. traile.r bed: and, subslantially petpcndiC\llar 10 said deck.
wherein said deck a.,~mbly releases from its nid sup 13. The dock leveler of claim 11, and wherein said hold
poning engagement with said Iii'\ member when the down mechanism includes a piv01ally flxcd member and a
load is removed and 1hc trailer bed rises, said deck and telescoping member cit1cndably joined 1os1id fixed member,
lip being supponcd by and rising with lhc trailer bed. said 1elescoping member being elllended through a '*1gc of
2. The dock leveler of claim 1, and wherein said outer end extend positions between a retract position and a fully
of said deck assembly is suspeoded when supportably cittended position. and uid locking mechanism locks said
engaged by said lirl assembly, said Iii\ uscmbly supponin& telescoping memhcr to Its said llxed member to prevent
said au.apcndcd deck assembly as ii moves said deck through IO outward cuension of said 1cleacoping member and lllid
iis said range or inclined positions. upward movMICnt of uid lift member.
3. The dock leveler of claim 2, and wherein said un 14. The dock leveler or claim 13, and wherein said fixed
assembly and hold down meehanism combine to hiasini:ly member ol said hold down mechanism is pillOlally secured
hold u>d deck a1 a desired inclined position and allow said Cl
deck to move to a lower incline posilion under a prcdctcr JS to said pivot end or said lower Ii arm and said tclcscoping
mined condition when said outer end or said dcclc assembly member is pivotally sccurcit to said upper end o( said upper
is suspended. lift arm. said lower and upper lirl arms and said hold down
4. The dock leveler or claim 3, and wherein said prede mechanism each forming a side of a triangle, aaicl sides of
tcnnined condition is an operator walking onto said deck said triangle formed by said Iii\ arms remaining a constant
and toward said outer end. 20 length, and said side of said triangle formed by said hold
5. The dock leveler or claim 4, and wherein said deck is down mechanism vaiying throu&)i a range ol len4th1
horizontally ftush with the ftoor Cl{ the loading dock when bctwCCll retracted and fully excendcd leng1hs.
said deck is in a parked position. JS. The dock leveler of claim 14, and wherein said lift
6. The dock leveler of claim S, aad wherein said lip is arms from an angle grcalu than 90 degree& wllcn said hold
positioned above lht bed of 1hc 1railcr when in said raised U down mechanism is 11 its said fully exicndcd lcnglh.
position, said deck 111d lifl member moving down when the 1,. The dock leveler of claim 9, and wherein said lifl
operator walks onto said deck until said deck assembly and assembly includes a deck damper secured between said deck
lip reach an engaged position where said lip en1agc.\ the assembly and said )O\VU lift arm, said damper controlling a
trailer bed. rate of relative movement between said deck and lift asscm
7. The dock leveler of claim 3, and wherein said lip is JO bly when said deck mo11t1 from supponed en&agcmcnt with
hingably secured proximal said ou1cr end of said dcclc ihc trailer bt4 into supported Cfl&lgcmenc with said lift
wcmbly, said lip being opcrably movable between pendant assembly.
and einendc.d posilions. 17. The dock te.veler of claim J, and whttein said biuing
8. The dock leveler or dalm I, and wherein the loading .
dock Ooor has a pit and said dock leveler f\Jnher includes a lS mechanism is a spring Iha! conti11U011Sly biases aid lift
mounting frame rigidly secured inside the pil, and wherein member upwardly toward its said upper poaition and said
said firsa hinged end or said deck uscmbly is hingably deck toward its said raised ~Ilion. . .
sccurcd to said mounting rrame proximal the Ooor of the 18. The doc~ leveler of cl11"? 17, and w~1n said .hold
loading dock, uid llrs1 hinged end being !lushly aligned with down mcchamsm bu a locking mccharn~m scl~uvcly
1he ftoor of the loadina dock and said second outer end bein& 40 moveable hel~n lock~ and ~~ flOSl11ons, wd hold
pivocable about aaid first hinged end, and said un member down mechanism allowing said hft ~mbcr 10 mo~c
and hold down mechanism arc pivOlally secured 10 said upwardly and downwardly through Its Slid range of pos1-
mounting frame. tlons when said locking mechanism is in ils said unlocked
9. The dock leveler of claim 8, and wherein uid lift position, said hold down mechanism preventing uid movc-
mcmbcr is formed by lower and upper lift anns, said lower 4S mcnt of said lift member coward said upper posi1ion when
lift arm being pivolally sec:11{ed to said mounting frame, and said locking mechanism is in ii.I said locked position, said
said upper lifl lrlJl being pivo1ally secured 10 said lower lift lift assembly and hold down mechanism combining to
arm. biasinsly hold said lift member a1 a specific position when
10. The dock leveler of claim 9, and wherein seid float said locking mechanism is locked. said hold down mccha
housing forms a slot, and said upper end of said slot fonns so nism allowing downward movement of said lift member
said abutment against which said upper Iii\ arm engages to when said locking mechanism is in said locked position.
rcleasably support uid deck. 19. The dock leveler of claim 11, and wherein said
11. The dock leveler or claim JO. and wherein said lift tocki111 mechanism is biased 10 its I~ position, and is
member has an upper end, and said hold down mechanism opcrably movable 10 its unlocked position.
is pivotally connected 10 an UPf!Cr end of said upper lift um S5
at a joint. said joint being restricted to move in said slnt.

NOR00029

A6296
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 27 of 27 Document 258-5
Exhibit D

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 7 Document 258-6


..- /
:I
./ '..._,/

Illlll IHllll Ill lrmi;1....!I ~1111111111111111111111111111111


l l l llllll USOOD579754S
!:::)(", '-1

c2> United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: us 0579,754 s


Gleason (45) Date of Patent: ** Nov. 4, 2008
------------------ ------------ ---------------
(54) LlP AND BINGE >!,ATE FOR A l>OCK 4,977,635 A 1211990 Alc.nn<ier . 14nl.l
LEVE Lim
(Con1inuecl)
(76) lnveotor: Denis Glenson, I 8 Rebecca Coun, Primary Exomi11er-- T. Chase Nelson
Bowmanville, Ontnrio (CA) LIC 4N7 Assistnrit Exmrii,,er-Karen Acker
(74) Altomey. Agent, or firm-Jeffrey S. Sokol; Cook &
( ..) Tenn: 14 Yean Franke S.C.
(21) Appl. No.: wnBS,137 (57) CLAIM

(22) Filed: May 31, 2007 The omamcotal design of a lip and binge plate for a dock
leveler, as showo aod described.
Related U.S. Application Data DESCRIPTION
(60) Coolinualioo of applicnlion No. 111179,941, filed on FIG. l is a pcnpcctive view showing the lip a.oil hinge plate
Jul. 12, 2005, now abandoned, whicb is a division of for a duck leveler with the lip exlended, a:1d the hinge plale
opplicntion No. 101998,532, filed on Nov. 29, 2004, secured to a deck frame showu in bmken lines;
now Pat. No. 7,013,SI 9, which is a divi~ioo of appli- FJO. 2 is n frool view of lhe lip and hinge plate for n dock
cation No. 101328,279, flied on Dec. 23, 2002, now leveler, wid showing lhe deck frame, drive brackels nnd drive
Pot. No. 6,834,409. bar opening in brnken lines;
(SI) LOC(8)CI ................................................... 08-06 FIG. 3 is a rear view of lhe lip and hinge plate for a dock
(52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... D81323 leveler, and showing the deck frame, drive brackcls an<l drive
bar opeoing in broken lines;
(58) 1ield or Classllicattoo Search .......... 081323-329,
081354, 356; 14169.5, 71.1, 71.3, 71.S, 71.7 FIG. 4 is a lop view of the lip and hinge plnlc for a dock
See applicntioo file for cowple1e search history. leveler, ood sbowiog 1be deck frame m l>roken lines~
(56) FIG.Sis a bottom view oftbc lip and hinge plate for a dock
Uerereuces Cllcd
leveler, and showing lhe deck frame and drive bmckcts in
U.S. PATBNT DOCUMENTS broken lioos;
3,68S,077 A 811972 Wiencrc11I ..........
FIG. 6 is a side view of the lip Md hinBe pl111e ror a dock
14171
3,835,497 A 9/1974 Smith .................
leveler showing lbc lip in ilS extended posilioo, aud lh~ deck
14nl
3,882,563 A ~197S Smith cl I. .................... 14nl
frame in broken lines; and,
3,967,137 A 711976 Anibergcr .... 14nl.7 FIG. 7 is a side view of tile lip aod bioge plate for a dock
4,068,118 " 111978 N12bcruer ................. Mnll leveler showing the lip io ils pendant or lowered pos111uo, and

...
4,091,488 " S/1978 Artiberger ....... l4nl7 the deck frame in broken lines.
4.110,860 " 911978 Ne!J Cl al .................... 14fll 7 The side view opposite FIG. 6 is a mirror image. The deckand
Rl!l0.104 E ICV197? Burnham .................... 14fll.3 deck frRmc sbowu io broken lines in PIGS. I and 37, the
4,376,119 " J/1983 Bedford ...................... 14nl.)

.
drive brackets sbowo in FIGS. 1-5, lhc drive har opening
4,847,935 A 7/1989 Akxanderet al. ........... 14nl.J sbowo in FIGS. 1-3, and the assist spring mouoling bracket
4,920,598 S/1990 Hahn ......................... 14n1.1

""
shown in PIG. 1 rcprescot environmental s1ruc1ure in order to
4,928,340 S/1990 Alexudet 14fll.3 show the claim in a condition or use nnd forna no par! of lhc
4,937,906 A 711990 Alex&nder ..................
14f/l.I claimed desig11.
4,944,062 A 711990 Walker ....................... 14nl.3
4,974,276 A 1211990 Ale><&11der ..................
14nl.3 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets

(,.-<-''<,,.
t. . ~r::::..

NOR00437

A6321
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 7 Document 258-6
US D579,754 S
Page2

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 5,826,291 A 10/1998 Alexander .................. 14171 3


5,832,554 A 1111998 Alexander .................. 14/71.1
4,979,2S3 A 1211990 Alexander .................. t4nt.7 6,125,491 A 10/2000 Alexander .................. 14169.S
S,001,799 A 311991 Alexander et al ............ 14/71.1 6,216,303 Bl 412001 Massey ...................... 14171.3
5,040,2S8 A 811991 Hahnee al ................... 14171.3 6,317,914 Bl 111200 I Preston ... ... .... ... .. ..... .. 11171.3
5,088,143 A 211992 Alexander .................. 14169.S 6,360,393 Bl 312002 Fritz . ...... .. .... ... .......... I 4169 5
5,097,557 A 311992 Salman et al ............... 14171.1 6,370,719 Bl 412002 Alexander ................. 14171.1
S,IJl,S46 A S/1992 Hahn ct al. .................. 14nt.3 6,487,741 82 1212002 Alexander .................. 14nt .3
5,117,526 A 611992 Alexander .................. 14171.7 6,634,049 82 I012003 Hahn et al. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . 14nt . I
5,123.135 A 611992 Cook et al. ................ 14/71.3 6,711,774 s2 312004 Hodges ................. 14/71 .3
5,303,443 A 411994 AleXADder ............... 14n1.1 6,769,149 82 812004 Alexaader .................. 14171.3
S.311,628 A S/1994 Springeretal............... t4nl.I 6,842,930 82 l/2005 Massey ct al. . ............. 14171.3
S.323,503 A 611994 Springer ..................... 14nt.3 6,880,301 82. 412005 Hahn et al. .. ........ ...... 521173. I
5,396,676 A 311995 Alcundor ct al. ........... I 4nt. I 6,912,750 82. 712005 Gleason .. . ...... .. ..... .. I 4nt .3
5,440,772 A 811995 Spriogeret al ............... 14/69.S 6,918,ISI 82 712005 Massey .... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. 14169 .5
S,450,643 A 911995 Warner ....................... 14/69.S RE39,404 E 1112006 Megens ..................... 14171 .7
S,553,343 A 911996 Alexander .................. 14nt.1 20011003491S Al 111200 I Preston .. .. . . .. ... . .. .. .. 14171.1
S,781,9S3 A 711998 Winter ....................... 14169.S 200210092102 Al 712002 Lounsbury .................. 14/71 .3
S,784,740 A 7/1998 DiSieooetal ............ 14nt.3 2005/0044645 Al li200S Gleason ............ ....... 14171.3
S,813,072 A 911998 Alcxander .............. 14nt.l cited by examiner

NOR00438

A6322
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 7 Document 258-6
,.

U.S. Patent Nov. 4, 2008 Sheet 1of4 US D579,754 S

.
<..?
LL..

..
"' '
"',,
.
''.,
'',,
,, \\
.,
\ \
'"
'~ \."' ... ----"
\\

",, ' "' )


'\

~,,,,
\
'
'\ ..,, ' '
,,,, \
\
\
\
\

""'.. '\\~,>- -- ~~,,~,,"


'
. ,.
,,,, ' '' ",,,,,,,, ' '
,,,, \ \

,, t ' >- .. -".l~, ',\


"",, ,~, ,~,

"
\ "'~,,, ','
\
\ ,, \

,,
\\ I
>---~.
'' I
'\
"' "'
''
' ' ,,
\
\
' '
' '
.. ', \, \,
\\
\
'\',.. ______\ \,' ,\
'' ' \
'' ''
' '
'' ' \
' ' '
,,,, \ ',\ \ ' ... ------'),'
,, ,,
\ \
\
\
\
\
\

\\ \\\ \\
\\ \.\:-, \
,, \' ' \
\
\
\\ \\ \ \ /
,, \\ ~------~
\\.. , "'
\ \

..... "
\ .. --- .... -'~

NOR 00439

A6323
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 7 Document 258-6
U.S. Patent Nov. 4, 2008 Sheet 2 of 4 US DS79,754 S

N .,.. ,.
IT I

. I
(.')
C) I
LL 11 ~-=- LL
,..,~., r-------------,~
I II
I I ~

11

1/
r---.--------,;
,..,l, ... I 11

N I "
I'I
I -
,..,~.,
l ,-------------,~
I 11

I I r---, ~

(:;::: I

I
I I
C ~: '.: I
l ___ J

I I

Jill_-_:-,
-rur-- :
-in-_-:_
-

1111 ... I
--- I
J
r
I 11
~..I
l------.-----J!
I
I -=-
-
I
I
"' I
... I
r
11
l. .l!.J
l----.-..------J!
11

l
I
Ill
... I
r
11
-::C:J L_-.----------J~
11

. ,....
11~-- ,.
--------

NOR00440

A6324
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 7 Document 258-6
U.S. Patent Nov. 4, 2008 Sheet 3 of 4 us 0579,754 s

I.{)

<..?
LL

-
t::;:: -
I
...
IJ..,:i:;.ll
'
I
' \
\

' \ '' 11 -
,-''.... --
' I
\ '
r- --'
I
- .
'1
.
I

I
.. __ ) \
\
\

'
u,
J: ti
'- ...
I
--.- .. I
1-1- J!...J -
I
I
I I
I I I I
r----, r- t.- - - '.,
I1
... --- ,
.
: t I
\.. r - - - - ..L,.:C:..ll
'
'\ I
I
I
'r
-' I
I I I
r--- -1 _,__ -
11
'--- ... .,: ~. 11
'i- - -r- - iJ..X..!l
I
'I
]

' II
I ---
I I
0
I
I
' I
I
--
I I

I
I I
:T ..!. ':\ -
I
I
I
?i 'I -
' 1

1L
I
I
I
I
I
..,.J
.I. - . JTr
I
I
I I
I
'~ ~
,.
-~ ..
I 't-
r--' r - - .. -c..
11 : ti I
L I
I I
I
L.. - - - -w-
' I
'I
I I

; -'
I 1 :
I
r---" IT "'':\

- f I I

' ' '-----r

I
t I
' '
I
I --
I
I
I

I
-
I

:--~
I I
'r - - _,_ ..
'
11
IT"...,.'i1 -
-
IJ

I
I
.-...
...
I

'
I
fl
';- r - ..
I
'
I
I
"

I
'I
, _____ __ .
\
\
i-r ... ,
I=:::~- - .,lili,..,,..__ _ _ _ ___...____. J. - -'-'- - - ., ~

NOR00441

A6325
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 7 Document 258-6
U.S. Patent Nov. 4,2008 Sheet 4 of 4 US D579,754 S

FIG. 6

...... .111

,,
I

I
' ...I
______ J I

FIG. 7

.-------- ..
r_..._____
I

''I
,,
I
\ \. _____ _

.'

NOR00442

I A6326 I
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 7 of 7 Document 258-6
Exhibit E

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 3 Document 258-7


1

/ / '/]~-
HEAVYDYT~T;~~s
~
NOitDOCK.
HYDRAULIC DOCKLEVELERS

I
I

I
----:::::========:::::..::-::.=-1
.,,. ~
'



-
t

,
;
I
i

True Full Width Rru::tr Hing~


~~~~--j
Optionoii.OGJSMART'
Whh Zinc PlflhH1 Rod h'h: gt<lli!d Ct>tHtol Sy'>I~"H

FEATURE SUMMARY
Exclusive Lip Lug and Header Plate Dust Tight Panel Enclosure
Design Ensures Maximum Strength Self Cleaning Lug Type Lip Hinge
Heavy Duty Cylinders with Open Frame Design for Easy Pit Cleaning
Non-Adjustable Velocity Fuse Integral Maintenance Supports
Continuous Fixed Rear Hinge Provides Full Operating Range Telescoping
Easy Transfer & Eliminates Pinch, Side Guards
Trip or Impact Point Zinc Plated Hinge Rods
Seven Rear Structural Frame Supports Center Deck Support
Dual Side 33% Beam to Deck Weld Pattern " High Tensile Lip & Deck Safety Tread Plate
Security Night Looks 'I\vo Laminated Dock Bumpers Included

Dedicated People - Superior Products


NOROI 264

A6720
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 3 Document 258-7
OCK.
SPECIFICATIONS
HVDRAUUC DOCKLEVELEH5
DESCRIPTION
The HEAVY-DUTY'" Series of hydraulic docklevel-
ers are the ultimate in strength, convenience and
reliability with full hydraulic powered deck and lip
functions controlled by a single push button.
Available in standard capacity ratings of 25,000 to
150,000 lbs. in increments of IS,OOO lbs. and standard
nominal sizes of 6 feet wide x 6 feet long to 7 feet
wide x 10 feet long.
Standard features include full operating range tel- OPTIONS & ACCESSORIES
escoping side guards, fall protection velocity fuse TRUCK-LOCK Vehicle Restraint Systems
and a comprehensive warranty. FALL-STQPTM Sa.fety Barrier Gates
18" or 20" Long Lip
OPERATlON Emergency Stop & Lip Extend Control
The operator presses the control button until the Automatic Return to Dook Level
deck is raised and the lip is fully extended. Releas- Brush Weather Seals
ing the button allows the lip to lower onto the truck Self Forming Pour in Pans
bed. The operator stores the leveler by pressing the Steel Spring & Steel Face Dock Bumpers
control button until the lip fully retracts. Dook Lights
The standard 16" long lip projects 11" beyond a 4"
bumper to engage a truck bed 12" above or below WARRAN1'Y
floor level. Nordock guarantees that the HEAVY-DUTY'" Series
docklevelers will perform as described and to the
tU::ClRICAL/HYORAUUCS full satisfaction of the purchaser for one-year from
The power unit is a frame mounted integral assem- date of receipt or Nordock will repair, replace or
bly fully tested and oil filled. The lHP motor is a remove the product and refund the purchase price.
totally enclosed non-ventilated type available in all In addition, the front and rear hinge assemblies
voltages. The control box is a NEMA 12 dust tight are guaranteed, under specified guidelines, for a
enclosure with motor starter and single push button. period of twenty-years.
The regenerative hydraulic cylinders are a heavy- All Nordock docklevelers are designed to exceed the
duty design with polished chrome rods, guide bear- requirements of ANSI MH14.1 1984-87 and when
ings and high-pressure seals. The hydraulic hoses properly applied comes with a 10 year structural
are SAE 100R2 with permanent fittings attached. warranty. Consult your Nordock representative for
assistance in choosing the correct capacity and
CONS1 RUCTION options for your application.
The platform is a unitized welded structure with
continuous welds at the beam, header plate and MODElS & NOMINAL DlMcN SlON$
lugs for maximum strength. The deck plate, lip Model* Width Length;
plate, beam sections and lugs are constructed of NH-Hri 6'0" 6'0"
minimum 150-155,000 PSI yield material. N H liM 6'0" 8'0"
A standard center deck beam and welded side guards NH 6lU 6'0" 10'0"
provide additional deck plate support. The continu- N!f-lj.fHi 6'6" 8'0"
ous rear hinge provides 4" of side-to-side tllt with .Nll6.!5B 6'6" 8'0"
no pinch point. NH H.lHH 6'6" 10'0"
The frame has seven solid steel rear supports, an NH -7H 7'0" 6'0"
open design for easy pit cleaning, and lip supports NJI-n) 7'0" 8'0"
that prevent illegal entry when the door is closed. NH 7HI 7'0" 10'0"
The front and rear hinge rods are SAE 104~ superior * Add capacity required from 2~,000-~0,000 lbs.
shaft, zinc plated and factory coated with anti-seize Example: NH-68-50. Longer models and special
lubricant. size units to fit any existing pit also avallable.

OltDOCK. INC.
Website: www.nordockinc. com- Email: Sales@nordockinc. com -Toll Free: 866885-4276
Nordock Inc. reurveJ the right ro make changes lo specificotions
without notice or obligation . Nordock products ore covered by various U.S. and foreign polenb or pendi~~Rcel'f2'65

A6721
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 3 Document 258-7
Exhibit F

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 9 Document 258-8


.. '"'"''
IL't .
"'

LHD Series
~o~~-u ACWJNG Hydraulic Dock Leveler

Smce mtroduanq !he fre1ght


1ndusl!)is first Edge-<:if-Dock levele<
111 1962. DLM has continued to
provide rn?V'"dtil.'e V.-a{S ~) mpn:M:J
prtXItx::tMty and safety a1 the loading
d()(,"k. The DU...1 'LHD' Series
hy'drauiiC leveler IS value englneered
to meet both application and budget
constra1nts whiln maxlmlzn!}
prtxiuctivity. optimfZing efficiency
and improvtng safety The
DLM "LHD" Seoes leveler
combmes a cost
effective hydraulic
system w1th ttle
rnanufact\.Jring efliclenf.-y
of U1e "Lug Hinge' dock
design to pn:xlua; tfliS
pri<'..e sensitive dock
leveler Common Stles and
capacities are available

DLM Overv1ew
Industry Expenence Snce
1962
Pnvateiy Held Customer
Focused Enterprise
E11tensve Application
Experience
Fully Integrated Manufacturing
Facilities
On-S1te Engineering &
Customer Support
National Network oi
Knowledgeable Sales and
Servce Representatives
Supenor Structural
Construcilon
Accepted NatiOnally tly
Fortune 500 Compan1es

VALUE-ENGINEERED
DOCK LEVE LE RS

BERO 0532

A6193
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 9 Document 258-8
A Otvwon ol Sl'3tems. Inc.

ILM
DOCK LEVELER
MANUFACTURING
LHD Series Hydraulic Dock Leveler
Specification Sheet and Submittal

STANDARD FEATURES FOR THE LHD SERIES HYDRAULIC DOCK LEVELER


Stmple Push Button Control Lockout Tagout Matntenance Strut
Four Sided Box Construction Ntght LocksiCross Traffic Support
Heavy Duty Lug Hinge Des1gn Motor Overload Protectton
Full Hydraulic Up Activation Low Maintenance Design
Velocity Safety Stop Fu ll Range Toe Guards
Two (2 ) DB-13 Molded Rubber Bumpers

DLM Dvison of Systems, Inc. W194 N11 481 McCormck Dr. Germantown WI 53022
800.643 5424 fa x 262.255 4 199 www Oock Syste m slnc .corn

BERO 0528

A6194
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 9 Document 258-8
.II
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: All DLM LHD Series hydraulic dock levelers
LHD Series Hydraulic
Dock Leveler Specification Sheet

incorporate the use of hydraulics to relse and lower both the platform and lip. A
guards are provided as standard. Maintenance prop with 'Lock-out Tag-out'
capability is provided as standard. Each LHD leveler is shipped with two (2) 4"
single push button activates a hydraulic pump for operating both lip and hoist thick x 10" high x 13" wide DB-13 molded rubber bumpers as standard.
cylinders. Systems. Inc. is an active member of Loading Dock Equipment
Manufadurers (LODEM), a product section of the Material Handling Industry. ELECTRICAL: Hydraulic pump motor shall be 1114 HP TENVC at115v single
Unit confomns to OSHA, U.S. Department of Commerce Standard CS-202-56 phase. Optional 3 Phase motors are available, consult factory. Electrical control
and is manufactured in compliance with the American National Standard of panel is non-metallic Nema 4 enclosure. All olectrical components, connections
Safely Performance and Testing of Dock Leveling Devices (ANSI) MH 30.1. and wiring are UL listed or recognized . Plene Note: Unl..a apeclftc.olly
Unn manufactured by Systems, Inc. noted on quotaUon, all electrical requirements are the respo11$lbUity of
others.
CONSTRUCTION: The platform is constructed of 114" thick 4-way high !ensile
50,000 minimum yield A572 steel safety tread-plate. Platform Is reinforced and INSTALLATION : Unit shipped completely assembled and reedy for installation <~--
supported by full-length 6" roll formed c
channels for 25,000 and 35,000 lb In preformed concrete pit. P~ construdion to be in accordance with certified
CIR and 6" structural cchannels lor 40,000 lb. CIR capacity units. Front Systems, Inc. pit detail drawings. Contact Systems, Inc. for current oost and
header plate is 112" x 7" hot rolled steel. DLM LHD Series lips are made of 4- n99rest distributor.
way safety tread-plate, the 25,000 lb CIR is 1/2" thick and the 35,000 and
40.000 lb CIR are 518" thick. The standard lip length Is 16" on all capacities. WARRANTY: All DLM LHD Series models feature a full one (1) year base
Hinge lugs are 5 112" x 3" high tensile (A572) steel. All lip hinge plns are 1" warranty on all structural, hydraulic and electrical parts, including freight and
C1045 steel. Steel joist gussets welded to front header are standard on all roll labor charges in accordance w~h Systems , Inc's Standard Warranty Polley.
form c channels. All platforms are designed to compensate for up to 4" of Structural components carry and additional nine (9) year pro-rated warranty.
canted truck beds. Systems, Inc. warrants all components to be free of defects in materials and
workmanship, under normal use, during the warranty period. This base
HYDRAUUCS: Platform is raised by hydraulic cylinder, all hydraulic hoses are warranty period begins upon the completion of installation or the sixtieth (60th)
elevated under the leveler platform, away from debris. Hoist cylinder is hard day after shipment, whichever is earlier. Additional warranty extensions may be
chrome-plated single acting design with 2 112" OD rod and 3" ID bore. Hoist available upon approved submntal of application information.
cyllndar Is equipped with a velocity safely stop to limit free fall of loaded platform
to 3"(:t1"). Lip operation Is controlled by a hard chrome-plated cylinder having a Optional Equipment for LHD Series Hydrau lic Dock Leve!Qrs
2" 10 bore and Is fully yleldable. Elevated, frame mounted pump and motor (Cho<:l<opiM>nsdooirod)
assembly keeps clear of debris accumulation in pit. (J PowerStop~ Restraint ,,.,..,, 0 Clean SWeep Frame
(J PowerStop~ Reslraint , ........,., (J Brush Weatherseal
STANDARD OPERATIONAL FEATURES: The LHD Series Leveler is (J NEMA 12 Encl. (wlln~o"'" " - ' "' (J Rubber Weatherseal
controlled remotely from wall mounted control panel. An array of optional (J 3 Phase Motor Voltage a Lip Supporting Service Strut
control panel fealures are available . Up keepers welded to frame members a Integrated Control Panel 8 Laminated Bumpers 8.<10-1(
provide nighttime security and cross-trallic support. Full operating range toe u 18" Lip 8 Laminated Bumpers 8.<10-14
0 20" Lip a ve20-11 o VB42'"
Dimensions and Capacities a Dod<Aiert CamuicatiJn Syslem 0 6" Thick Dock Bumpers
Select Model end Ctpadty (J 3-Wheel Lift Truck Protection a WMel Chocks Model#
(J Pit Steel (6 plooo ao1> anglo cot) (J Dock Ught (no Wb)MocloW
MODEL NOMINAL SIZE DYNAMIC /, COMPARATIVE (J Pk Steel (4/ongio , 2it>Ymoer)
CAPACITY INDUSTRY RATING
(J P~ Kit (3 sided)
(J Pan Un~ (hded)
(J LHD-66 6'x 6' (J 12,500/25,000 (J Foam Insulation
(J LHD-68 6'x 8'
[J LHD-656 6'6"x 6'
u 17,500135,000 (J Special Color

(J LHD-658 6'6" X 8' a 20,000/40,000 (J Other


(J LHD-76 Tx 6'
(J Other
(J LHD-78 Tx a
(J Other

a Other

Customer: Certified For Construction:


Job: By:
Location : Date :
Number of Units: Company:
Model: City & State:
Size:
Represented By: Voltage/Phase: ~
0
J:
SalesRep: Drawing#:

A continuing product improvement process Is In effect at Systems, Inc. We reserve the rtght to make product changes without prior notice.

DLM Systems, Inc. W194 N11481 McCormick Dr. Germantown, WI 53022


800.643.5424 fax: 262.255.4199 e www.DockSystemslnc.com

BERO 0529

A6195
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 9 Document 258-8
Simple Push Button Control Velocity Safety Stop
Four Sided Box Construction Translucent Reservoir
Heavy Duty Lug Hinge Design Low Maintenance Des1gn
Full Hydraulic Lip Activation Full Range Toe Guards
Night Locks/Cross Traffic Support Two (2) DB-13 Laminated Rubber Bumpers
Lockout!Tagout Maintenance Strut 1 Phase Power

BERO 0496

A6200
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 9 Document 258-8
LHP Series Hydraulic Dock Leveler
Specification Sheet and Submittal

LHP Sqt;&s. rx 8 . .15.000 C/R. C/oanSwoep Fram<f $/;own

STANDARD FEATURES FOR THE LHP SERIES HYDRAULIC DOCK LEVELER


Simple Push Button Control Lockout Tagout Maintenance Strut
Four Sided Box Construction Night Locks/Cross Traffic Support
Heavy Duty Lug Hinge Design Motor Overload Protection
Full Hydraulic Lip Activation Low Maintenance Design
Velocity Safety Stop Full Range Toe Guards
Two (2) DB-13 Molded Rubber Bumpers

POWERAMP Division of Systems . Inc. W194 N11 481 McCormick Dr. Germa ntown , WI 53022
800 .643 .5424 fax: 262.255.4199 www.OockSystemslnc .com

Confidential
$1100284

A6201
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 9 Document 258-8
4 DtvjSIDfl J l Syslem.:o. Inc: .

LHP Series Hydraulic


Dock Leveler Specification Sheet
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: All POWERAMP" LHP Selies hydraulic dock guards are provided as standard. Maintenance prop with 'Lock -out Tag -our
levelers incorporate the use of hydraulics to raise and lower both the platform capability is provided as standard. Each LHP leveler Is shipped with two (2) 4 '/,'
and lip. A single push button activates a hydraulic pump for operating both lip thick x 10"h x 14"w DB -13 molded bumpers as standard .
and hoist cylinders. Systems. Inc. is an active member of Loading Dock
Equipment Manvfacturers (LOOEM), a product section of the Matelial Handling ELECTRICAL: Hydraulic pump motor shall be 1 1/4 HP TENVC at 115v single
Industry. Unit conforms to OSHA. U.S. Department of Commerce Standard CS- phase. Optional 3 Phase motors are available, consuH factory. Electrical control
202-56 and 15 manufactured in compliance with the American National panel is non-metaRic Nama 4 enclosure. All electrical componems. connection:.3
Standard of Safety Pertormanc~ and Testing of Dock Leveling Devices (ANSI) and wiring are UL listed or recoynized . Please Note : Unless specifically
MH 30.1 Unit manufactured by Systems. Inc. noted on quotation, ali electrical requirements are the responsib ility of
others.
CONSTRUCTION: The platform is constructed of 1/4" thick 4-way high tensile
50,000 minimum yield A572 steel safety tread-plate. Platform is reinforced and INSTALLATION: Unit shipped completely assembled and ready lor in>taila tiOn ~
supported by full-length 6" roll formed c
channels for 25,000 and 35.000 lb in preformed concrete pi t. Pit construction to be in accordance with certified
CIR and 6" structural c channels for 40,000 lb. CIR capacity units. Front Systems, Inc. pit detail drawings. Contact Syslems, Inc. for current cost and
header plate is 1/2" x 7" hot rolled steel. POWERAMP LHP Selies lips are nearest distlibutor.
made of 4-wey safety tread-plate, the 25,000 lb CIR is 1/2" thick and the 35,000
and 40,000 lb CIR are 518" thick. The standard lip length is 16" on all capacities. WARRANTY: All POWERAMP LHP Series models feature a full one (1) year
Hinge tugs are 5 112" x 3" high tensile (A572) steel. Ali lip hinge pins are 1" base warranty on all structural, hydraulic and electrical parts, Including freight
C t045 steel. Steel joist gussets welded to front header are standard on all roil and labor cllarges In accordance with Systems, Inc's Standard Warranty Policy.
form c
channels. AU platforms are designed to compensate for up to 4" of Structural components carry and additional nine (9) year pro-rated warranty.
canted truck beds. Systems, Inc. warrants all components to be free of defects in materials and
workmanst1ip . under normal use . during the warranty ~riod . f his oasP.
HYDRAULICS : Platform Is raised by hydraulic cylinder. ali hydraulic hoses are warranty period begins upon the completion of installa tion or the sox ~ o~;th (bO:n 1
elevated under the leveler platform, away from debris. Hoist cylinder is hard day after shipment, whichever is ear1ier. Additional warranty e.ctensions may be
cllrom&-plated single acting design with 2 1/2" OD rod and 3" ID bore. Hoist available upon approved submittal of application Information.
cy~nder is equipped with a velocity safety stop to limit free fall of loaded platform
to 3"(1"). Lip operation Is controlled by a hard cllrome-plated cylinder having a Optional Equipment for LHP Series Hydraulic Dock Levelers
2 ID bore and is fully yleldable. Elevated , frame mounted pump and motor (Cnect< options desired)
assembly keeps clear of dablis aocumuiation in pit. 0 PowerHooi<" Restraint <s.c.l 0 Foam Insulation
0 PowerHol~ Restraint 1s.c.) D Special Color
STANDARD OPERATIONAL FEATURES: The LHP Series Leveler Is 0 PowerSiop Restraint (m""'"'' 0 Clean Sweep Frame
controlled remotely from wall mounted control panel. An array of op tional Q PowerStop Restraint'~'""'"'~' 0 Brush Weatherseal
control panel features are. available. Lip keepers welded to frame members
provide nigh tl ime security and cross-traffic support. Full operating range toe
0 NEMA 12 Encl . , ,.,.-. c...''"''
0 Rubber Weatherseal
0 3 Phase Motor Voltage 0 Lip Supporting Service Strut
0 Integrated Control Panel D Laminated Bumpers 64to-1
~ 18" Lip Cl Vertical Bumpers (laminated)
Dimensions and Capacities
Selec1 3 Pw'odel <1ncl e CapaCity ~ 20" Lip :..J VU420-11 .J \.'fJ4:l4-11
Q DockAiert CorrmJrication Syson :J 6" Thick Dock Bumpers
MODEL NOMINAL SIZE DYNAMIC /.. COMPARATIVE 0 Wheel Chocks Modeill
0 3-Wheel Lift Truck Protection
CAPACITY INDUSTRY RATING
~ Pit Steel (6 piece curb ongle sol) 0 Dock Light ,..., bUb )Mod.;;---
0 Pit Steel (4/~~~~goe, 2/bumpert
Q LHP-66 6' x6' Cl 12,500/25,000 0 Pit Kit (3 aided)
Q LHP-68 6' X 8'
Cl 17,500/35,000 0 Pan Unit c idedl
:J LHP-656 6'6" X 6'
:J LHP-658 6'6" X 8' Q 20,000/40,000 0 Other
0 LHP-76 7' X 6'
Q Other
0 LHP-78 7' X 8'
0 Other

0 Other

r::'
.~ .. .,.... . ' > .. '.-~ f" !:'
"' " 'f~ 14- .I' ~ .. . ~ >A ... ~ ....... , ,

. Customer: Certified For Construction: -~

~ Job: By:
.
;:

tt
Location: Date: ~
'
!
;:'
Number of Units: Company: 1'1
' -
: Model: City & State:
-
' Size:
~~
Represented By: Voltage/Phase:
,, . SalesRep: Drawing#: v
~ ... "1'1' $._~"' ~1 .<"I ;t ~ " " q l n ,'
I"' "
,, "' I'"~ ] " . ' l . 'l'; 1 ' ,- ; .. . ~ .. r- .. . . . ,!> .
A continu ing product mpro.,.emcnt process is in effect at Systems , Inc. We reserve tho right to mako oroduct changes w1tho..J t prior r.oticc .

POWERAMP Systems, Inc. W194 N11481 McCormick Dr. Germantown , WI 53022


800 .643 .5424 fax: 262.255.4199 www.DockSystemslnc .com

Confidential
81100285

A6202
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 7 of 9 Document 258-8
Bero/Cross
Jury Trial Excerpt - 3/22/2013

1 the most comparable product at Systems that has actually a piano

2 hinge.

3 Q. Right . And you're calculating a savings for the hydraulic

4 unit of $5 . 41, correct?

11:33 5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And for the mechani cal $1.38, correct?

7 A. That ' s what those numbers show, yup.

8 Q. And the weighted average o f $2 . 13 , c o rre c t?

9 A. Co rrect.

11:33 10 Q. Thank you . Now we turn to Schedule 4.1 . Is that it?

11 A. Is this my

12 Q. Is that Schedule 4.1 of your original report? Rebuttal

13 report.

14 A. Yeah, this looks to be my original 4.1 .

15 Q. Now, let me just read something . "Per Schedule 4.2 of the

16 LHD/LHP and Schedule 4.3 for the LMD/LMP . According to

17 discussions with Michael Pilgrim , the models are essentially the

18 same ."

19 Did I read that correctly?

11:34 20 A. Yeah. It's a footnote in the report . And this is referring

21 to the -- the LMD and the LMP are the Poweramp version and the

22 McGuire or the DLM version. And those are essentially the same.

23 They just have different stickers on them as far as I

24 understand. Similarly the LHD and LHP are the same . They just

11:35 25 have different stickers on them.

100

A5557
Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 8 of 9 Document 258-8

Weighted average lug hinge cost savings
CONFIDENTIAL-A.NEYS' EYES ONLY

- September 2008 and current
Schedule 4.1
[A] [B] [C] [B] [C]
- -l
'
~--

r
-~-
Accused September 2008 co~~~ Current costs
units
Model
subject to Unit cost Total Cost Unit cost Total Cost
damagQs Savings Savings Savings Savings

LHD 35 ($5.41) ($190) ($13.30) ($466)


LHP 587 ($5.41) ($3,178) ($13.30) ($7,810)

[iJ LMD
LMP
Total
2,698
3,383
63 ($1.38)
($1.38)
($87)
{$3,736}
($7,191)
($9.61)
($9.61)
($605)
{$25,920~

($34,801)

[D] Weighted average lug hinge cost savings I ($2.13)1 I ($10.29)1

NOTES I SOURCES:
[A] Schedule 2.0. See also, Smith Report, page 3.
[B) Per Schedule 4.2 for LHD/LHP and Schedule 4.3 for LMD/LMP. According to discussions with Michael Pilgrim, the L.::::,_
models are essentially the same. See also, Smith Report, page 4. r
[C) =[A] * [B). Total cost savings assumes the per unit cost saving applied to all of the accused units subject to
damages. The actual cost savings is likely between the calculated September 2008 total cost savings and the
calculated Current total cost savings.
[D) =[C) I [A].

Page 1 of 1

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 9 of 9 Document 258-8


Exhibit G

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 4 Document 258-9


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NORDOCK. INC. )
) CIVIL ACTION: l l-CV-0118
Plaintiff. )
) Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin
v. )
)
SYSTEMS, INC. )
)
Defendant. )

DECLARATION OF DENIS GLEASON IN SUPPORT OF


PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

I, DENIS GLEASON, depose and declare as follows:

1. I am the president of Nordock, Inc. ("Nordock'') and make this declaration based upon
my personal knowledge.

2. I have worked in the dock leveler industry my entire career or about 39 years. During
this time, I have worked for Atlantic Elevating Devices. Kelley Atlantic, Kelley Company (f/k/a
4Front and now ASSA ABLOY a/k/a Entrcmatic) and Nordock. During my employment with
each of these companies. I was involved with the design, manufacture and sale of dock lt!velers.

3. The intended purpose of a dock leveler is to bridge the gap between the floor of a loading
dock and the bed of a trailer by raising and lowering its deck and lip. Dock levelers allow people
and forklifts to pass between the loading dock and the trailer when loading or unloading cargo
onto or from the trailer.

4. Levelers with piano hinge and gusseted piano hinge type front ends are common and
have been common (i.e .. used by multiple third parties) throughout the industry since at least the
1950s.

5. Nordock was founded in December 2001. From its inception. Nordock built and sold
levelers with a unique and distinctive "front end" design (''the 'D754 Design"). Nordock's front
end design was specifically intended to distinguish its levelers from other manufacturers.
Nordock initiated a one year nationwide marketing campaign throughout the U.S. for a line of
levelers with this front end design in 2002. began selling its levelers with the front end design in
March 2002 and began displaying photographs of its levelers with the front end design on its
website in 2002.

6. Without a lip, a leveler will not perform its intended function of bridging the gap between
the loading dock and the trailer bed.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 4 Document 258-9


7. Systems' brochures for the LHP/LHD levelers prominently display Nordock's patented
'D754 Design.

8. Nordock did not learn of Systems' infringing levelers until I noticed them on a Systems'
distributor's website in 2009.

9. The name ''dock leveler'' is the name of the article generally used by the public.

10. Dock leveler manufacturers sell dock levelers as a complete unit, and do not sell them
without a front end.

11. Dock levelers are welded together to perform a single intended purpose - bridge the gap
between a loading bay and a trailer bed by raising and lowering the deck and lip. and returning
the leveler to its home position when not in use. Nordock, Systems and other manufacturers sell
their levelers as complete units. Remove any components or parts, and the dock leveler will not
reliably perfonn its intended purpose

12. Welding fixtures are used by manufacturers throughout the industry to ensure the parts
and components of the leveler properly align. mate and operate in unison to reliably raise and
lower the deck and lip.

13. Systems' infringing LHP/LHD dock levelers have a single intended purpose. As stated
and shown in Systems LHP/LHD brochures, they bridge the gap bet\veen a loading bay and a
trailer bed by raising and lowering the deck (platform) and lip. Each of its parts are needed for
and serve that intended purpose. Each of the features listed in the brochure pertain to that
purpose. Systems' infringing LHP/LHD levelers do not perform a broad range of other functions.

14. The infringing LHP/LHD levelers must have a front end with an extendable lip to
perform its intended purpose. Brochures of Systems, Nordock and third party competitors
confinn this. Systems infringing levelers will not perform this function without their front end
(i.e .. lip, lip lugs, header plate, header lugs and pivot rod). Although a dock leveler may be large
in size, it does not provide a broad range of other functions. such as a smartphone.

15. All of the 53 prior art references listed on the cover of the '0754 Patent pertain to a dock
leveler. None pertain to any other type of product. This indicates that the Patent Oflice examiner
did not consider other products to have a similar asserted component with the 'D754 Design, and
that the front end portion of the leveler (to which the 0754 Patent is applied) merges with the
overall appearance of the dock leveler.

16. When creating the new, original ornamental design shown in the 'D754 Patent, I
considered the entire leveler to ensure the design merged with the overall look of the leveler.

17. Systems' marketing brochures for its LHP/LHD levelers clearly display the infringed
design in a prominent manner. Systems' brochures could have shown the levelers with the lip
hanging down. but instead Systems chose to show the lip extended to display Nordock's 'D754

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 4 Document 258-9


Design. The infringed design fonns a large visual portion, if not the largest visual portion, of the
leveler in the brochures. The same is true regarding trade shows and customer demonstrations.
The front end design is positioned with the lip extended at eye level. Nordock's brochures also
prominently display the patented 'D754 design.

18. A dock leveler does not have an outer shell, let alone have high technology components
concealed inside that outer shell. The components of a dock leveler are in plain view in
marketing brochures. at trade shows and customer demonstrations, and during operation.

19. The '0754 design is for a configuration of parts that fonn a necessary portion of the dock
leveler. The design is not conceptually distinct from the dock leveler as a whole. Unlike a
smartphone that has a variety of high technology components and complex software
programming applications concealed inside its outer shell, a dock leveler does not have an outer
shell, let alone have unrelated, conceptually distinct elements concealed inside that outer shell.

20. Systems LHP/LHD leveler will not perfonn its intended purpose without all of its
components. The frame, deck. lip and drive system operate in unison and are all necessary for
the leveler to perform its intended purpose. Moreover, the majority of the L HP/I.HD leveler
components are welded together and are not readily or economically removed and replaced,
particularly the front end of the leveler to which the 'D754 Design is applied. Installing or
replacing welded components or parts in the field, such as the header plate. would be
prohibitively expensive as this would require cutting and/or re-welding welds. which could
easily result in misalignment of parts. unnecessary danger to the worker, and loading bay
downtime.

21. Systems brochures for its LHP/LHD levelers show parts and list features for the intended
purpose of a dock leveler - bridging the gap between the loading dock and a trailer bed by
reliably raising and lowering the deck and lip, and returning it to a home position. The listed
"Optional Equipment" (e.g .. Restraints, Insulation. Weather seals. Special color, etc.) is not
needed for the leveler to perfonn its intended purpose.

22. Given the manner dock levelers arc advertised and offered for sale (i.e., deck raised and
lip extended). a designer needs to know the appearance of an entire leveler lo design the lip and
hinge plate fonning the front end of the leveler.

Dated: August 22, 2017

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 4 Document 258-9


Exhibit H

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 4 Document 258-10


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NORDOCK, INC. )
) CIVIL ACTION: 11-CV-0118
Plaintiff, )
) Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin
v. )
)
SYSTEMS, INC. )
)
Defendant. )

DECLARATION OF SHAWN WARD IN SUPPORT OF


PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

I, SHAWN WARD, depose and declare as follows:


I. I am the vice-president ofNordock, Inc. ("Nordock") and make this declaration based
upon my personal knowledge.

2. I have worked in the dock leveler industry for about the past 28 years. During this time, I
have worked for Kelley Company (now Entrematic) and Nordock. During my employment with
each of these companies, I was involved with the marketing and sale of dock levelers.

3. The intended purpose of a dock leveler is to bridge the gap between the floor of a loading
dock and the bed of a trailer by raising and lowering its deck and lip. Dock levelers allow people
and forklifts to pass between the loading dock and the trailer when loading or unloading cargo
onto or from the trailer.

4. At the present time, Entrematic has about 31 percent of the United States dock leveler
market and was formed from the acquisitions and mergers of several companies, including
4Front, which was formed from Serco and Kelley, which was founded in 1953. Rite-Hite has
about 30 percent of the market and was founded in 1965. Systems has about 19 percent of the
market and was founded in 1961.

5. Levelers with piano hinge and gusseted piano hinge type front ends are common and
have been common (i.e., used by multiple third parties) throughout the industry since at least the
1950s.

6. Nordock was founded in December 2001. From its inception, Nordock built and sold
levelers with a unique and distinctive "front end" design ("the 'D754 Design"). Nordock's front
end design was specifically intended to distinguish its levelers from other manufacturers.
Nordock initiated a one year nationwide marketing campaign throughout the U.S. for a line of
levelers with this front end design in 2002, began selling its levelers with the front end design in

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 4 Document 258-10


levelers with this front end design in 2002, began selling its levelers with the front end design in
March 2002 and began displaying photographs of its levelers with the front end design on its
website in 2002.

7. Without a lip, a leveler will not perform its intended function of bridging the gap between
the loading dock and the trailer bed.

8. Systems' brochures for the LHP/LHD levelers prominently display Nordock's patented
'D754 Design.

9. The name "dock leveler" is the name of the article generally used by the public.

10. Dock leveler manufacturers sell dock levelers as a complete unit, and do not sell them
without a front end.

11. Dock levelers are welded together to perform a single intended purpose - bridge the gap
between a loading bay and a trailer bed by raising and lowering the deck and lip, and returning
the leveler to its home position when not in use. Nordock, Systems and other manufacturers sell
their levelers as complete units. Remove any components or parts, and the dock leveler will not
reliably perform its intended purpose

12. Welding fixtures are used by manufacturers throughout the industry to ensure the parts
and components of the leveler properly align, mate and operate in unison to reliably raise and
lower the deck and lip.

13. Systems' infringing LHP/LHD dock levelers have a single intended purpose. As stated
and shown in Systems LHP/LHD brochures, they bridge the gap between a loading bay and a
trailer bed by raising and lowering the deck (platform) and lip. Each of its parts are needed for
and serve that intended purpose. Each of the features listed in the brochure pertain to that
purpose. Systems' infringing LHP/LHD levelers do not perform a broad range of other functions.

14. The infringing LHP/LHD levelers must have a front end with an extendable lip to
perform its intended purpose. Brochures of Systems, Nordock and third party competitors
confirm this. Systems infringing levelers will not perform this function without their front end
(i.e., lip, lip lugs, header plate, header lugs and pivot rod). Although a dock leveler may be large
in size, it does not provide a broad range of other functions, such as a smartphone.

15. Systems' marketing brochures for its LHP/LHD levelers clearly display the infringed
design in a prominent manner. Systems' brochures could have shown the levelers with the lip
hanging down, but instead Systems chose to show the lip extended to display Nordock's 'D754
Design. The infringed design forms a large visual portion, if not the largest visual portion, of the
leveler in the brochures. The same is true regarding trade shows and customer demonstrations.
The front end design is positioned with the lip extended at eye level. Nordock's brochures also
prominently display the patented 'D754 design.

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 4 Document 258-10


16. A dock leveler does not have an outer she11, let alone have high technology components
concealed inside that outer shell. The components of a dock leveler are in plain view in
marketing brochures, at trade shows and customer demonstrations, and during operation.

17. The 'D7 54 design is for a configuration of parts that form a necessary portion of the dock
leveler. The design is not conceptually distinct from the dock leveler as a whole. Unlike a
smartphone that has a variety of high technology components and complex software
programming applications concealed inside its outer shell, a dock leveler does not have an outer
shell, let alone have unrelated, conceptually distinct elements concealed inside that outer shell.

18. Systems' LHP/LHD leveler will not perform its intended purpose '-Vithout all of its
components. The frame, deck, lip and drive system operate in unison and are all necessary for
the leveler to perform its intended purpose. Moreover, the majority of the LHP/LHD leveler
components are welded together and are not readily or economica1ly removed and replaced,
particularly the front end of the leveler to which the '0754 Design is applied. Installing or
replacing welded components or parts in the field, such as the header plate, would be
prohibitively expensive as this would require cutting and/or re-welding welds, which could
easily result in misalignment of parts, unnecessary danger to the worker, and loading bay
downtime.

19. Systems brochures for its LHP/LHD levelers show parts and list features for the intended
purpose of a dock leveler - bridging the gap between the loading dock and a trailer bed by
reliably raising and lowering the deck and lip, and returning it to a home position. The listed
"Optional Equipment" (e.g., Restraints, Insulation, Weather seals, Special color, etc.) is not
needed for the leveler to perform its intended purpose.

Dated: August 22, 2017

By: Shawn Ward

Case 2:11-cv-00118-WED Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 4 Document 258-10