TAMPA -- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the Tampa Division ironed out Dec. 28 a couple of terms that were disputed in a manufacturer’s patent infringement case against a competitor.
Big Stik Manufacturing Inc. sued Pitbull Tools and Supplies LLC as well as R&K Tools and Supplies LLC, alleging they violated Big Stik’s patent for a particular tool. In the complaint, there were several terms and designs that were disputed. The district court, under the authority of U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, has explained all of the issues and construed the questionable terms.
For starters, the term “pin leer depressed for positioning [the] pin into retracted position” has been explained as a pin lever that is pressed toward the pole to help position [the] pin into its needed position.
The term, “a first pin column and a second pin column positioned on opposing sides of pin lever” has been defined as a first and second member positioned on different sides of the pin lever and each member is put up in relation to the first pole.
As for the term that reads, “a bridge member extending and coupled to said first pin column and said second pin column,” the court defined that portion of the complaint as a part that is separate for the first pin and second pin column that spreads across and links to both columns.
When it came to the term that reads, “said bridge member having a bridge bore for receiving said pin” to be labeled as a bridge member with a hole that the pin can go in.
Lastly, the sentence, “a pin slidably engaging within said pin lever between a retracted position and a protruded position,” has been fined as a pin inside of a pin lever that when connected, goes from a retracted to a protruded position.