Patent Infringement Complaint Seeks To Fence Competitor Out Of Field
Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. (“Barrette”), an Ohio corporation with a place of business in Jefferson, Georgia, brought a patent infringement action against Porcelen, Limited, Connecticut, LLC, for patent infringement of the following patents:
U.S. Patent No. 8,413, 332 (the ‘332 patent)
U.S. Patent No. 8,413,965 (the ‘965 patent)
The complaint alleges that Barrette provides “high quality fencing and railing products, including extruded metal fencing and railings, both for residential and commercial applications.”
The ‘332 patent addresses a fencing apparatus and method of manufacturing. Below are two figures selected from the patent showing its connection concealing feature:
The ‘965 patent addresses a sliding pivotal connection that permits the attachment of fence posts at greater elevation differences than accomplished by the prior art. Below are two figures selected from the patent showing the great angles permitted by the invention.
Barrette alleges that Porcelen’s SpecRail brand of fencing infringes the two patents. The two patents issued on April 9, 2013, and Barrette sent written notice of the patents to Porcelen on or about August 7, 2013. Thereafter, according to the complaint, Porcelen changed its design by adding rubber bands. However, Barrette alleges this addition failed to avoid direct infringement of the two patents.
Barrette seeks an injunction, damages, and a finding of willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 283, 284, and 285.
The case is Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Porcelen, Limited, Connecticut, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-00045-WCO, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on March 5, 2014, and is assigned to Judge William C. O’Kelley.