DCT

5:26-cv-04542

Gale Banks Engineering v. S B Filters Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Gale Banks Engineering v. S&B Filters, Inc., 5:26-cv-04542, C.D. Cal., 08/31/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant, S&B Filters, Inc., resides in this District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendant's aftermarket intake elbows for diesel trucks infringes its design patent, and further alleges that Defendant has engaged in false advertising regarding the performance of its products.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to high-performance aftermarket components for diesel-powered vehicles, a market where both visual design and claimed performance are key differentiators.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is an amended complaint. The complaint notes that Defendant's counsel was provided with a copy of the original complaint and the asserted patent on August 12, 2026, which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2025-09-29 '867 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2026-08-04 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,139,867 Issues
2026-08-12 S&B's counsel allegedly provided with original complaint and '867 patent
2026-08-31 Amended Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,139,867, titled Intake Manifold Plenum with Multiple Air Heater Provisions, issued August 4, 2026 (the "'867 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '867 Patent does not describe a technical problem or a functional solution. Instead, it protects the purely ornamental, non-functional, visual characteristics of an article of manufacture '867 Patent, claim
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific aesthetic appearance of an "intake manifold plenum" '867 Patent, (54) The protected design, depicted in solid lines across numerous figures, features a distinct combination of curved surfaces, planar mounting flanges, and specific port configurations that create a unique overall visual impression '867 Patent, Figs. 1-21 The patent explicitly disclaims functional or environmental elements shown in broken lines, stating they "form no part of the claimed design" '867 Patent, p. 2 of spec.
  • Technical Importance: The underlying product, an intake elbow, is a component in the high-performance diesel engine aftermarket, where both performance and aesthetic design are factors for consumers Compl. ¶¶7, 9

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The '867 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an intake manifold plenum with multiple air heater provisions as shown and described" '867 Patent, (57)
  • In design patent litigation, the "elements" are the collective visual features of the design as a whole, rather than a list of textual limitations. The infringement analysis compares the overall appearance of the accused product to the patent's drawings from the perspective of an "ordinary observer."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two accused products: S&B's intake elbow for the 2019-2024 RAM 2500/3500 truck with a 6.7 liter Cummins engine, and an intake elbow for the 2007.5-2018 Dodge RAM 2500/3500 truck with a 6.7 liter Cummins engine Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶13

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are aftermarket automotive parts sold in competition with Plaintiff's own "Monster-Ram" intake elbow Compl. ¶¶8-9 The complaint alleges that many of S&B's products are "based on products developed by Banks" Compl. ¶8 A side-by-side photograph in the complaint shows Plaintiff's "Monster-Ram" product next to an accused S&B product, illustrating their presence in the same market niche Compl. p. 3

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed by comparing the patented design to the accused product to determine if they are "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The complaint supports its allegations primarily through visual comparisons.

D1,139,867 Infringement Allegations

Claimed Feature (from the '867 Patent Drawings) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for an intake manifold plenum as depicted in the patent figures. The complaint alleges the overall design of S&B's intake elbow is "substantially the same in the eyes of an ordinary observer" as the design protected by the patent. ¶12; ¶13 Figs. 1-21
Specific visual characteristics including the overall shape, contours, and configuration of flanges and ports. The complaint presents side-by-side photographic comparisons between patent figures and the accused S&B products to illustrate the alleged similarity in appearance. p. 4; p. 5 Figs. 11, 12, 15

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue will be the proper scope of the claimed design. The patent drawings include broken lines that "form no part of the claimed design" '867 Patent, p. 2 of spec. The infringement analysis must properly disregard these unclaimed features and focus only on the elements shown in solid lines when comparing the patent to the accused products.
  • Visual Similarity: The dispositive question will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the products in this market, would be deceived into purchasing the S&B product believing it to be the Banks product due to the similarity of their designs. The side-by-side comparisons provided in the complaint, such as the one juxtaposing Figure 12 of the patent with a photo of the S&B product, directly frame this question for the court Compl. p. 4

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the drawing, so there are no textual terms to construe. The central issue is the scope of the claimed design.

  • The "Term": The scope of "the ornamental design... as shown and described" '867 Patent, (57)
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the design is the lynchpin of the infringement analysis. The key question is what visual features are included in the legally protected design. Practitioners may focus on the patent's use of broken lines, as this directly limits the scope of protection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the overall visual impression created by the solid-line features is dominant and that minor differences in the accused product should be disregarded if the overall aesthetic is the same.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit and powerful statement limiting the design's scope: "The broken lines shown in the drawings are included for the purpose of illustrating portions of the intake manifold plenum with multiple air heater provisions that form no part of the claimed design" '867 Patent, p. 2 of spec. This language suggests that any comparison for infringement must be strictly limited to the features rendered in solid lines.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 but pleads specific facts only supporting direct infringement through S&B's "offering for sale and the sale of its intake elbows" Compl. ¶27 The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on S&B's continued sales of the accused products after it was allegedly put on notice of the '867 Patent Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶15 The complaint alleges S&B's counsel received a copy of the patent on August 12, 2026, and that S&B was still selling the products as of August 28, 2026 Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶15

In addition to patent infringement, the complaint includes a count for false advertising under the Lanham Act Compl. ¶¶32-37 It alleges that S&B advertises its cold air intakes as flowing "better than stock" when Plaintiff's own testing allegedly shows they flow "6-9% worse" Compl. ¶¶17-18

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A Question of Visual Impression: The core of the design patent claim will be a battle of visuals: from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser of aftermarket truck parts, is the overall ornamental design of S&B's intake elbow "substantially the same" as the specific aesthetic claimed in the solid-line drawings of the '867 patent?
  2. A Question of Scope Definition: A threshold legal issue will be defining the precise scope of the claimed design. The court's treatment of the broken lines in the patent drawings-and whether any functional aspects of the design are filtered out of the infringement analysis-will be critical in determining the breadth of protection afforded by the patent.
  3. A Question of Intent: For willfulness and the false advertising claims, the case may turn on S&B's state of mind. Key questions will be whether S&B's alleged continued infringement after notice rises to the level of "egregious" conduct for willfulness, and whether its advertising claims were knowingly false or misleading.