Raptor LLC v. Johnson Bros Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Raptor, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Johnson Bros. Corporation (Texas); Qualis Concrete LLC (Florida); David Santiago Zuleta (Florida)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Avila Rodriguez Fernandez Mena & Garro LLP
• Case Identification: 9:26-cv-80203, S.D. Fla., 02/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants committed acts of infringement, maintain an office, and regularly conduct business within the Southern District of Florida, where a substantial part of the events, specifically a major highway construction project, took place.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' process and equipment for constructing reinforced concrete highway barriers infringe patents related to slip forming methods and a specialized "tunnel mold" that creates structures with exposed reinforcing bars (rebars).
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of large-scale civil engineering and highway construction, where slip forming technology allows for the continuous, in-place creation of concrete structures like barriers and copings.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges that its former licensee's subcontractor, Johnson Bros., continued to use the patented technology through a new subcontractor, Qualis Concrete, after the subcontract was terminated. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants received a cease-and-desist letter but, after acknowledging it in a project meeting, made a conscious decision to continue the allegedly infringing activity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,920,068 - "Process for Slip Forming Reinforced Bridge Coping with Exposed Rebars"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in highway construction, noting that traditional methods for creating bridge copings (the top edge of a bridge structure) are either labor-intensive manual processes or involve pre-cast elements that do not conform well to the specific grade of an overpass, requiring extra work to ensure a coherent structure ʼ068 Patent, col. 3:24-52
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a slip forming process that creates a monolithic, reinforced concrete structure directly on-site ʼ068 Patent, col. 4:25-30 The key innovation is the use of a specialized "tunnel mold" that allows certain reinforcing bars (rebars) to pass through the molding process without being encased in concrete ʼ068 Patent, col. 4:56-62 This results in a finished concrete structure with some rebars fully embedded for strength and others left partially exposed, ready for seamless integration with the next structural element, such as a barrier wall ʼ068 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: This process enables the rapid, continuous, and automated on-site fabrication of customized concrete components that are structurally sound and perfectly matched to the highway's incline, overcoming the labor, time, and quality-control issues of prior art methods ʼ068 Patent, col. 3:53-62

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶31
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Providing an "iron work array" with two sets of rebars: one for embedding within a first concrete structure and one for extending out from it for later integration with a second structure.
  • Providing a machine with a "tunnel mold" that has at least one "elongate channel" sufficient to allow the extending rebars to pass through the mold cavity.
  • Slip forming the first concrete structure by moving the machine over the iron work array and introducing concrete, resulting in a structure with both embedded rebars and "concrete free" extending rebars.

U.S. Patent No. 8,956,075 - "Tunnel Mold, System and Method for Slip Forming Reinforced Concrete Structures with Exposed Rebars"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide an improved slip-mold apparatus and system to implement the process described in the parent '068 patent, addressing the need to simplify on-site fabrication, minimize manual labor, and accelerate construction schedules for highway infrastructure ʼ075 Patent, col. 3:61-65 ʼ075 Patent, col. 4:1-5
• The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on the specific apparatus: the "tunnel mold." The mold is defined as a housing that includes a hopper to receive concrete, a mold cavity that shapes the concrete, and at least one "tunnel" or channel that passes through the housing ʼ075 Patent, abstract This tunnel is designed to allow specific rebars to pass through without being encased in concrete. A key feature is the inclusion of "a pair of fins" that extend from the tunnel's side walls down into the unset concrete to act as a barrier, preventing the concrete from flowing into the channel and covering the rebars ʼ075 Patent, col. 9:1-10
• Technical Importance: The claimed mold design, particularly the inclusion of fins, provides a specific and practical mechanical solution for reliably creating slip-formed concrete structures with exposed rebars, which is a critical enabling technology for multi-stage, monolithic concrete construction ʼ075 Patent, col. 5:1-9

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 15 Compl. ¶32
• Essential elements of claim 15 include:
  • A tunnel mold comprising a mold housing.
  • The housing includes a hopper, a mold cavity, and at least one channel.
  • The hopper is a means for receiving and directing concrete.
  • The mold cavity defines the shape of the concrete structure.
  • The channel is a "tunnel" extending through the housing, defined by side walls, an open bottom, and a "pair of fins" extending from the bottom of the side walls into the mold cavity.
  • A "means for supporting" the mold housing on a slip mold transporter.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the methods and equipment, specifically a slip forming machine equipped with a tunnel mold, allegedly used by Defendant Qualis Concrete at the direction of Defendants Johnson Bros. and Mr. Zuleta Compl. ¶¶29, 31-32 The infringement is alleged to be occurring during construction work on the "Turnpike Project," a project to widen the Florida Turnpike Compl. ¶19

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the defendants are using a slip forming process to create concrete highway structures with exposed rebars for subsequent integration with other components Compl. ¶31 A photograph provided in the complaint, allegedly taken at the construction site, shows a machine labeled as the "Tunnel Mold" being used in this process Compl. p. 8 The complaint alleges this activity began after Johnson Bros.'s authorized subcontractor was terminated and replaced with Qualis Concrete, suggesting a direct continuation of work using the patented technology without a license Compl. ¶¶27, 29, 30

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'068 Patent Infringement Allegations

'075 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a single labeled photograph as evidence of infringement for the apparatus claim of the '075 patent Compl. p. 8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: For the '068 process patent, a central question will be whether the defendants' actions, as captured in photographs and other evidence, meet every step of the claimed method. A defendant may challenge whether its process includes the specific continuous movement and concrete introduction steps as claimed.
  • Scope Questions: For the '075 apparatus patent, a key dispute may arise over the term "fins." The complaint's photographic evidence for this patent does not explicitly detail the internal structure of the accused mold to show the presence or absence of "fins" as claimed. The infringement analysis for this element will depend on whether the accused device has an equivalent structure and how the court construes the term. The "means for supporting" limitation could also be disputed if the accused transporter mechanism is argued to be structurally different from that disclosed in the specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "tunnel mold" ('068 Patent) and "tunnel" ('075 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This is the central technological concept of the patents. The definition of what constitutes a "tunnel" or "tunnel mold" will be critical. A narrow definition requiring specific structural features beyond just a channel could allow the defendants to design around the claim, while a broader, more functional definition would make infringement easier to prove. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused device is explicitly labeled a "Tunnel Mold," but its internal structure relative to the patent's specific embodiments is not detailed in the complaint.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, describing a "tunnel mold" as a "slip forming compatible assembly, having a one or more channels or passages through the mold cavity" that allows rebars to pass through and "remain concrete-free" ʼ068 Patent, col. 6:55-67 This language may support a construction covering any apparatus that achieves this result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses specific embodiments, such as a tunnel having "an open end along the base of the mold" ʼ068 Patent, col. 6:60-61 and associated "fins" ʼ075 Patent, claim 15 A defendant may argue that these features are essential limitations, not merely preferred examples, and that the term should be construed to require them.

• The Term: "fins" ('075 Patent, Claim 15)

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the apparatus claim and adds a specific structural limitation to the "tunnel." Proving infringement of claim 15 requires showing the accused mold has these "fins." Their purpose is to "provent/minimizing the flow of unset concrete" into the tunnel ʼ068 Patent, col. 8:64-67

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any structure extending from the tunnel walls into the mold cavity that performs the function of preventing concrete ingress should be considered a "fin," even if it does not look exactly like the diagrams.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the fins as distinct, plate-like structures ʼ068 Patent, FIG. 4B, elements 32, 33 A defendant could argue that the term "fins" is limited to structures that are substantially similar to those depicted in the patent's drawings. The complaint's evidence for the '075 patent does not provide a clear view of such structures on the accused device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement against Johnson Bros. and Mr. Zuleta. The allegations state that they knowingly directed and instructed the subcontractor, Qualis Concrete, to use the infringing methods and technology Compl. ¶¶56, 72 This is premised on their alleged knowledge of the patents from a cease-and-desist letter and their subsequent decision to continue the work Compl. ¶¶33, 40
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged against all Defendants. The complaint bases this on alleged actual notice provided by a cease-and-desist letter sent on February 5, 2026 Compl. ¶33 Crucially, the complaint cites the minutes of a Florida Department of Transportation meeting held on February 12, 2026, which allegedly state: "JBC [Johnson Bros.] received a Cease and Desist... JBC [Johnson Bros.] and Qualis have decided to proceed with the slip-forming" Compl. ¶40 This is presented as direct evidence of a deliberate decision to continue infringing after being notified of the patents.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: will the term "tunnel," central to both patents, be defined broadly by its function of allowing rebars to pass through concrete-free, or will it be limited to the specific structural embodiments shown in the patent figures, such as those including "fins"? The answer will significantly influence the scope of the claims and the infringement analysis.
• A second pivotal issue will be one of knowing intent: the complaint presents unusually specific allegations of willfulness and inducement, citing meeting minutes that purportedly document the defendants' decision to proceed with the accused activity after receiving notice of the patents. A key question for the fact-finder will be whether this evidence is sufficient to establish the deliberate, "wanton and malicious" conduct required to support enhanced damages and a finding of inducement.