Evolve Mep LLC v. Pinnacle Infotech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: eVolve MEP, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Pinnacle Infotech, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Clayton, McKay & Bailey, PC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00901, N.D. Ga., 02/16/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a licensee of Plaintiff's software, misappropriated intellectual property to develop and market a competing suite of software plugins that infringes on eleven of Plaintiff's patents related to computer-aided design (CAD) automation.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves software plugins for Autodesk Revit, a leading Building Information Modeling (BIM) platform, which are used to automate complex design and fabrication workflows in the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) sectors of the construction industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was a licensee of Plaintiff's software and was put on notice of the patents-in-suit via an End User License Agreement (EULA). Plaintiff alleges that it sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant on November 20, 2025, and December 5, 2025. The complaint notes that several of the asserted patents overcame patent-eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution by demonstrating specific technical improvements to CAD software functionality.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-07-27	Priority Date for '661 and '420 Patents
2017-02-28	Priority Date for '820 Patent
2019-04-18	Priority Date for '427, '580, '392, and '084 Patents
2019-08-26	Priority Date for '592, '058, and '295 Patents
2021-08-05	Filing Date for '679 Patent
2022-09-01	Pinnacle becomes licensee of Evolve Electrical
2022-09-14	'679 Patent Notice of Allowance issued
2022-12-01	Pinnacle becomes licensee of Evolve Mechanical
2025-06-30	Pinnacle's Evolve Mechanical license term ends
2025-11-01	Evolve becomes aware of Pinnacle marketing competing PiVDC software
2025-11-20	Evolve executives meet with Pinnacle CEO
2025-11-20	Evolve sends first cease-and-desist letter to Pinnacle
2025-11-21	Pinnacle agrees to "pause new sales" of its accused software
2025-12-05	Evolve sends supplemental cease-and-desist letter to Pinnacle
2026-02-16	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,556,679 - "Modifying Elements in a Computer-Aided Design Application Using Enhanced Selection Filtering"

• Issued: January 17, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In complex computer-aided design (CAD) applications like Autodesk Revit, users often need to modify a parameter for a large group of elements (e.g., changing a work set). The patent notes that performing this task by modifying each element individually is time-consuming and prone to error (Compl. ¶¶66-67; ’679 Patent, col. 1:10-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a plugin that generates a custom "element modification window" within the CAD application's graphical user interface (GUI). This window allows a user to define a filter based on specific criteria (a parameter, operator, and operand) to select a group of elements. The user can then select an action, such as setting a parameter value or executing a macro, to be performed on all elements that match the filter criteria. The plugin then automatically identifies the matching elements and performs the selected action via an application programming interface (API) call (’679 Patent, abstract; ’679 Patent, col. 2:45-67).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a specific technical improvement to CAD software by automating a manual, repetitive, and error-prone process, thereby increasing workflow efficiency and accuracy in large-scale design projects (Compl. ¶67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶66, 109).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • Generating an element modification window within a GUI of a CAD application.
  • Receiving criteria for a filter to apply to an element type based on a parameter, operator, and operand.
  • Receiving a selection of an action to perform on elements that meet the filter criteria (where the action is one of setting a parameter value, executing a macro, or setting a work set parameter).
  • Identifying at least one element that fits the filter criteria.
  • Performing the selected action on the identified element.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,922,592 - "Element Alignment for Hangers in Computer-Aided Design"

• Issued: March 5, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the process of laying out elements like pipes, conduits, or ductwork on hangers in BIM software as "painstaking and not practical." It is difficult to visually confirm alignment, and different elements have distinct spacing requirements to comply with building codes and ensure proper installation (’592 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a software plugin that automates the alignment of multiple elements. A user selects an "anchor element" (e.g., a primary pipe in a run) and then selects multiple other elements to be aligned with it. The system then defines an "alignment plane," often based on a structural "edge element" like a hanger, and automatically repositions the selected elements to be parallel on that plane while applying the correct spacing between them based on their specific parameters (’592 Patent, abstract; ’592 Patent, col. 2:9-46).
• Technical Importance: This technology automates a critical and complex design task in the MEP field, aiming to ensure that digital designs are constructible and code-compliant from the outset (Compl. ¶75).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 and provides Claim 8 as a representative example (Compl. ¶¶75, 112).

• The essential elements of independent Claim 8 include:

  • Receiving a first selection of an anchor element (e.g., pipe, conduit, or duct) on a GUI.
  • Receiving a second selection of multiple elements to align with the anchor element.
  • Visually aligning the multiple elements based on the anchor element, which includes:
    • Defining an alignment plane based on an edge element.
    • Aligning the anchor and multiple elements in parallel on the alignment plane.
    • Automatically providing spacing between the multiple elements.

• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
  The following patents are also asserted in the complaint and are summarized in capsule format.

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,347,058 and U.S. Patent No. 11,107,295, collectively part of the "Element Alignment Patents."

• Technology Synopsis: These patents relate to the same subject matter as the '592 Patent, covering functionality for aligning elements like conduit, ductwork, and plumbing within a CAD environment by selecting an anchor element and automatically aligning and spacing other elements relative to it (Compl. ¶¶70, 72, 75).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 1 of the '058 Patent and Claim 1 of the '295 Patent (Compl. ¶112).

• Accused Features: The accused features are Pinnacle's "Multi Align" and "Space" functions within the PiVDC plugin (Compl. ¶¶110-111).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,361,427 and U.S. Patent No. 10,902,580, collectively the "Auto-dimensioning Patents."

• Technology Synopsis: These patents cover functionality for automatically dimensioning part assemblies in a CAD model. The technology involves receiving a part identifier, determining a dimensioning rule based on that identifier, dynamically selecting reference points, calculating a dimension, and displaying it outside the part's boundary (Compl. ¶81).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 of the '427 Patent and Claim 1 of the '580 Patent (Compl. ¶114).

• Accused Features: The accused feature is Pinnacle's "Nearest Grid Dimensioning" feature (Compl. ¶113).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,928,392 and U.S. Patent No. 11,244,084, collectively the "Spool Sheet Generation Patents."

• Technology Synopsis: These patents cover functionality for automatically generating "spool sheets" (fabrication drawings) in Revit. The technology involves receiving a selection of an assembly and displaying a spool page organized by a template, which includes a printable region and multiple draggable views of the assembly at different angles (Compl. ¶87).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 of the '392 Patent and Claim 1 of the '084 Patent (Compl. ¶116).

• Accused Features: The accused feature is Pinnacle's "Automatic Generating Spool Sheet" feature (Compl. ¶115).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,331,820, the "Kick Bend Patent."

• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers functionality for creating custom "kick bend" components in Revit. The invention involves a module that determines the length and orientation of system components, calculates an imaginary intersection point between pipes, and identifies a custom "kick" component based on these attributes (Compl. ¶91).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 of the '820 Patent (Compl. ¶118).

• Accused Features: The accused feature is Pinnacle's "Kick By Selection" function (Compl. ¶117).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,318,661 and U.S. Patent No. 11,544,420, collectively the "Assembly Parameter Management Patents."

• Technology Synopsis: These patents cover functionality for managing parameter values in nested assembly families within Revit. The technology uses a nested collection of families (host, child, sub-child) and generates a custom dialog that presents only permissible parameter values to the user, preventing the selection of invalid configurations (Compl. ¶101).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 of the '661 Patent and Claim 1 of the '420 Patent (Compl. ¶121).

• Accused Features: The accused features are Pinnacle's assembly configuration and parameter inheritance functionality (Compl. ¶¶119-120).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are software plugins developed and marketed by Pinnacle, collectively referred to as the "Pinnacle Plugins" or "PiVDC" (Compl. ¶35). These include specific offerings named "Pi-Electrical" and "Pi-Mechanical" (Compl. ¶35).
• Functionality and Market Context: The Pinnacle Plugins are add-ons for the Autodesk Revit CAD platform that provide functionality for MEP design and modeling (Compl. ¶¶28, 35). The complaint alleges these plugins directly compete with Plaintiff's eVolve Electrical and eVolve Mechanical products (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges the accused plugins contain features that perform parameter synchronization, multi-element alignment, automatic dimensioning, spool sheet generation, custom bend creation, and assembly parameter management (Compl. ¶52; Compl. ¶¶108-121). The complaint alleges these plugins were created by copying and reverse engineering Plaintiff's software and proprietary RFA files (Revit Family files) (Compl. ¶36). Exhibit 1, page 1, is alleged to show a side-by-side comparison of RFA parameters from the accused PiVDC and Plaintiff's plugin, demonstrating copied parameter names (Compl. ¶43).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

11,556,679 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
generating, with a selection engine, an element modification window within a graphical user interface... of a computer-aided design application	The Pinnacle Plugins allegedly include a user interface for selecting elements based on filter criteria (Compl. ¶108).	¶108	col. 2:54-58
receiving, by the plugin, criteria for a filter to apply to an element type in a design layout... the criteria being based on a parameter, operator, and operand	The accused user interface allegedly allows for selecting elements based on filter criteria (Compl. ¶108).	¶108	col. 2:54-58
receiving, by the plugin, a selection of an action to perform on elements... that meet the criteria on the filter...	The Pinnacle Plugins allegedly provide functionality for synchronizing parameter values across the selected elements (Compl. ¶108).	¶108	col. 2:61-64
identifying at least one element in the design layout that fits the filter criteria	The accused plugin allegedly identifies elements that match the user-defined filter criteria (Compl. ¶108).	¶108	col. 4:54-57
performing the selected action on the at least one element	The accused plugin allegedly synchronizes (i.e., sets) parameter values for the identified elements (Compl. ¶108).	¶108	col. 4:58-61

11,922,592 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving a first selection of an anchor element on a graphical user interface ("GUI"), wherein the anchor element is one of pipe, conduit, or a duct	The accused "Multi Align" feature allows users to select an anchor element (Compl. ¶110).	¶110	col. 4:10-14
receiving a second selection, on the GUI, of multiple elements to align with the anchor element	The accused "Multi Align" feature allows users to select multiple elements to align (Compl. ¶110).	¶110	col. 4:29-33
defining an alignment plane based on an edge element	The "Multi Align" feature allegedly aligns elements automatically, which corresponds to the claimed visual alignment functionality (Compl. ¶110).	¶110	col. 5:7-15
aligning the anchor element and multiple other non-connected elements in parallel relative to one another on the alignment plane	The "Multi Align" feature allegedly aligns the selected elements automatically (Compl. ¶110).	¶110	col. 5:58-65
automatically providing spacing between the multiple elements, wherein the anchor element is a start point for the spacing	The "Multi Align" and "Space" functions allegedly provide for automatic alignment and spacing of elements (Compl. ¶¶110-111).	¶110; ¶111	col. 6:1-6

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • '679 Patent: A central technical question may be whether the accused functionality for "selecting elements based on filter criteria" (Compl. ¶108) operates in the specific manner required by Claim 1. The analysis may focus on whether the accused product requires a user to define a filter using the claimed three-part structure of a "parameter, operator, and operand" and whether the subsequent action is performed via an API call as recited in the patent's prosecution history (Compl. ¶67).
  • '592 Patent: The dispute may center on the "defining an alignment plane based on an edge element" limitation. The analysis could raise the question of whether Pinnacle's "Multi Align" feature uses the concept of an "edge element" (such as a hanger) to define the alignment plane, or if it uses a different technical method, such as simply aligning all selected elements to the central axis of the chosen anchor element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'679 Patent

• The Term: "element modification window"
• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on whether the user interface in Pinnacle's plugin for filtering and modifying elements qualifies as the claimed "element modification window". Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if a generic property editor or a more specialized, plugin-generated interface is required to meet the claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the invention as providing a "custom dialog display" or an "additional window or pane," which could suggest that any non-native GUI provided by the plugin for performing the claimed functions may suffice (’679 Patent, col. 2:54-58).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific GUI with tabs for "Categories," "Rules," and "Options" (e.g., ’679 Patent, Fig. 4A-4C). This could support an argument that the term is limited to an interface with this specific, multi-part structure for defining and applying rules.

'592 Patent

• The Term: "edge element"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because in Claim 8, it is the basis for "defining an alignment plane." The infringement question may turn on whether the accused "Multi Align" feature utilizes a component that meets the definition of an "edge element", or if its alignment logic is based on a different principle.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a user can "select a hanger element as the edge element" or, alternatively, "the user can select the anchor element as the edge element" (’592 Patent, col. 5:10-15). This suggests the term is flexible and not limited to a separate structural component.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section primarily discusses the problem of aligning elements on physical "hangers" (’592 Patent, col. 1:21-34). This context could be used to argue that the term "edge element" should be construed more narrowly to mean a physical, structural component intended to support the elements being aligned, rather than an abstract reference.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all eleven asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Pinnacle directs and instructs its customers to use the infringing features through "user manuals, tutorials, marketing materials, technical support, and training" (Compl. ¶166; Compl. ¶175). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Pinnacle Plugins are especially made for infringement and are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶167; Compl. ¶176).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness on multiple grounds. First, it alleges Pinnacle had pre-suit knowledge of the patents because it was a licensee of Evolve's software and accepted an EULA that expressly listed the patent numbers (Compl. ¶¶25, 122). Second, it alleges Pinnacle received express written notice of infringement via cease-and-desist letters dated November 20, 2025, and December 5, 2025 (Compl. ¶123). The complaint further alleges that Pinnacle's CEO demonstrated "deliberate and intentional decision to copy" by stating he had "seen every single line of code" (Compl. ¶¶31, 128).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate, through source code analysis or other technical evidence, that the accused features in Pinnacle's PiVDC software operate in a manner that maps onto the specific, multi-step processes recited in the asserted claims, or will the evidence suggest independent development of functionally similar but technically distinct solutions?
• A key legal question will be the impact of the prior relationship: what legal effect does Pinnacle's status as a former licensee, who was party to an EULA listing the asserted patents, have on the questions of pre-suit knowledge for willfulness and potential estoppel from challenging the patents' validity?
• The case may also turn on a question of patent eligibility: given that the patents claim software-based improvements to an existing third-party platform (Autodesk Revit), a core legal battle may be whether the claims are directed to specific, concrete technical improvements to computer functionality, as Plaintiff argued during prosecution, or whether they can be successfully characterized by the Defendant as abstract ideas implemented with conventional computer components.