DCL Inc v. Velocity Flow Tech Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DCL, Inc. (Michigan)
  • Defendant: Velocity Flow Technologies Corp. (Kansas)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Erise IP, PA.; Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Ondersma LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-02201, D. Kan., 04/14/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant being a Kansas corporation with a place of business in the district, engaging in continuous business within Kansas, and placing accused products into the stream of commerce targeting the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's automated bulk material loading systems infringe a patent related to using a camera and control system to automatically align a loading spout with a transport vehicle's hatch.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the industrial process of loading bulk materials (e.g., cement, grain) into trucks or rail cars, where automating the alignment of the loading spout is intended to increase efficiency and reduce spillage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the asserted '313 patent is part of a family of patents, including the parent U.S. Patent No. 11,286,123. Plaintiff allegedly provided Defendant with notice of this parent patent on April 22, 2022, to which Defendant's counsel responded on May 2, 2022, with a statement of non-infringement. This pre-suit communication is cited to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-06-20	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,534,313
2020-06-18	Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 11,286,123 (parent patent)
2022-04-22	Plaintiff provides notice of U.S. Patent No. 11,286,123 to Defendant
2022-05-02	Defendant's counsel responds to Plaintiff's notice
2023-01-01	An article featuring the Accused Product was published (date generalized from complaint)
2024-04-22	Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 12,534,313
2024-08-15	Publication of application for U.S. Patent No. 12,534,313
2025-12-05	Defendant Salina Vortex Corp. changes name to Velocity Flow Technologies Corp.
2026-01-27	U.S. Patent No. 12,534,313 issues
2026-04-14	Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,534,313 - Camera-Enabled Loader System and Method

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,534,313, "Camera-Enabled Loader System and Method," issued January 27, 2026 (the '313 Patent). Compl. ¶8

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the conventional process of loading bulk materials into transport vehicles as time-consuming and imprecise, as it relies on a human operator to visually guide a driver to align a vehicle's hatch under a loading spout, a process prone to error, spillage, and inefficiency. '313 Patent, col. 1:36-57
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides an automated system to solve this alignment problem. It uses a camera mounted on a movable spout support structure to view the top of the transport vehicle. A programmable logic controller (PLC) analyzes the camera's images to locate the vehicle's hatch opening. Based on this analysis, the PLC automatically moves the spout support to center the loading spout over the hatch before commencing the filling operation, thereby reducing the need for manual guidance and improving speed and accuracy. '313 Patent, abstract '313 Patent, col. 2:3-20 The complaint includes a screen capture from the plaintiff's website that illustrates its own commercial embodiment, showing a camera and spout assembly positioned over a vehicle hatch. Compl. ¶11
• Technical Importance: By automating the alignment process, the technology aims to reduce vehicle downtime, increase the throughput of loading facilities, and minimize material spillage, which can lower overall operating costs in bulk material handling industries. '313 Patent, col. 2:1-3

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶25
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A loading spout assembly with a spout capable of vertical movement.
  • A movable spout support that moves horizontally within a "planar region" to center the spout. This planar region is defined as being "smaller than the loading area" and extending "horizontally beyond the reach zone."
  • A camera, coupled to the spout support, that captures and analyzes images in real-time.
  • A programmable logic controller (PLC) communicatively coupled to the other components. The PLC is configured to:
    • (i) Actuate the spout support to center the spout over the hatch, if the system determines the hatch is within the "reach zone."
    • (ii) Actuate the loading spout assembly to fill the vehicle after the spout is centered.
      Compl. ¶14
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but implies this possibility by alleging infringement of "at least" claim 1. Compl. ¶15

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Vortex Automated Loading System," also referred to as "VALS." Compl. ¶13

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the VALS is a bulk loading system used for delivering material through a transport vehicle's hatch opening. Compl. ¶16 Based on marketing materials, the complaint asserts the system includes a loading spout with vertical movement, a spout support with horizontal movement for centering, a camera, and a PLC. Compl. ¶¶16-17
• The PLC in the accused system is alleged to use camera images to determine if a vehicle's hatch is within a "reach zone" and, if so, to actuate the spout support to center the spout over the hatch before initiating the filling process. Compl. ¶17
• The complaint alleges the accused system has been marketed via Defendant's website, featured in a 2023 industry magazine, and advertised on YouTube, including an installation at a facility in Eastern Kansas. Compl. ¶13

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused VALS product meets every limitation of claim 1 of the '313 Patent. The specific allegations are summarized from the complaint's narrative breakdown below.

'313 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a loading spout assembly including a spout adapted to move in two vertical directions of movement;	The accused system is alleged to include a loading spout assembly with a spout that is adapted for vertical movement.	¶16	col. 2:10-12
a movable spout support adapted to support said loading spout assembly and move in at least two horizontal directions of movement within a planar region for centering said spout over the hatch opening... wherein said planar region is smaller than the loading area and extends horizontally beyond the reach zone;	The accused system is alleged to include a spout support that moves horizontally within a planar region for centering, with the complaint asserting this region meets the claimed size and positional characteristics.	¶16	col. 2:6-10
a camera coupled to said spout support for capturing and analyzing a plurality of images in real-time;	The accused system is alleged to include a camera coupled to its spout support.	¶17	col. 2:12-15
a programmable logic controller (PLC) communicatively coupled... said PLC configured to actuate (i) said spout support for centering said spout... if said bulk loading system determines that the hatch opening is in the reach zone, and (ii) said loading spout assembly for filling the storage compartment... after said spout is centered over the hatch opening.	The accused system is alleged to have a PLC that is communicatively coupled to the other components and is configured to use camera images to determine if the hatch is in a "reach zone" and then to automatically center the spout before filling.	¶17	col. 2:15-20

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "planar region" that "is smaller than the loading area and extends horizontally beyond the reach zone". A potential point of dispute may be whether the operational area of the accused system's spout support can be characterized as meeting these specific relational and geometric requirements.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the specific logic the accused system employs to "determine" that a hatch is in the "reach zone." The patent describes a detailed image analysis process involving brightness levels and object recognition. (e.g.,'313 Patent, col. 9:51-67). A key question will be what evidence shows the accused system performs a comparable analysis, especially in light of Defendant's 2022 assertion that its system is "very different." Compl. ¶21

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "reach zone"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the geographical area within which the system must first identify a hatch before automated centering can begin. Its construction is critical; if the accused system's logic does not rely on a "reach zone" as defined by the patent, it may support a non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a predicate for the automated centering step in claim 1.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines it as a "predetermined range of reach of said spout." '313 Patent, col. 12:2-3 This could be argued to encompass the full physical movement capability of the spout support hardware.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes training the "Reach Zone" during a calibration process and displaying it graphically to the driver, suggesting it is a specific, software-defined boundary rather than just a physical limit. '313 Patent, col. 8:35-36 '313 Patent, col. 9:5-7
• The Term: "analyzing a plurality of images"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the automated functionality of the invention. The method of "analyzing" is a likely point of dispute, as the patent details specific techniques. How broadly this term is construed will directly impact the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim, "analyzing a plurality of images in real-time," could be argued to cover any form of image processing that extracts the necessary positional data from a video feed. '313 Patent, col. 12:8-9
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific methods of analysis, including measuring brightness differences between the vehicle surface and the hatch, dynamically filtering images, and using object recognition tools. '313 Patent, col. 3:45-56 '313 Patent, col. 9:51-67 This detailed description could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to these or similar techniques.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant providing the accused systems to customers for their use, which constitutes direct infringement, with knowledge established by pre-suit notice. Compl. ¶26 Contributory infringement is alleged based on the sale of components, such as the camera and PLC systems, that are alleged to be specially made for the infringing system and not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Compl. ¶27
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's "knowledge, reckless disregard, and/or willful blindness." Compl. ¶29 The primary factual basis for this allegation is the pre-suit notice provided to Defendant in April 2022 regarding the parent '123 patent and the subsequent response from Defendant's counsel, which establishes knowledge of the patent family and technology. Compl. ¶¶20-21

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "reach zone", which the patent links to a specific calibration and training process, be construed to read on the accused system's method for initiating automated alignment?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical functionality: does the accused VALS system's method of "analyzing" images, which Defendant previously stated was "very different," perform the same function in substantially the same way as the process described and claimed in the '313 patent, or is there a material difference in their operational logic?
• A key legal question will be the effect of the 2022 pre-suit communications: how will Defendant's prior knowledge of the parent patent and its counsel's non-infringement assertion influence the analysis of willfulness, particularly whether its continued conduct can be seen as objectively reckless in the face of the newly issued '313 patent?