Valmont Industries Inc v. Better Metal LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Valmont Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Better Metal, LLC (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Polsinelli P.C.
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00299, M.D. Tenn., 03/12/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's principal place of business being located in the Middle District of Tennessee and the allegation that infringing acts occurred within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's BVM-U tower connection products infringe a patent related to a bolt-calibrated mounting system for structural frames.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns adjustable mounting hardware used in the construction of large vertical structures, such as telecommunication towers, to ensure components are properly leveled and aligned.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-11-11	'435 Patent Priority Date
2022-03-15	'435 Patent Issue Date
2026-03-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,274,435 - "Bolt Calibrated Angle Mainstay Wall Connection System And Method For Use"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,274,435, "Bolt Calibrated Angle Mainstay Wall Connection System And Method For Use," issued March 15, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty, imprecision, and high labor cost associated with adjusting heavy metal tower frames to a desired angle or "taper" while keeping horizontal elements level during construction ʼ435 Patent, col. 1:21-35 Existing methods allegedly rely on imprecise external forces from equipment like cranes or use pre-drilled holes that do not allow for a universal range of adjustment ʼ435 Patent, col. 1:30-35
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mounting system featuring a "duel locking system that includes a taper adjusting bolt" which allows a user to finely adjust the angle of a steel frame to make it level, even while under load ʼ435 Patent, col. 2:56-60 ʼ435 Patent, col. 2:12-18 This screw-type mechanism is designed to provide precise, calibrated adjustments, which are then locked in place by retaining bolts, simplifying the leveling process and enhancing the overall stability of the tower structure ʼ435 Patent, col. 4:56-65 ʼ435 Patent, col. 5:1-5 The system also includes components for efficiently connecting lateral wall sections to the adjustable frame ʼ435 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: The solution aims to reduce installation costs and improve structural precision in tower construction by replacing bulky, imprecise adjustment methods with an integrated, micro-adjustable hardware system ʼ435 Patent, col. 1:45-48

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶14
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • An upper bracket element with a front plate, a back bracket, and connecting bolts, where the front plate has right and left front wings extending horizontally.
  • A straight slot weldment attached to the front wings, comprising right and left side walls (with wall slots) and an adjusting bolt guide.
  • A plurality of adjusting bolts, with at least one extending through a wing slot, a wall slot, another wall slot, and another wing slot.
  • A lower bracket element with a lower backing bracket and a lower front plate.
  • A vertical wall section comprising at least one lateral spanning element, orthogonal vertical supports, and cross spanning members.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but notes its allegations are illustrative and not limiting Compl. ¶14

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the BVM-U Compl. ¶13

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the BVM-U is a mounting system for attaching structural frames to tower legs Compl. ¶¶15-19 The allegations describe a system composed of an upper bracket, a lower bracket, and a vertical wall section, which together form a connection assembly Compl. ¶¶15-19 The complaint uses a series of annotated diagrams to identify the specific components of the BVM-U product that allegedly correspond to the elements of the asserted patent claim. The complaint does not provide specific details on the product's market positioning beyond alleging that Defendant manufactures, uses, and sells it in the United States Compl. ¶13

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'435 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an upper bracket element, wherein the upper bracket element comprises a front plate, a back bracket and a plurality of connecting bolts	The accused product has an upper bracket element with a front plate (A), a back bracket (B), and connecting bolts (C). The complaint includes a diagram labeling these components. Compl. p. 4	¶15	col. 4:5-9
wherein the front plate is attached to a right front wing having a plurality of right wing slots; wherein the front plate is attached to a left front wing having a plurality of left wing slots; wherein the right and left front wings extend horizontally away from the front surface of the front plate	The front plate is attached to a right front wing (D) with slots (E) and a left front wing (F) with slots (G).	¶15	col. 4:9-12
a straight slot weldment, wherein the straight slot weldment comprises a right side wall and a left side wall and an adjusting bolt guide; wherein the right and left side walls further comprise a plurality of right wall slots and left wall slots; further wherein the straight slot weldment is attached to the left front wing and the right front wing	The product includes a straight slot weldment (H) with a right side wall (I), a left side wall (J), an adjusting bolt guide (K), and right and left wall slots (L, M).	¶16	col. 4:12-21
a plurality of adjusting bolts, wherein at least one adjusting bolt extends through a left wing slot, one of the left wall slots, one of the right wall slots, and a right wing slot	The product includes a plurality of adjusting bolts (N) that extend through the various wing and wall slots to connect the components. An annotated image shows the path of these bolts. Compl. p. 5	¶17	col. 4:24-28
a lower bracket element, wherein the lower bracket element comprises a lower backing bracket and a lower front plate	The product includes a lower bracket element that is alleged to be identical to the upper bracket, comprising a lower backing bracket (O) and a lower front plate (P).	¶18	col. 4:38-42
a vertical wall section, wherein the vertical wall section comprises: at least one lateral spanning element...vertical supports...and a plurality of cross spanning members	The product includes a vertical wall section with lateral spanning elements (Q), first and second securing weldments (R, S), vertical supports (T), and cross spanning members (U). A side-view diagram illustrates this assembly. Compl. p. 7	¶19	col. 5:20-27

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may arise from the patent's use of different terms in the specification versus the claims. The specification distinguishes between a singular "adjusting bolt 40" used for leveling and plural "retaining bolts 24" used for locking the assembly ʼ435 Patent, col. 4:30-37 ʼ435 Patent, col. 5:1-3 However, Claim 1 requires a "plurality of adjusting bolts" that pass through the various slots, a role that appears to correspond to the "retaining bolts" in the specification. The dispute may turn on whether the claim term "adjusting bolts" can be construed to encompass the components described as "retaining bolts" in the detailed description.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product's bolts (N) are "adjusting bolts" as claimed Compl. ¶17 A technical question will be what function these bolts actually perform. The defense may argue they are purely for retention and fastening, not adjustment, and that another component (if one exists) performs the fine-tuning function of the patent's "adjusting bolt 40," creating a potential mismatch with the claim language requiring a plurality of such bolts.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a plurality of adjusting bolts"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. If "adjusting bolts" is construed narrowly to mean only bolts that perform the fine-tuning, screw-type leveling function described in the specification (like "adjusting bolt 40"), the claim's requirement for a "plurality" of such bolts may not be met by the accused product, which the complaint alleges uses bolts (N) in a manner that appears functionally similar to the patent's "retaining bolts 24." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification appears to create a distinction that is not carried over to the claim language, raising a question of whether the patentee acted as their own lexicographer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the entire assembly, the bolts passing through the slots are integral to the overall adjustment mechanism and thus can be generically described as "adjusting bolts," even if they primarily serve a retention function. The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the term to only the screw-type leveling function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the specification deliberately and consistently distinguishes the singular "adjusting bolt 40," which causes movement and changes distances ʼ435 Patent, col. 4:33-37, from the "retaining bolts 24," which are "tightened to lock the frame in place" ʼ435 Patent, col. 5:1-3 This distinction may suggest that "adjusting bolt" has a specific meaning limited to the component that actively performs the adjustment, not the plural bolts that merely secure it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendant instructs its customers on an infringing use or provides a component with no substantial non-infringing use. The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin Defendant from "practicing or encouraging others to practice" the invention, but the body of the complaint lacks a corresponding factual basis Compl., p. 9
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement "has been, and is, willful, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights" Compl. ¶26 This allegation is based on knowledge of the '435 Patent acquired "at least as of the date of service of the complaint" Compl. ¶23

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a plurality of adjusting bolts" be construed to cover the fasteners that pass through the system's slots, or does the patent's detailed description limit the term to only the specific screw-type mechanism that actively performs the leveling adjustment, thereby creating a conflict with the claim's "plurality" requirement?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: what is the precise role of the accused bolts (N) in the BVM-U product? The case may depend on evidence demonstrating whether these components merely clamp the assembly together or if they actively participate in the adjustment of the frame's angle in a manner consistent with the patent's claims.