Banks Morrison Innovations LLC v. General Motors LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Banks Morrison Innovations, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: General Motors LLC (Delaware); Beaumont Motor Company (Texas)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Miller Fair Henry PLLC; Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00422, E.D. Tex., 08/10/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business and have regular and established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas, where allegedly infringing acts have occurred. Defendant Beaumont Motor Company is alleged to reside in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain General Motors vehicles equipped with "MultiPro" or "Multi-Flex" tailgates, as well as an aftermarket accessory sold by GM, infringe five patents related to tailgate deactivation safety systems.
• Technical Context: The technology involves systems designed to prevent a vehicle's multi-panel tailgate from being damaged by colliding with an installed trailer hitch by selectively disabling the tailgate's inner panel.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff's inventors identified a design flaw in GM's 2019 multi-functional tailgate, developed a solution, and began selling it as the "Tailgate-Fix" product in November 2019. Plaintiff alleges that GM, through its supplier Curt Manufacturing, became aware of Plaintiff's product and subsequently developed and sold a competing aftermarket product through GM's accessory channels before later incorporating a similar functionality directly into its model year 2022 and later vehicles. The complaint notes that Plaintiff licensed its patents to Curt's parent company, Lippert, but that license does not extend to GM's separate, vehicle-integrated products.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-09	Plaintiff's co-inventor purchases a 2019 GMC Sierra truck.
2019-06	Plaintiff's co-inventor identifies the potential for tailgate damage from a trailer hitch.
2019-09-06	Earliest priority date for all five Asserted Patents ('878 Provisional filed).
2019-11-14	'231 Provisional application filed.
2019-11-18	A Curt Manufacturing employee allegedly purchases Plaintiff's "Tailgate-Fix" product.
2019-11	Plaintiff begins commercial sales of its first "Tailgate-Fix" product.
2019-11	GM allegedly contacts its supplier, Curt, to develop a competing solution.
2020-01-02	Curt files a provisional patent application for a "Tailgate Hitch Sensor."
2020-05	Plaintiff contacts GM with a proposal to fix the tailgate defect; GM allegedly does not respond.
2021-11-02	U.S. Patent No. 11,161,555 issues.
2021-12	GM's "TechLink" publication describes the accused enable/disable feature for 2022 models.
2023-07-18	U.S. Patent No. 11,702,148 issues.
2023-12-29	Plaintiff's license agreement with Lippert/Curt becomes effective.
2025-03-04	U.S. Patent No. 12,240,533 issues.
2025-04-18	Original complaint in the case is filed.
2025-05-06	U.S. Patent No. 12,291,283 issues.
2025-08-05	U.S. Patent No. 12,377,918 issues.
2026-08-10	Third Amended Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,161,555 - Tailgate Deactivation System

• Issued: November 2, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with multi-panel vehicle tailgates where an inner gate panel, when opened, can pivot downward and collide with a towing apparatus (like a trailer hitch) attached to the vehicle, causing damage Compl. ¶24 '555 Patent, col. 1:11-15
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a deactivation system that interrupts the electrical power to the tailgate. It uses a switch with an actuator that is triggered by the installation of a towing apparatus. For example, inserting a hitch pin to secure a ball mount can physically activate the switch, moving it to an "off" state that inhibits power flow and prevents the inner gate from opening '555 Patent, abstract '555 Patent, col. 3:4-16
• Technical Importance: This approach provides an automated safety interlock to prevent costly damage to an increasingly common and complex vehicle feature, without requiring the user to remember to take preventative action '555 Patent, col. 2:55-60

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 15 and dependent claims 18 and 19 Compl. ¶96
• The essential elements of independent claim 15 include Compl. ¶106:
  • A tailgate deactivation system with a switch comprising two terminals for coupling to a tailgate power circuit.
  • An actuator with an actuation surface.
  • The actuator is configured to electrically couple the terminals (on state) or decouple them (off state) to control power flow.
  • The actuation surface transitions the switch from "on" to "off" by the act of coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,702,148 - Tailgate Deactivation System

• Issued: July 18, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the '555 patent, the invention addresses the risk of a multi-panel tailgate's inner gate colliding with a trailer hitch Compl. ¶24 '148 Patent, col. 1:19-22
• The Patented Solution: This patent describes a deactivation system using a "proximity switch" to control the tailgate's power circuit. An actuator causes the switch to transition between on and off states, thereby allowing or inhibiting power flow. The patent describes embodiments where the actuator is a manual push-button, allowing a user to toggle the system on or off '148 Patent, col. 5:46-60
• Technical Importance: This variation on the core invention introduces alternative activation methods, such as proximity sensing or direct user input, broadening the potential applications beyond automatic hitch-pin detection '148 Patent, abstract

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 Compl. ¶112

• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include Compl. ¶113:

  • A tailgate deactivation system with a switch comprising a "proximity switch", configured to be coupled to a tailgate power circuit.
  • An actuator configured to cause the switch to transition between an "on" state (allowing power flow) and an "off" state (inhibiting power flow).

• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,240,533

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,240,533, Tailgate Deactivation System, issued March 4, 2025.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a complete "vehicle" that incorporates the tailgate deactivation technology. It describes a vehicle with a multi-functional tailgate, a hitch receiver, and integrated "circuitry operable to enable or disable power delivery" to the inner gate panel. The claims explicitly recite various tailgate configurations, such as the inner gate being inhibited from pivoting when the primary gate is down '533 Patent, claim 5 Compl. ¶124
  • Asserted Claims: Vehicle claims 5-8 and 22-23; method claims 1-4 and 19-21 Compl. ¶123
  • Accused Features: The vehicle-integrated inner-gate enable/disable functionality found in model year 2022 and later GM vehicles with MultiPro or Multi-Flex tailgates Compl. ¶¶89-91 Compl. ¶123

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,291,283

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,291,283, Tailgate Deactivation System, issued May 6, 2025.
  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the '533 patent, this patent claims a "vehicle" with a multi-functional tailgate and integrated circuitry. The claims describe a set of configurations where the tailgate is operable, by the vehicle's circuitry, to inhibit the inner gate from pivoting downwards by "disabling power delivery" associated with that inner gate panel '283 Patent, claim 10 Compl. ¶135
  • Asserted Claims: Vehicle claims 10-14 and 17-18; method claims 1-5 and 8-9 Compl. ¶134
  • Accused Features: The vehicle-integrated inner-gate enable/disable functionality found in model year 2022 and later GM vehicles with MultiPro or Multi-Flex tailgates Compl. ¶¶89-91 Compl. ¶134

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,377,918

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,377,918, Tailgate Deactivation System, issued August 5, 2025.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an "apparatus" comprising a tailgate assembly, a power circuit, and a switch to override the circuit. The switch is described as having a "proximity switch" and an actuator with a surface "facing outwardly from the rear portion of the vehicle", suggesting it covers embodiments activated by user interaction at the rear of the truck '918 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶146
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3 and 6-10 Compl. ¶145
  • Accused Features: The vehicle-integrated inner-gate enable/disable functionality found in model year 2022 and later GM vehicles with MultiPro or Multi-Flex tailgates Compl. ¶¶89-91 Compl. ¶145

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names two distinct sets of accused instrumentalities:
  1. The "Curt Infringing Products": A group of eight aftermarket tailgate deactivation accessory kits, represented by Curt Item No. 58267. These products are allegedly sold through GM's official accessory websites and installed by authorized GM dealers Compl. ¶¶13-14 Compl. ¶77
  2. The "GM Infringing Products": Model year 2022 and later GM-branded vehicles that are factory-equipped with a "MultiPro" or "Multi-Flex" tailgate and a user-selectable, integrated inner-gate enable/disable feature. This includes various GMC Sierra, Chevrolet Silverado, and GMC Hummer EV models Compl. ¶¶89-91

Functionality and Market Context

• The "MultiPro" and "Multi-Flex" tailgates are described as a key versatility feature for GM's truck lineup, offering six distinct configurations Compl. ¶20 The complaint alleges these tailgates were developed with a "serious design flaw" where the inner gate can collide with an installed trailer hitch Compl. ¶24 Figure 3-3 of the complaint visually depicts this alleged collision risk Compl. ¶24
• The accused "Curt Infringing Products" are aftermarket kits designed to solve this problem by preventing the inner tailgate from opening when a hitch is in use Compl. Fig. 2-1 The complaint shows screenshots from GM's accessory websites offering these products for sale with an option for dealer installation Compl. Fig. 2-2 Compl. ¶12
• The accused "GM Infringing Products" incorporate the safety feature directly into the vehicle's systems. The complaint alleges this functionality allows a user to disable the inner gate's independent operation by pressing and holding a button on the tailgate handle for several seconds, which is confirmed by a flashing of the tail lamps Compl. ¶93 Figure 7-1, an excerpt from a 2025 GMC Sierra manual, illustrates this user-initiated enable/disable procedure Compl. ¶93

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'555 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15)	Alleged Infringing Functionality (Curt Infringing Products)	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A tailgate deactivation system comprising: a switch comprising: two terminals configured to be electrically coupled to a tailgate power circuit that supplies power to at least a portion of a tailgate of a vehicle;	The Curt products are tailgate deactivation systems that include a wire harness and circuitry which couple to the vehicle's tailgate power circuit to control its electrical operation.	¶28; ¶77; Fig. 2-1	col. 3:42-51
an actuator comprising an actuation surface, wherein the actuator is configured to electrically couple the two terminals in an on state to allow power to flow in the tailgate power circuit, and to electrically decouple the two terminals in an off state to inhibit power from flowing in the tailgate power circuit,	The Curt products allegedly contain a switch and actuator that interrupt power to the tailgate circuit to prevent the inner gate from operating.	¶28; Fig. 2-1	col. 3:56-67
and wherein the actuation surface is configured to transition the switch from the on state to the off state by coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube of the vehicle.	The complaint alleges the Curt products are deactivation systems that infringe this claim. The product description states they "[p]revent opening your MultiPro/Multi-Flex inner tailgate when receiver hitch is in use."	¶77; ¶106; Fig. 2-1	col. 4:4-16

'148 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality (GM Infringing Products)	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A tailgate deactivation system comprising: a switch configured to be electrically coupled to a tailgate power circuit that supplies power to at least a portion of a tailgate of a vehicle,	The GM vehicles include integrated vehicle circuitry and control logic that selectively prevents or restricts electrical power supplied through the tailgate power circuit.	¶94; ¶112	col. 3:42-45
wherein the switch comprises a proximity switch;	The user-selectable system is activated by pressing a button while the vehicle's remote key fob is within three feet of the bumper, which the complaint alleges involves proximity detection.	¶93; ¶113	col. 5:49-51
and an actuator configured to cause the switch to transition from an on state to an off state,	The user acts as the actuator by pressing and holding the upper touchpad on the tailgate handle for several seconds to disable or re-enable the inner gate.	¶93; Fig. 7-1	col. 5:46-60
in the on state the switch being configured to allow power to flow in the tailgate power circuit, and in the off state the switch being configured to inhibit power from flowing in the tailgate power circuit.	When enabled, the inner gate operates independently. When disabled ("off state"), power for independent operation is inhibited, and the inner gate can only be operated together with the primary gate.	¶93; ¶94	col. 5:51-60

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • '555 Patent: A primary technical question will be the precise mechanism of the accused "Curt Infringing Products." While Claim 15 requires the switch to be transitioned "by coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube," the product description in the complaint states it "Does not require a specific hitch pin diameter size to activate" Compl. Fig. 2-1 This raises the question of whether the accused product's trigger mechanism meets the claim limitation as written, or if it functions differently.
  • '148 Patent: The infringement analysis for the "GM Infringing Products" may focus on claim construction. A key question is whether the term "proximity switch" can be construed to read on the vehicle's system for detecting the key fob's presence, as this detection is a precondition for the manual activation sequence Compl. ¶93 The case may turn on whether a key fob, rather than the hitch apparatus itself, is considered a relevant object for proximity detection within the context of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "by coupling a ball mount system to a hitch receiver tube of the vehicle" ('555 Patent, claim 15)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the triggering event for the deactivation system. The infringement allegation against the "Curt Infringing Products" depends on whether their method of detecting the presence of a hitch falls within this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the product's own description suggests it may not be activated by a hitch pin, a primary embodiment for this "coupling" action shown in the patent '555 Patent, Fig. 5
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the term should be read broadly to encompass any action inherent to making a hitch functional, which would trigger the switch. The specification's summary states the system prevents the gate from pivoting "into a towing apparatus that is coupled to the vehicle," which could be argued to support a functional rather than strictly mechanical interpretation '555 Patent, col. 2:25-28
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue the term requires a direct mechanical or electrical link created during the physical act of securing the ball mount. The patent's detailed description and Figure 5 explicitly show an embodiment where inserting a "hitch pin" makes physical contact with the "actuation surface" '555 Patent, col. 4:13-24 This specific example may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such direct interactions.
• The Term: "proximity switch" ('148 Patent, claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The infringement case against the integrated "GM Infringing Products" relies on construing this term to cover the vehicle's key fob detection system. The complaint alleges the feature is activated when the key fob is within three feet of the bumper Compl. ¶93
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term's plain and ordinary meaning covers any switch that is activated by the nearness of an object, without limitation as to what that object is. The patent does not appear to explicitly define "proximity switch" in a limiting way, potentially leaving it open to a general technical interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that, in the context of the invention's stated purpose (preventing collision with a hitch), the "proximity switch" must be one that detects the proximity of the towing apparatus itself. The background and summary consistently frame the problem and solution around the presence of the hitch '148 Patent, col. 1:19-22 '148 Patent, col. 2:25-30 An interpretation requiring detection of the hitch could render the key fob detection system non-infringing.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
  • For the aftermarket "Curt Infringing Products," inducement is alleged against GM for promoting and offering the products through its official accessory channels and against BMC for offering installation services Compl. ¶¶96, 100-101
  • For the integrated "GM Infringing Products," inducement is alleged based on GM and BMC providing owner's manuals and service publications that instruct customers on using the infringing functionality Compl. ¶115 Compl. ¶126 Contributory infringement is alleged based on the sale of "feature-specific software, calibration or configuration data," which are described as material components specially adapted for the infringing functionality and not staple articles of commerce Compl. ¶118 Compl. ¶129
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement against Defendants. The allegations are based on Defendants' purported knowledge of Plaintiff's "patent pending" products as early as November 2019 through interactions with supplier Curt, and on continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the issued patents via the filing of the original complaint on April 18, 2025 Compl. ¶97 Compl. ¶109 Compl. ¶119

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

• A core issue will be one of technical operation versus claim scope: Does the accused aftermarket "Curt" product's deactivation mechanism, which its own description suggests is not dependent on a "specific hitch pin diameter" Compl. Fig. 2-1, operate "by coupling a ball mount system" as strictly required by claim 15 of the '555 patent? The resolution will depend on the evidence of how that product functions and the court's interpretation of that claim language.

• A second central question will be one of claim construction: Can the term "proximity switch" from the '148 patent, in the context of an invention designed to prevent collisions with a trailer hitch, be construed to cover a vehicle system that detects the proximity of a remote key fob to enable a manual user action? This definitional dispute will be critical to determining infringement by GM's integrated system.

• Finally, the case presents a significant question of knowledge and intent: The complaint constructs a narrative of alleged copying, tracing from Plaintiff's invention to a supplier's acquisition of the product, to a competing aftermarket accessory sold by GM, and finally to a fully integrated GM feature. The extent to which Plaintiff can prove this chain of events will be central to its claims for indirect and willful infringement, and could heavily influence the calculation of potential damages.