Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 4130
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 28 PagelD #: 4130
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 398Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 4131
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`(MARTINSBURG DIVISION)
`
`
`AUTOMATED MERCHANDISING
`SYSTEMS INC.
`a Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CRANE CO.,
`a Delaware corporation, and
`
`
`SEAGA MANUFACTURING, INC.,
`an Illinois corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0097-JPB
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Charles F. Printz, Jr. (WVSB #2985)
`Brian M. Peterson (WVSB #7770)
`BOWLES RICE MCDAVID GRAFF
` & LOVE LLP
`101 South Queen St., P.O. Drawer 1419
`Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401
`Telephone: 304-263-0836
`Facsimile: 304-267-3822
`
`James D. Berquist
`Donald L. Jackson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON
` & GOWDEY LLP
`4300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
`Arlington, Virginia 22203
`Telephone: 703-894-6400
`Facsimile: 703-894-6430
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 399Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 4132
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. SYNOPSIS ...............................................................................................................................1
`
`II. BACKGROUND FACTS.........................................................................................................3
`
`A. AMS Developed Its Place in the Market Through Product Innovation ............................3
`
`1. AMS’ Patented Technology.....................................................................................5
`
`2. AMS’ Inventions......................................................................................................8
`
`B. AMS’ Invention Became the Industry Standard ...............................................................9
`
`C. Crane Recently Introduced Its “AMS Killer” .................................................................10
`
`III. ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................................14
`
`A. Legal Standards for a Preliminary Injunction .................................................................14
`
`B. The Court Should Issue a Preliminary Injunction ...........................................................14
`
`1. AMS is Likely to Succeed on the Merits...............................................................14
`
`a. Crane is not likely to Prove the Patents Invalid or Unenforceable ...................15
`
`b. Crane Infringes the ‘915 Patent and the ‘220 Patent ........................................17
`
`2. AMS Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if a Preliminary Injunction is
`Not Granted............................................................................................................18
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Balance of Hardships Favor AMS..................................................................21
`
`The Public Interest Weighs Strongly in Favor of Issuing a
`Preliminary Injunction ...........................................................................................22
`
`IV. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 400Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 4133
`
`Plaintiff Automated Merchandising Systems Inc. (“AMS”) moves this Court for an Order
`
`preliminarily enjoining defendant Crane Co. (“Crane”) from selling the low-temperature, optical
`
`vend detector-equipped vending machines it markets under its GPL brand as the Fusion and
`
`under the Automatic Products (“AP”) brand as the UltraFlex. Crane commercially introduced
`
`this new line of low temperature vending machines at the Spring 2008 NAMA show and has
`
`only recently begun shipping that product. Because this product was designed to allow Crane to
`
`convert purchasers of AMS’ patented Sensit® products to purchasers of Crane’s infringing
`
`products, Crane’s further sales of this new product will irreparably harm AMS by reducing
`
`AMS’ market share, injuring AMS’ relationship with its distributors, and threatening AMS’ very
`
`existence. The fact that the new Crane machines (both GPL and AP) are equipped with AP’s
`
`Golden-Eye vend detection system found to infringe in the earlier action between AMS and AP
`
`makes the present motion all the more compelling.
`
`I.
`
`SYNOPSIS
`
`AMS accuses Crane’s glass-front vending machines equipped with an optical vend
`
`sensor of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,191,915 (“the ‘915 patent”) and 7,343,220 (“the ‘220
`
`patent”) in this action. (See Exhs. 1 and 2).1 AMS has previously accused Crane’s optical vend
`
`sensor-equipped vending machines of infringing the ‘402 patent and the ‘634 patent in a
`
`currently stayed action – i.e., Northern District of West Virginia, Action No. 3:03-CV-0088 (lead
`
`case). Thus, AMS does not assert those two patents against Crane in this action.
`
`The ‘915 patent and the ‘220 patent issued after Judge Broadwater stayed a related action
`
`between AMS and Crane. In fact, the ‘220 patent just issued on March 11, 2008. Given the
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 401Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 4134
`
`timing of their recent issue dates, the Examiner handling these applications had the opportunity
`
`to consider the alleged prior art cited by Crane in the lead case, including the prior art at issue in
`
`the pending reexaminations, and the presumption of validity accorded issued patents is thus even
`
`stronger.
`
`Through the present motion, AMS seeks to enjoin Crane from infringing these two
`
`patents by selling its new Fusion and UltraFlex vending machines, both of which are equipped
`
`with an optical vend detection system known as the Golden-Eye. Crane unveiled its
`
`Fusion/UltraFlex vendors at the Spring 2008 NAMA show, and has only recently begun shipping
`
`those products to its distributors. (Affidavit of Sharon Shull filed herewith (“Shull Affidavit”), ¶
`
`15). The Fusion and UltraFlex machines differ in that one is branded under the GPL name and
`
`the other is branded under the AP name. (See Exh. 3). The product features of the
`
`Fusion/UltraFlex product make clear that Crane developed this product to compete directly – in
`
`terms of both appearance and function – with AMS’ Sensit® product. Indeed, AMS understands
`
`that Crane refers to the Fusion/UltraFlex vendors internally as its “AMS killer.”
`
`Significantly, Crane’s Fusion/UltraFlex products include the optical vend detection
`
`system developed by AP and marketed by that company under the Golden-Eye name. The
`
`Golden-Eye optical vend detection system was at issue in the 2002 patent infringement case
`
`AMS brought against AP and its sister company, Gross-Given Manufacturing Co. The vending
`
`machines equipped with the Golden-Eye system were found to infringe “one or more claims of
`
`
`1 Unless indicated otherwise, all exhibits to this motion are attached to the Declaration of
`Donald L. Jackson in Support of AMS’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed herewith
`(“Jackson Decl.”).
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 402Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 4135
`
`the ‘402 patent.” (See Exh. 4).2 The use of the previously adjudicated Golden-Eye optical vend
`
`sensor system amplifies the strength of AMS’ already strong showing of likelihood of success on
`
`the merits, and provides additional grounds upon which to issue the requested preliminary
`
`injunction.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`A.
`
`AMS Developed Its Place in the Market Through Product Innovation
`
`AMS, located in Kearneysville, West Virginia, was created in late-1996 to build a better
`
`vending machine. AMS’ founder, Mr. Roy Steeley, understood that the vending machine market
`
`was competitive and that Crane and AP were well-established in that market. Both companies
`
`had a large, loyal customer base, and both had established nationwide distribution channels.
`
`(See Affidavit of Roy Steeley filed herewith (“Steeley Affidavit”), ¶ 1). Mr. Steeley understood
`
`that to break into this market, establish itself, and gain significant market share, AMS must
`
`provide a better product solution than what was then on the market. (Id.).
`
`Accordingly, Mr. Steeley set out to develop a vending machine that performed two
`
`functions not found in glass front vending machines of that era. (Id. at ¶ 2). First, he wanted to
`
`produce a vending machine which would guarantee that a customer got a product or got their
`
`money back. (Id.). In order to do that, the vending machine needed a way to detect whether a
`
`product had been delivered to the customer and new control circuitry for the vending machine
`
`control unit. According to the new idea, if no vend was detected within a certain period of time,
`
`the customer was given a credit allowing them to make another selection or take a refund. A
`
`
`2 On September 27, 2002, AMS sued Automated Products International Ltd. and Gross-
`Given accusing them of infringing the ‘402 patent. That litigation, filed in the U.S. District
`Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-82, settled with
`AP/Gross-Given taking a license under that patent.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 403Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 4136
`
`vending machine having the optical vend detection system developed for AMS is the subject of
`
`the four patents and the details of that system are discussed below.3
`
`Mr. Steeley also sought to change the glass front vending machine industry in a second
`
`important way. During the summer months, vending machine operators were unable to place
`
`top-selling chocolate snacks in glass front vendors. The temperatures experienced inside the
`
`vending machine caused the chocolate to melt. (Id. at ¶ 4). The problem was even more acute in
`
`the hotter, southern climates. As a result, vending machine operators opted against stocking
`
`their machines with chocolate products. Those products, however, were among the best selling
`
`snack products, and the loss of those products denied customers the chocolate snacks they
`
`wanted, and decreased the vending machine operator’s profits. (Id.).
`
`AMS decided that it would manufacture a vending machine with a new design. That
`
`machine would have the ability to stock chocolate snacks even in the hot summer months
`
`without dramatically increasing the cost of operation. (Id. at ¶ 5). To do so, AMS engineered a
`
`special shell-within-a-shell cabinet, and injected foam between the two shells to provide efficient
`
`insulation. (Id.). AMS’ design also minimized air leaks and improved thermal efficiencies with
`
`a thicker front panel to accommodate a multi-pane glass panel that insulated and reduced water
`
`condensation on the glass. (Id. at ¶ 6). AMS also placed an energy efficient refrigeration unit in
`
`each of these vending machines. The resulting product, called Sensit® (referring to the patented
`
`vend sensing technology), was introduced at a tradeshow in May 1998 and became an immediate
`
`commercial success. (Id. at ¶ 6; Shull Affidavit, ¶¶, 3, 7-9).
`
`
`3 In this case, the ‘915 patent and the ‘220 patent are asserted against Crane. The other
`two patents (i.e., the ‘402 patent and the ‘634 patent) are asserted against Crane in the stayed
`case. All four patents are asserted against Seaga in this action.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 404Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 4137
`
`Despite its relatively small size, the combination of features found in the Sensit® made
`
`AMS the market leader in sensor-equipped, chilled, glass front vending machines. Every
`
`Sensit® machine is equipped with the patented optical vend sensor system and, in 2007, two-
`
`thirds of all Sensit® machines were equipped with the refrigeration unit. (Shull Affidavit, ¶
`
`12).4 In other words, this combination of features proved very popular.
`
`1.
`
`AMS’ Patented Technology
`
`The patents-in-suit describe and claim innovative ways for a vending machine to
`
`guarantee customer satisfaction, either by delivering the product purchased or by returning the
`
`customer’s money. This result was achieved by equipping vending machines with an optical
`
`vend detection system that created a light detection zone that substantially spanned a cross-
`
`section of the space through which vended products fell (called the “vend space”). If no vend
`
`was detected by the optical vend detector, then the patented vending machine either made a
`
`further vend attempt or returned the customer’s money.
`
`AMS makes no claim to having invented the first glass-front vending machine. Nor does
`
`AMS claim to have developed the first system for determining when a vend operation has
`
`vended a product. Both concepts were known in the art long before the present inventors even
`
`looked at the issue. What the AMS inventors developed was an optical sensor system which
`
`uses light that substantially spans the cross-section of the vend space to detect when a product
`
`has dropped through the vend space into the retrieval bin. The AMS optical vend detection
`
`
`4 Vending machines without refrigeration units are called “ambient” machines. (Shull
`Affidavit, ¶¶ 12-13). The majority of Crane’s sales have been ambient vending machines.
`Crane’s sales of ambient machines make it the market leader of those machines and, since its
`acquisition of AP, Crane is believed to have approximately 70% to 80% of the glass front vendor
`market in the United States, with an even higher percentage of the “ambient” market. (Shull
`Affidavit, ¶ 13).
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 405Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 4138
`
`system also re-calibrates itself to account for ambient light conditions (see, e.g., Exh. 1, claim 35
`
`of the ‘915 patent), and uses at least two light emitters and a plurality of light detectors to detect
`
`the light emitted by each of the at least two light emitters. (See, e.g., Exh. 2, claim 28 of the
`
`‘220 patent). AMS’ inventors were the first to use these constructions, and it is through the use
`
`of this system that AMS’ patented products are able to reliably guarantee product delivery
`
`without interfering with the vending machine’s operation.
`
`Regardless of their style or make, vending machines have long suffered an inability to
`
`guarantee delivery of a product. Vending machines were notorious for taking customer’s money,
`
`but delivering no product. Numerous malfunctions can contribute to a vending machine’s failure
`
`to deliver product. These malfunctions include: (1) products catching on the spirals that advance
`
`product from the display tray into the vend space through which the product drops, (2) spirals
`
`that do not turn, or fail to turn enough, to deliver the product into the vend space, and (3)
`
`products hanging up in the machine on the way to the retrieval bin. In every case, irrespective of
`
`the cause of the failure, the customer paid for a product that the vending machine did not deliver.
`
`Because vending machines are almost universally unattended, the inability to guarantee
`
`product delivery has long been a problem for the industry. Among other things, vending
`
`machine customers are tempted to “encourage” product delivery by hitting the vending machine
`
`or rocking it until the product drops. This self-help process has caused damage to vending
`
`machines. The inability of vending machines to either ensure a product delivery or to refund the
`
`customer’s money has caused other problems as well. Vending machine operators, the owners
`
`who place and service vending machines locally, often found notes affixed to their machines
`
`with messages requesting a refund. Those messages had the effect of deterring others from using
`
`that vending machine.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 406Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 4139
`
`Prior to AMS’ work in the field, several vending machine manufacturers had attempted
`
`to solve these problems but had met with limited success. The vending machines developed by
`
`these companies generally fell into three categories. In the first category, a sensor was placed
`
`where the products were stored (see Exh. 5), or in the product delivery bin to determine when a
`
`product had come to rest in that bin. Neither approach was successful. Thieves could outwit the
`
`storage bin detectors by, for example, opening the delivery bin door so as to prevent the products
`
`from falling into the delivery bin. Moreover, to the extent that these delivery bin sensors relied
`
`upon an impact, weight, or vibration, these systems were ill-suited to vending relatively light
`
`weight snack products such as a bag of potato chips.
`
`In the second category of products, sensors were placed on opposite sides of a necked
`
`chute. (See Exh. 6). With these products, one or more product delivery chutes were used to
`
`channel the product being vended through a narrow, necked area where the “delivery path”
`
`sensor system was placed. Id.
`
`But with these chute systems, the products being vended could easily lodge within the
`
`chute, blocking product delivery. In addition, and depending on the angle of the chute, and the
`
`weight of the package being vended, it was also possible for relatively light products, such as a
`
`package of potato chips, to come to rest on the inclined walls of the chute itself, and stay there.
`
`On top of these problems, the delivery chutes themselves occupied valuable space within the
`
`vending machine, rendering that space unavailable for product storage or display.
`
`The third category of sensor-equipped vending machines, such as those manufactured by
`
`Crane, placed a sensor in the retrieval bin area. In that product, an elevator was used to lower
`
`the selected product to retrieval bin. (See Exh. 7, column 4, lines 45-46). The light sensor
`
`system used in that machine activated after the elevator came to rest at the delivery station or
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 407Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 4140
`
`“bin.” If a product was detected at that station, the retrieval bin door lock was released so as to
`
`allow customer access to the product and retrieval.
`
`With the elevator system, the vending machine required both belt conveyors and an
`
`elevator to deliver the product selected to the delivery bin. These components increased the cost
`
`of each vending machine and generated undesirable maintenance and repair costs. It was also
`
`possible for products to become hung up on the conveyor or in the elevator so as to actually
`
`cause an additional product delivery problem – the very thing that AMS’s inventors designed a
`
`sensor system to avoid.
`
`2.
`
`AMS’ Inventions
`
`The systems described above represented the state of the art in the vending machine
`
`industry in the mid-1990’s. Given the drawbacks associated with these systems, most snack
`
`vending machines sold in 1996 had no product delivery sensor at all. (Shull Affidavit ¶ 7).
`
`AMS’s goal was to create an optical vend sensor that could reliably detect when a
`
`product had passed through the vend space into the retrieval bin without impeding product
`
`delivery without requiring the installation of a high cost/high maintenance product elevator. In
`
`essence, while the prior art channeled product to the sensor, the AMS inventors created a vend
`
`sensor adapted to the glass-front vending machine environment. They accomplished that result
`
`with an optical sensor system that uses light that substantially spans the cross-section of the vend
`
`space to detect when a product has dropped through that vend space. AMS’ inventors also
`
`disclosed and claimed specific ways of creating a light curtain, and ways of calibrating the vend
`
`sensor to account for different lighting environments. The specific combination of features
`
`claimed is described in the attached infringement claim charts. (See Declaration of Joseph C.
`
`McAlexander filed herewith (“McAlexander Decl.”), Appendices A-B). Those claim charts
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 408Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 4141
`
`establish literal correspondence between each of the claim elements and features of the accused
`
`products, called literal infringement.
`
`B.
`
`AMS’ Invention Became the Industry Standard
`
`By late-2001, about three years after AMS first introduced its new vend sensor
`
`technology to the market, AMS’ competitors followed AMS’ lead and introduced their own
`
`versions of that same technology. Since 2001, Automated Products International, Ltd., its sister
`
`company Gross-Given Manufacturing Co. (both of Minnesota), U-Select-It Corp., its sister
`
`company Fawn Engineering Corp. (both of Iowa), and defendant Crane all incorporated AMS’
`
`sensor technology in their vendors. All but Crane took licenses under AMS’ patents. (Shull
`
`Affidavit at ¶¶ 4-6).5
`
`
`
`Five other companies, including defendant Seaga, also took a license under these patents.
`
`(Id.).6 All five of these companies approached AMS to take a license before they introduced the
`
`vend sensor feature in their products, and AMS granted the requested license only after Crane,
`
`AP and USI had blunted AMS’ explosive growth rate by introducing their own infringing
`
`version of that technology in 2001. (Id. at ¶ 5 (the first license was granted in March 2003)).
`
`
`
`In 1999, AMS’ sales jumped 294 % over its 1998 sales, and in 2000, AMS’ sales jumped
`
`another 60%. (Shull Affidavit ¶ 7). In 2001, the year in which Crane, AP and USI all added the
`
`optical sensor feature to their vendors, AMS sales rate increase slowed to just 1.2% more than
`
`the prior year. (Id.). Since that time, AMS has not experienced the kind of sale growth it
`
`
`5 On February 10, 2004 AMS sued U-Select-It and Fawn Engineering Corp. accusing
`them of infringing the ‘402 patent (and later the ‘634 patent). That litigation, also filed in
`Northern District of West Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-007, settled with USI/Fawn taking
`a license under those patents and agreeing to a Consent Judgment. (See Exh. 8).
`6 Seaga is a defendant in this action because it refused to pay royalties owed under its
`license agreement with AMS.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 409Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 4142
`
`experienced in 1999 and 2000. (Id.). Having stopped AMS’ expansion into what it considered
`
`its own market by incorporating AMS’ patented sensor technology into its vendors, Crane’s new
`
`goal is to remove AMS from that market entirely by introducing a new product line that further
`
`erodes AMS’ ability to distinguish its product from that of its much bigger competitor, Crane.
`
`C.
`
`Crane Recently Introduced Its “AMS Killer”
`
`In June 2006, Crane announced that it was acquiring the assets of AP (and those of its
`
`sister company Gross-Given). (See Exh. 9). One of the assets Crane acquired was a product AP
`
`was in the process of developing under license to compete with AMS’s Sensit® vending
`
`machine line. (See Declaration of Colin Garner filed herewith (“Garner Decl.”), ¶ 6)). AP began
`
`the design process for this new machine by patterning it after AMS’ patented Sensit® vendors.
`
`(Id.). AP decided that the new product would have an optical vend detection system, would be
`
`designed as a low-temperature (“low-temp”) vendor, would be sold at the Sensit® product’s
`
`price point, and would be of a similar, basic design. (Id).
`
`While AP had a lot of experience making and selling ambient temperature vending
`
`machines, including those having an infringing optical vend detection system, AP’s experience
`
`with low-temp glass front snack vending machines was limited. (See id., ¶ 7). AP had created a
`
`low-temp prototype vendor by retrofitting existing vendor models with insulation and a
`
`refrigeration unit. That retrofitted prototype, however, proved inadequate in several respects.
`
`
`
`Because AP’s vending machines were not designed as low-temp machines at the outset, it
`
`was difficult to install effective insulation. (See id., ¶ 8). Among other things, warm and
`
`relatively moist outside air infiltrated into the vending machine. This air leakage made it
`
`difficult to hold temperatures and do so cost-effectively. (Id.).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 410Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 4143
`
`In 2006, Crane acquired this product development as part of its acquisition of AP’s
`
`assets. (Id. at ¶ 3). In bringing this development to market as the Fusion and UltraFlex products
`
`in early 2008, Crane held true to AP’s design direction. Just like the AMS Sensit® vendor,
`
`Crane equipped the Fusion and UltraFlex products with an optical vend detection system and a
`
`fully insulated cabinet for its refrigeration unit. (Id. at ¶ 9). Indeed, the Fusion and UltraFlex
`
`products use the AP Golden-Eye optical vend detection system that was installed in the AP
`
`products already found to infringe AMS’ ‘402 patent. (See Exh. 4; see also Exhs.10 and 11).
`
`Having practiced AMS’ patented optical sensor technology for years, Crane now focuses
`
`customer attention on the cooling features of its new products by boasting about the
`
`effectiveness and cost advantages associated with its refrigeration unit and thermal insulation.
`
`(See Exh. 12).
`
`In addition, Crane’s Fusion/UltraFlex products and AMS’ Sensit® products have a
`
`similar visual appearance and share a common price point. (See Shull Affidavit, ¶¶ 15-17). A
`
`visual comparison of the two products demonstrates the remarkable similarities in overall design.
`
`(Compare Exh. 13 (photo of a first generation AMS Sensit) with Exh. 14 (photo of UltraFlex
`
`vendor)). Among other things, Crane substantially increased the depth of the vendor door,
`
`moved the location of the T-bar handle (which is used to open and close the door) from the right
`
`side of the machine to the left side of the machine, just as AMS has been doing it for years.
`
`(Shull Affidavit, ¶ 17). Crane also added a fifth leg to the vendor, a design feature found in even
`
`the first AMS product. (Id. at ¶ 16). In short, it appears obvious that Crane is further targeting
`
`AMS and is attempting to increase its market share by incorporating more features from AMS’
`
`design into the new Fusion/UltraFlex products. Given this combination of features, it is easy to
`
`see why Crane internally dubbed the new Fusion/UltraFlex products its “AMS killer.”
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 411Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 4144
`
`Further compounding the problem, and heightening the competition between AMS and
`
`Crane, is Crane’s 2006 acquisition of AP’s “extensive distribution network.” (See Exh. 9).
`
`According to Crane’s Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, Crane acquired,
`
`among other things, “APi’s [i.e., Automatic Products’] extensive distribution network, product
`
`line designs and trade names, manufacturing equipment and aftermarket parts business.” (See
`
`Exh. 15, p. 11). By combining its own dealer network with those of AP, Crane (through its GPL
`
`brand) is now present in many of the same showrooms through which AMS sells its vendors.
`
`(Shull Affidavit, ¶ 20, Tab A). As further proof of its decision to target AMS, Crane chose to
`
`limit this product offering to the GPL and AP product lines, which, like AMS, are sold through
`
`independent distributors. Crane is not selling this product under its National brand, which sells
`
`directly to customers.
`
`The testimony of Mr. Len Beckring demonstrates AMS’ vulnerability to Crane’s newest
`
`tactics. Crane deposed Mr. Beckring, an AMS dealer, in an effort to demonstrate AMS’
`
`“minimum contacts” with the State of Missouri where Crane had filed a Declaratory Judgment
`
`action against AMS. Mr. Beckring credited Mr. Steeley’s introduction of the vend sensor as a
`
`“key event” in the industry, that others in the industry “reproduced” (see Exh. 16, Beckring Tr.
`
`63), and identified himself as a distributor of both Crane (GPL) and AMS products. (Id. at 12).
`
`With regard to a customer to whom he sold AMS Sensit® vendors, Mr. Beckring testified:
`
`A. The third [customer] I had been selling equipment to but not AMS
`machines, but we found a niche for a machine that AMS produces. He
`still doesn’t buy all AMS equipment.
`
`
`Q. [By Crane lawyer Mr. Nielsen] I understand.
`
`A. He’s a big Crane [GPL brand] customer.
`
`
`* * * * *
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 412Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 4145
`
`Q. You said you found a niche. What was the niche?
`
`A. A piece of equipment that AMS makes that Crane makes something
`similar, but it doesn’t do the job.
`
`
`Q. Why does it do the job?
`
`A. It [the AMS vendor] does what it has to do.
`
`Q. I’m sorry?
`
`A. It does what it has to do. It stays cold. The product is a chilled snack
`machine.
`
`
`
`* * * * *
`
`A. A chilled snack machine in the industry has been something that takes
`the temperature 10 to 15 degrees below ambient, and it you’re in a
`hundred degree warehouse and you’re 10 degrees or 15 degrees – even
`if you reach 20 degrees, and the chocolate bars in the machine melt at
`77 degrees, so everybody’s chilled snack for an extra thousand bucks
`is not worth a thousand bucks. AMS got a product that you can set the
`temperature, and it will hold the temperature inside this insulated
`container, insulated box. It will hold the temperature. You set it
`anywhere between 50 and 75 degrees. You can control the
`temperature inside the box. When I explained that to Wendell
`Jackson, he said how much is yours? Well, it’s not an extra thousand
`bucks, so we won the business –
`
`
`(Exh. 16, Beckring Tr. at 30-32). Crane’s new Fusion/UltraFlex products are directed to that
`
`specific niche – a fully insulated glass front vendor that keeps the inside cold while still
`
`incorporating the infringing vend sensor system. The combination of these two features is
`
`central to Crane’s plan to eliminate AMS from the market, and the requested injunction is a
`
`limited and appropriate way to prevent Crane’s plan from becoming reality.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES Document 19 Filed 07/29/08 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 413Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 100-1 Filed 02/14/24 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 4146
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards for a Preliminary Injunction
`
`A court should issue a preliminary injunction against further patent infringement if the
`
`movant establishes four factors: “(1) a reasonable likelihood of its success o