UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

PHILLIP C. RUEHL and PC RUEHL 

ENGINEERING, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AM GENERAL LLC,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-317-JVB

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Phillip C. Ruehl (“Ruehl”) and PC Ruehl Engineering, Inc. (“PC Ruehl”), by 

their attorneys, Martin W. Kus, David P. Jones, and Matthew J. Hagenow of the law firm of Newby 

Lewis Kaminski & Jones, LLP, and Anthony Baish, Nicholas A. Kees, and Matthew M. Wuest of 

the law firm of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., for their complaint against defendant AM General LLC 

(“AM General”) allege as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Ruehl is a resident of the state of Wisconsin who resides at 9404 West North 

Avenue, Apartment 7, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

2. PC Ruehl is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin and 

whose principal place of business is located in Wisconsin.

3. AM General is, upon information and belief, a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Delaware, whose principal place of business is located at 105 North 

Niles Avenue, South Bend, Indiana.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 1 of 11
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United 

States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and for breach of contract that is closely related to the 

claim for patent infringement. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1367(a).

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over AM General because AM General is a 

domestic corporation and because it is engaged in substantial and not isolated activities within this 

state, and is transacting business within the Northern District of Indiana, that business including, 

but not limited to, the use of products and systems that practice the subject matter claimed in the 

patent involved in this action.

6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2) and 

1400(b), as AM General’s principal place of business is located in this District, a substantial 

portion of the events giving rise to this claim have taken place and are still taking place in this 

District, and AM General has committed and continues to commit infringing acts in this District.

FACTS

7. For over 30 years, from September 1969 to November 2001, Ruehl was employed 

by A.O. Smith Corporation Automotive Products Company (“A.O. Smith”) in Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin, and by its 1997 purchaser, Tower Automotive, as an automotive frame chassis 

engineer. In his various positions, including as Manager of Product Design for the company, 

Ruehl’s responsibilities included contributing to the designs of many light truck and sport utility 

vehicle (“SUV”) frames. 

8. AM General manufactures, markets and sells a High Mobility Multi-Purpose 

Wheeled Vehicle (“HMMWV,” or, as it is commonly known, the “Humvee”). The Humvee is 

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 2 of 11
built on a multi-purpose platform which will accommodate a broad range of configurations. Since 

the early 1980s, AM General has manufactured and sold Humvees to the United States 

government, both for end use by the U.S. military and for resale to others (collectively, “U.S. 

Government Humvee Sales”). AM General has also manufactured and sold Humvees directly to 

third parties, including foreign governments, where the Humvees sold by AM General were not 

made for or used by the United States government (the “Non-U.S. Government Humvee Sales”). 

9. Ralf Pionke was also employed by A.O. Smith and, subsequently, by Tower 

Automotive, as an automotive chassis engineer. On some assignments, Pionke worked directly 

with Ruehl during his employment with A.O. Smith and Tower Automotive. Pionke left Tower 

Automotive in approximately 2000 and eventually went to work for AM General.

10. In November 2004, Pionke contacted Ruehl to inquire if Ruehl was interested in 

consulting with AM General on a project to upgrade the frame rails for its Humvee line of trucks. 

Pionke described the frame rail project objectives to Ruehl and sent Ruehl drawings showing the 

current side rail design.

11. From December 2004 through February 2005, Ruehl studied the drawings in light 

of the objectives described by Pionke. Ruehl was not under contract with AM General and was 

not being paid or otherwise compensated by AM General. Ruehl began to consider ways to meet 

AM General’s objectives so that he could add value if and when AM General decided it wanted to 

retain him as a consultant.

12. Ruehl began to consider several potential solutions which he believed to be the 

most efficient means of solving the stated challenges. He sketched up many of these solutions so 

as to remember each and to be able to explain how he would proceed with each solution if he were 

asked.

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 3 of 11
13. One of the new solutions Ruehl conceived of and sketched was a design that solved 

many of the unique dimensional and quality problems that AM General was experiencing with its 

current frame rail design (the “Invention”). The Invention is comprised of a box-type frame rail 

assembly. The frame assembly has a first section, with a web, a pair of flanges and a number of 

holes with “cupped” spacer locators. This first section is placed onto a fixture assembly with the 

holes fitting onto pilots. A spacer is placed over each of the pilots and engaged with the locator 

of the respective hole in the first section. A second section, also having a web, a pair of flanges, 

and a number of holes with locators, is then placed onto the fixture assembly, with the holes fitting 

onto the pilots, and the second end of each spacer is engaged with the locator associated with each 

respective hole in the web of the second section. Finally, the flanges of the first and second 

sections are secured together.

14. AM General was never invoiced and never paid Ruehl for the work he did during 

this preparation period. In fact, AM General specifically told Ruehl that the rail design program 

itself was tentative, and that if it did go forward, he would not be “on board” and under contract 

until he had met with representatives of AM General and signed additional documents at 

AM General’s Livonia, Michigan facility.

15. On February 26, 2005, having already conceived of the Invention, PC Ruehl 

received from AM General a purchase order dated February 24, 2005, for “engineering support for 

HMMWV frame rail feasibility study.” Under the purchase order, AM General asked Ruehl to 

provide engineering support for a feasibility study and stated that PC Ruehl would be paid $150 

per hour for Ruehl’s efforts. Ruehl signed the purchase order on behalf of PC Ruehl.

16. On March 5, 2005, Ruehl drew a more detailed, presentable, and buildable sketch 

illustrating the Invention in its preferred embodiment, and had the owner of a Milwaukee-area 

4

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 4 of 11
prototype shop confirm its manufacturability, witness it, and agree to build a small “proof-ofconcept” sample. Ruehl did not bill, and was not paid by, AM General for this work.

17. On March 7, 2005, with his Invention already conceived, design in hand and sample 

ordered, Ruehl attended his first meeting with AM General, a meeting which AM General referred 

to as the “kick off” meeting. 

18. At the kick off meeting, Ruehl, on behalf of PC Ruehl, and AM General signed a 

Mutual Confidentiality Agreement drafted by AM General. 

19. AM General required that Ruehl sign the agreement as the first order of business at 

the kick off meeting. 

20. The Mutual Confidentiality Agreement provided that all confidential information 

disclosed by Ruehl to AM General and by AM General to Ruehl would “remain the property of 

[the] Disclosing Party[.]” “Confidential Information” was defined in the agreement as “[a]ny 

information that has value to the Disclosing Party and is not generally known to its competitors,” 

and specifically included “ideas, concepts, plans,...drawings,...products, processes[.]” Moreover, 

the agreement stated, “Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as granting or 

conferring to Receiving Party any patent rights or licenses from Disclosing Party either expressly 

or by implication[.]” A copy of the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A.

21. Ruehl’s idea for a new frame rail joint was an idea that, pursuant to the Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement, remained his property as he provided engineering support services to 

AM General.

22. Immediately following the March 7 kick off meeting, Ruehl began three weeks of 

working with representatives from AM General and leading a team of computer aided design 

5

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 5 of 11
(“CAD”) designers and stress analysts at a design shop to provide engineering support services for 

the frame rail feasibility study. 

23. Ruehl was paid for his time in providing such engineering support services in 

accordance with the signed February 26, 2005 purchase order. 

24. At no time did AM General pay Ruehl or PC Ruehl for the transfer of ownership 

of Ruehl’s Invention.

25. On April 21, 2005, AM General sent PC Ruehl another purchase order seeking 

additional “engineering support of frame rail review.” Thereafter, Ruehl provided additional 

engineering support services to AM General according to the terms of that purchase order.

26. Ruehl’s Invention is a much improved means of assembling frame rails, not only 

improving strength, repeatability, and consistency in performance, but significantly decreasing the 

cost of the assembly of the rail, frame, and vehicle, and reducing the potential for “lost” vehicle 

builds, vehicle assembly line stoppage, and scrapped frame side rails.

27. On November 1, 2005, Ruehl filed a patent application on the Invention, 

Provisional Patent Application No. 60/732,451, and followed it up with a non-provisional patent 

application, Patent Application Serial No. 11/279,321, on April 11, 2006.

28. AM General filed its own patent application on Ruehl’s Invention, filing 

Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 60/764,045, on February 1, 2006, and non-provisional 

patent application Serial No. 11/670,217, on February 1, 2007. Notably, AM General listed Ruehl 

as the sole inventor of the Invention, and AM General as the sole owner of the corresponding 

rights.

29. AM General has advised Ruehl that it is AM General’s position that Ruehl had an 

obligation to assign his rights in the Invention to AM General, and its patent application has 

6

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 6 of 11
provided the basis of the rejection of Ruehl’s application on the ground of nonstatutory 

obviousness-type double patenting.

30. On information and belief, AM General has incorporated Ruehl’s Invention into 

the frame rail assembly it is now using for its Humvee product. AM General is manufacturing and 

selling its Humvee product – as improved by Ruehl’s Invention – through both U.S. Government 

and Non-U.S. Government Humvee Sales.

31. On November 1, 2005, the date Ruehl filed his provisional patent application, he 

informed AM General of the filing and of his expectation of receiving royalties for its use. Several 

months later Ruehl was asked to consult on an unrelated project for Maxion, Brazil’s largest 

automotive structural supplier, who had been released to produce the HMMWV rail assembly. 

The consulting would be on a heavy-duty truck frame for Volkswagen. On his first visit to 

Maxion’s home plant in the fall of 2006, he was shown the nearly complete new HMMWV rail 

line. Upon observing the rail line, Ruehl was able to confirm that the rail line incorporated his 

Invention.

32. On July 16, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally 

issued to Ruehl United States Patent No. 8,484,930 B2 (the “’930 Patent”), entitled “Boxed Frame 

Member and Method for Manufacture” covering the Invention. A true and correct copy of the 

’930 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘930 PATENT

(Limited To AM General’s Non-U.S. Government Humvee Sales Incorporating 

Ruehl’s Invention) 

33. Each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 32 is incorporated herein as if 

fully set forth.

7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 7 of 11
34. Upon information and belief, AM General has infringed and is still infringing one 

or more claims of the ’930 Patent by using the Invention in and for its Non-U.S. Government 

Humvee Sales.

35. As a direct and proximate result of AM General’s infringement of the ’930 Patent, 

Ruehl has suffered and is suffering damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT II – BREACH OF CONTRACT

36. Each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 32 is incorporated herein as if 

fully set forth.

37. Upon information and belief, AM General has been using Ruehl’s Invention in its 

manufacture of frame assemblies for Humvees since 2006 (prototypes since 2005) without 

compensation to PC Ruehl.

38. AM General’s use of Ruehl’s Invention in its manufacture of frame assemblies for 

Humvees without compensation to PC Ruehl is a breach of the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement 

signed by AM General and PC Ruehl on March 7, 2005.

39. As a result of AM General’s breach of the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement, 

PC Ruehl has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

WHEREFORE, Ruehl and PC Ruehl demand judgment against AM General as follows: 

A) awarding damages to PC Ruehl for breaching the Mutual Confidentiality Agreement in 

an amount to be determined at trial;

B) a judgment that AM General has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or 

more claims of the ’930 Patent; 

C) a judgment that AM General’s infringement of the ‘930 Patent has been willful;

8

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 8 of 11
D) an injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 enjoining AM General from infringing the 

‘930 Patent for the full term thereof;

E) awarding damages to Ruehl for AM General’s infringement of the ’930 Patent in an 

amount to be determined at trial;

F) awarding treble damages to Ruehl pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

G) declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285;

H) awarding Ruehl and PC Ruehl their costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees, in this 

action; and 

I) awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 

Dated this 12th day of September, 2014.

NEWBY LEWIS KAMINSKI & JONES, LLP

By: /s/ Martin W. Kus

Martin W. Kus

David P. Jones

Matthew J. Hagenow

916 Lincolnway

La Porte, IN 46352

Phone: 219-362-1577

Fax: 219-362-2106

mwkus@nlkj.com

mjhagenow@nlkj.com

Co-Counsel:

Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. 

Anthony Baish 

Nicholas A. Kees

Matthew M. Wuest

780 North Water Street

Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590

Phone: 414-273-3500

Fax: 414-273-5198

abaish@gklaw.com

nakees@gklaw.com

mwuest@gklaw.com

9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 9 of 11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Phillip C. Ruehl and 

PC Ruehl Engineering, Inc.

12113107.1

Jury Demand

Plaintiffs, by counsel, demand trial by jury.

NEWBY LEWIS KAMINSKI & JONES, LLP

By:/s/ Martin W. Kus

Martin W. Kus

David P. Jones

Matthew J. Hagenow

916 Lincolnway

La Porte, IN 46352

Phone: 219-362-1577

Fax: 219-362-2106

mwkus@nlkj.com

mjhagenow@nlkj.com

Co-Counsel:

Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. 

Anthony Baish 

Nicholas A. Kees

Matthew M. Wuest

780 North Water Street

Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590

Phone: 414-273-3500

Fax: 414-273-5198

abaish@gklaw.com

nakees@gklaw.com

mwuest@gklaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Phillip C. Ruehl and 

PC Ruehl Engineering, Inc. 

10

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 10 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

PHILLIP C. RUEHL and PC RUEHL 

ENGINEERING, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AM GENERAL LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-317-JVB

______________________________________________________________________________

PROOF OF SERVICE

______________________________________________________________________________

I hereby certify that on the 12th day of September, 2014, I electronically filed a complete 

copy of the Amended Complaint and this Proof of Service with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECT system and sent notification of such filing to the following:

 Alice J Springer alice.springer@btlaw.com

D Randall Brown rbrown@btlaw.com

Anthony S Baish tbaish@gklaw.com

Nicholas A Kees nakees@gklaw.com

Matthew M. Wuest mwuest@gklaw.com

David P Jones dpjones@nlkj.com

Matthew J Hagenow mjhagenow@nlkj.com

NEWBY, LEWIS, KAMINSKI AND JONES, LLP

BY: /S/ Martin W. Kus 

 Martin W. Kus, # 5377-46

11

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00317-JVB-JEM document 22 filed 09/12/14 page 11 of 11