DCT
1:24-cv-00893
Bee Warehouse LLC v. Blazer
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiffs: Bee Warehouse, LLC (Alabama); Davis Product Creation and Consulting, LLC d/b/a BeesNThings (Alabama)
- Defendant: Bradley Jerome Blazer (North Carolina)
- Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00893, N.D. Ala., 07/05/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendant's actions were purposely aimed at the State of Alabama and that he acted in concert with his brother, who resides within the Northern District of Alabama.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, sellers of a carpenter bee trap, seek a declaration that their product does not infringe the Defendant's patent and seek damages, alleging that the Defendant made bad-faith infringement accusations to interfere with their business relationship with Amazon.com.
- Technical Context: The technology involves mechanical traps designed to capture and kill carpenter bees, which are insects known for boring into and damaging wooden structures.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references extensive prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit. In a prior case, Bee Warehouse, LLC et al. v. Brian Blazer ("Bee Warehouse I"), the same court reportedly granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the current Plaintiffs for the same accused product. The complaint also notes that in a separate litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit construed a key claim term central to the current dispute. The Defendant, Bradley Blazer, is a co-inventor of the patent and is alleged to have significant experience with patent prosecution and litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-04-27 | '421 Patent Priority Date (Original Application Filing) |
| 2013-02-19 | Original U.S. Patent No. 8,375,624 Issued |
| 2015-02-18 | Reissue Application for '421 Patent Filed |
| 2017-06-06 | U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421 Issued |
| 2024-07-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421, “Carpenter Bee Traps,” issued June 6, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a more effective carpenter bee trap, noting that prior art traps can be complex, have limited capacity, or are difficult to monitor and maintain ('421 Patent, col. 2:3-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trap that exploits bees' natural behaviors. It features a trap entrance unit, typically made of wood, with holes that mimic a natural nest to serve as a primary attractant. After entering, bees are guided through an interior plenum toward a "secondary attractant": ambient light entering from a clear or translucent receptacle attached at the bottom of the trap. Once inside the light-admitting receptacle (e.g., a plastic bottle), the bees are trapped. ('421 Patent, col. 2:41-3:4, Fig. 1A).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to create a highly effective trap by combining a familiar nest-like entrance with a light-based navigational lure that prevents escape, offering a simple, high-capacity, and easily monitored solution to carpenter bee infestations ('421 Patent, col. 2:64-3:14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses its non-infringement arguments on claim 13.
- Independent Claim 13 requires, among other elements:
- A trap entrance unit made of wood or a wood substitute with at least one entrance hole extending to an interior.
- The hole is configured to be a "primary attractant" for carpenter bees.
- The unit has an "exit opening" providing a path from the interior.
- A "receptacle adapter" is located at the exit opening.
- The receptacle adapter is adapted to receive a receptacle and allow "at least some ambient light to enter the interior of the trap entrance unit via the exit opening," providing a "secondary attractant."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but focuses its analysis on the elements of independent claim 13.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Bee Warehouse Trap" (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Bee Warehouse Trap as a device consisting of a wooden block with entrance holes, which serves as the trap entrance unit, mounted directly on top of a clear plastic box that functions as the receptacle (Compl. p. 4-6). A view looking up into the trap shows the bottom of the wooden entrance unit and the screws fastening it to the clear receptacle (Compl. p. 7). Plaintiffs allege the trap was sold on Amazon's marketplace until the Defendant submitted an infringement notice that resulted in the product's de-listing during the "height of the bee season" (Compl. ¶¶20, 30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not allege infringement but rather describes the Defendant's allegedly bad-faith infringement theories, which were reportedly rejected in prior litigation. The following chart summarizes the Defendant’s alleged theory of how the Bee Warehouse Trap meets the elements of Claim 13.
RE46,421 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (per Defendant's theory as described in complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trap entrance unit formed of wood or a wood substitute ... wherein at least one side of the trap entrance unit has at least one entrance hole... | The wooden block portion of the Bee Warehouse Trap with holes drilled in its sides. | ¶9 | col. 8:26-30 |
| a receptacle adapter located at the exit opening of the trap entrance unit... adapted to receive at least one receptacle... | Defendant allegedly advanced several theories for this element, including that the "receptacle adapter" is: (1) the bottom corner of the wooden block combined with the plastic lip of the receptacle; (2) the Philips-head screws securing the receptacle to the block; or (3) a combination of the block bottom, the lip, and the screws. | ¶¶26-28 | col. 8:36-39 |
| and is adapted so as to allow at least some ambient light to enter the interior of the trap entrance unit via the exit opening, thereby providing a secondary attractant... | The complaint alleges that Defendant’s theories fail this limitation because the identified structures are not at the exit opening and/or block light rather than allowing it to pass. | ¶¶26-28 | col. 8:39-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute is whether the term "receptacle adapter" can be read onto components that are arguably part of the trap entrance unit (the wood block's bottom edge) or the receptacle itself (the plastic lip), or are simple fasteners (screws). The complaint suggests these theories are inconsistent with the Federal Circuit's construction of the term as "a structure configured to receive and help retain a receptacle" (Compl. ¶22).
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises the question of whether the identified components function as claimed. It questions whether the alleged "adapter" is truly "located at the exit opening" and whether structures like screws or a form-fitting plastic lip can "allow at least some ambient light to enter" as required by the claim, alleging instead that they block light (Compl. ¶¶26.C, 27).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
1. "receptacle adapter"
- Context and Importance: The presence or absence of a "receptacle adapter" appears to be the dispositive issue for infringement. The complaint alleges that a prior court has already found non-infringement based on the absence of this element in the accused trap, and that the Defendant’s continued assertion that the trap meets this limitation is the basis for the bad-faith claims (Compl. ¶¶24, 25).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims require an adapter "configured to receive" a receptacle, which a party could argue covers any structure that functionally secures the receptacle, regardless of its form ('421 Patent, col. 8:55).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict the "receptacle adapter" as a distinct structural component separate from the main trap body and the receptacle, such as a "female threaded coupling" similar to a bottle cap (Fig. 1A, element 14; '421 Patent, col. 5:6-10). The patent also describes it as comprising a "reducer section" and an "adapter coupling," further suggesting a discrete, multi-part component ('421 Patent, col. 8:58-64).
VI. Other Allegations
- The complaint's primary counts are not for patent infringement but for business torts and related claims arising from the Defendant's alleged enforcement activities.
- Bad Faith Allegations: The central allegation is that Defendant Bradley Blazer, despite being a sophisticated patentee and co-inventor, made "frivolous and bad-faith" infringement allegations against the Plaintiffs to Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶19, 33). These allegations are the basis for claims of Tortious Interference with Business/Contract Relations (Count I), Violation of an Alabama statute prohibiting bad-faith assertions of patent infringement (Count II), and Civil Conspiracy (Count III) (Compl. ¶¶32-42). The complaint alleges these actions were taken with knowledge of the product's non-infringing status, particularly in light of prior court rulings (Compl. ¶¶11, 24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears less a standard dispute over infringement and more a test of the boundary between legitimate patent enforcement and anti-competitive tortious conduct. The key questions for the court are likely to be:
- A core issue will be one of legal and factual baselessness: Were the Defendant's infringement theories, particularly his identification of screws or a plastic lip as the claimed "receptacle adapter," so objectively unreasonable in light of the claim language, patent specification, and prior judicial constructions that they can be deemed baseless as a matter of law?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of subjective bad faith: Can the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendant, given his alleged expertise as an inventor and patent litigant, made his infringement allegations to Amazon not with a good-faith belief in their merit but with the intent to interfere with a competitor's business relationship, especially in the context of a pre-existing court ruling of non-infringement for the same product?