DCT
5:16-cv-01790
Lit Coolers LLC v. Visual Promotions LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: LIT Coolers, LLC (Alabama)
- Defendant: Visual Promotions, LLC (Texas) and Wildwood Trading Company, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.
- Case Identification: 5:16-cv-01790, N.D. Ala., 11/03/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ line of "FRIO" coolers infringes a patent related to containers with removable lighting assemblies.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns thermally insulated coolers, a mature product category, with the added feature of internal illumination to aid users in low-light conditions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant Wildwood Trading Company, Inc. was formerly named Frio Coolers, Inc. It also alleges that on or about September 2016, Defendant Visual Promotions LLC acquired the portion of the Frio Coolers, Inc. business relating to the manufacture and sale of the accused FRIO cooler.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-09-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,931,910 Priority Date |
| 2015-01-13 | U.S. Patent No. 8,931,910 Issues |
| 2016-09-26 | (On or about) Frio Coolers, Inc. name changed to Wildwood Trading Company, Inc. |
| 2016-11-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,931,910 - "Container Apparatus and Method of Using Same", issued January 13, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for illuminating the interior of containers like coolers or toolboxes, but notes that prior art solutions often involve lights that are permanently wired into the container itself ('910 Patent, col. 1:18-24). This approach is described as potentially expensive, difficult to repair, and impractical for battery replacement ('910 Patent, col. 1:21-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a container apparatus with an "enclosure" that has at least one "recess" formed in its interior surface ('910 Patent, col. 1:39-42). This recess is specifically "sized and shaped to receive and engage" a removable light assembly, allowing the lighting to be secured during use but easily removed for repair, battery replacement, or when not needed ('910 Patent, col. 1:9-12; Fig. 1). The patent discloses multiple embodiments, including elongate recesses in the corners of a cooler and a circular recess in the base ('910 Patent, Figs. 1, 7).
- Technical Importance: This design introduces a modular approach to container illumination, separating the lighting mechanism from the container body to improve serviceability and potentially reduce manufacturing complexity ('910 Patent, col. 4:48-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 10 ('910 Patent, col. 5:46-54, col. 6:25-27; Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A container apparatus comprising an enclosure having an interior surface,
- and at least one recess formed in the interior surface sized and shaped to receive and engage a light assembly for illuminating an interior area of the enclosure,
- wherein the enclosure comprises a rectangular base and a rectangular sidewall extending upwardly from the base defining four corners of the enclosure.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are a line of "thermally insulated coolers" sold under the "FRIO" brand, including numerous specific item numbers such as VFRIO25, USAFRIO45, and TXFRIO65 (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint identifies the accused products as thermally insulated coolers (Compl. ¶18). A photograph provided as Exhibit 2 shows an open, white cooler with the "FRIO" logo on the inside of the lid and an active light source, also on the inside of the lid, illuminating the cooler's interior (Compl. ¶18, Ex. 2). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the cooler or its lighting feature beyond this visual depiction.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 as can be inferred from the complaint's general allegations and the provided visual evidence.
’910 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A container apparatus comprising an enclosure having an interior surface, | The body and lid of the accused FRIO cooler. | ¶18 | col. 5:46-47 |
| and at least one recess formed in the interior surface sized and shaped to receive and engage a light assembly for illuminating an interior area of the enclosure, | The complaint does not specify where a "recess" is located on the FRIO cooler. Exhibit 2 shows a light assembly mounted to the interior of the cooler lid. | ¶19, Ex. 2 | col. 5:48-51 |
| wherein the enclosure comprises a rectangular base and a rectangular sidewall extending upwardly from the base defining four corners of the enclosure. | The body of the FRIO cooler, which appears to have a rectangular base and sidewalls. | ¶18, Ex. 2 | col. 5:51-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the meaning of "enclosure" and its "interior surface." The patent figures depict recesses formed in the main bin of the container (the base or sidewalls). The complaint's visual evidence, however, shows a light on the lid. This raises the question of whether a feature on the lid can satisfy a limitation for a recess on the "interior surface" of the "enclosure," particularly as the specification appears to distinguish between the container body and other components.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence that the FRIO cooler's light is situated within a "recess." The photograph in Exhibit 2 appears to show a self-contained light unit attached to the surface of the lid. A key factual question will be whether the mounting point for this light constitutes a "recess" that is "sized and shaped to receive and engage" the light assembly, as claimed, or if it is merely a surface-mount attachment, which may not meet the claim limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "recess"
- Context and Importance: The existence of a "recess" is a central limitation of the asserted claims. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the feature on the accused FRIO cooler that holds the light assembly can be defined as a "recess" within the meaning of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's only evidence (Exhibit 2) does not clearly show a cavity or indentation, but rather what could be interpreted as a surface-mounted light.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "recess," which could support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any form of indentation or cavity, however shallow, that is "sized and shaped" to receive the light.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes specific embodiments where the recesses are integral, formed features of the container's main body. For example, it describes "four elongate recesses... formed in the inner wall section" and a "substantially circular recess... formed proximate the center of the base" ('910 Patent, col. 3:45-48, col. 5:12-14). A party could argue these examples limit the scope of "recess" to a more substantial, integrated cavity within the container's base or sidewalls, as opposed to a simple mounting fixture on a lid.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of willful infringement (Compl. ¶23). It does not, however, allege any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the ’910 patent or a prior offer to license.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "recess", as used in the context of the patent's specification and figures that show cavities integrated into the container's main body, be construed to cover the mounting point for the light assembly located on the lid of the accused FRIO cooler?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical fact: does the accused FRIO cooler actually have a "recess" that is "sized and shaped to receive and engage" the light assembly as required by Claim 1, or is the light simply attached to a flat interior surface of the lid? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on this point suggests that discovery will be critical to resolving this question.