DCT

5:21-cv-05109

CamelBak Products LLC v. Zak Designs Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:21-cv-05109, W.D. Ark., 06/11/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed infringing acts within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of water bottles, including the Riverside, Genesis, and Park models, infringes six patents related to stowable, leak-resistant drinking spouts and mouthpiece assemblies.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the mechanical design of lids for portable water bottles, a highly competitive consumer product market where features enhancing convenience and spill-prevention are significant differentiators.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff first notified Defendant of potential infringement of several of the patents-in-suit on November 7, 2018, followed by subsequent notices for later-issuing patents. The parties engaged in unsuccessful discussions for over two years prior to the complaint's filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-04-11 Earliest Priority Date ('911, '255 Patents)
2009-01-21 Earliest Priority Date ('028, '595, '879, '833 Patents)
2016-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,463,911 Issues
2017-10-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,782,028 Issues
2017-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,820,595 Issues
2018-11-07 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of '911, '028, and '595 Patents
2019-01-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,165,879 Issues
2019-12-30 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of '879 Patent
2020-01-28 U.S. Patent No. 10,542,833 Issues
2020-03-27 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of '833 Patent
2020-06-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255 Issues
2021-04-26 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of '255 Patent
2021-06-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,463,911 - "Drink Bottles"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional drink bottles may be prone to leakage or require removal of the cap to drink, which can be inconvenient (U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255, col. 1:35-49). The patent addresses the need for a readily accessible and leak-resistant drinking spout.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a drink bottle cap with a pivoting drink spout. In its stowed or "closed" configuration, the spout mechanism physically crimps a flexible tube portion of the fluid conduit, obstructing the flow of liquid. When pivoted to its "open" or dispensing configuration, the crimping force is released, allowing liquid to pass through the tube to the user (U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255, col. 12:45-67). This mechanism functions as a "manual on/off valve" tied to the physical position of the spout.
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a spill-resistant seal that is mechanically integrated with the stowing action of the spout, offering user convenience without requiring a separate valve to be opened or closed (U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255, col. 12:45-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 of the ’911 Patent (Compl. ¶23).
  • Essential elements of claim 14 include:
    • A cap assembly base removably coupled to the fluid container.
    • A resilient mouthpiece pivotal relative to the cap assembly base.
    • A manual on/off valve with a closed configuration (restricting flow) and an open configuration (permitting flow).
    • The manual on/off valve includes a flexible tube that defines a portion of the fluid conduit.
    • When the valve is in the closed configuration, the tube is crimped to obstruct fluid flow.
    • When the valve is in the open configuration, the tube is not crimped and does not obstruct fluid flow.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 9,782,028 - "Drink Containers"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes drink containers with mouthpieces that can be moved between a dispensing configuration and a stowed configuration, addressing the general need for convenient, portable hydration systems ('028 Patent, col. 1:20-24).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention refines the concept of a stowable mouthpiece by introducing automated functionality. The mouthpiece assembly is "biased" toward the dispensing configuration, meaning it has a tendency to spring open. It is held in the stowed configuration by a securing mechanism (e.g., a catch). The invention includes a "user release mechanism" (such as a button or slider) which, when actuated, disengages the catch and allows the mouthpiece to automatically move to its open, ready-to-drink position ('028 Patent, col. 5:10-23; col. 5:41-6:2). Flow is restricted in the stowed position by a "crimping region" of a deformable tube.
  • Technical Importance: This design offers "one-touch" or automated deployment of the drinking spout, enhancing user convenience, particularly in situations where a user may only have one free hand ('028 Patent, col. 13:58-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’028 Patent (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A mouthpiece assembly configurable between a dispensing and a stowed configuration.
    • The mouthpiece assembly is biased to the dispensing configuration.
    • A tube that includes a crimping region adapted to restrict liquid flow when the mouthpiece is in the stowed configuration.
    • An anchor portion extending from the tube to secure it to the cap base.
    • A second catch structure adapted to engage a first catch structure to retain the mouthpiece in the stowed configuration.
    • A user release mechanism adapted to automatically disengage the catch structures, releasing the mouthpiece to move via its bias to the dispensing configuration.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶36).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • *U.S. Patent No. 9,820,595 - "Drink Containers", issued November 21, 2017.*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the ’028 Patent and describes similar technology. It focuses on a drink container with a stowable mouthpiece assembly that is biased toward an open position and includes a user-release mechanism for automatic deployment, with flow restricted by a crimping region when stowed (’595 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶47).
    • Accused Features: The Genesis, Riverside I, and Riverside II water bottles are accused of infringing by allegedly incorporating a stowable, crimpable mouthpiece assembly (Compl. ¶47).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 10,165,879 - "Drink Containers", issued January 1, 2019.*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the '595 patent and is in the same family as the '028 patent. The technology again centers on a mouthpiece assembly with dispensing and stowed configurations, a crimping region to restrict flow, and a user-release mechanism to automatically move the biased mouthpiece from the stowed to the dispensing position (’879 Patent, Abstract, col. 1:46-62).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
    • Accused Features: The Riverside I and Riverside II water bottles are accused of infringing by allegedly featuring a cap with a stowable mouthpiece and a user-release mechanism (Compl. ¶59-60).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 10,542,833 - "Drink Containers", issued January 28, 2020.*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the '879 patent and part of the same family. It describes a drink container with a cap assembly featuring a mouthpiece that pivots between dispensing and stowed configurations, with a crimping region in a resilient tube restricting flow when stowed, and an automatic user-release mechanism (’833 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
    • Accused Features: The Riverside I and Riverside II water bottles are accused of infringing by allegedly having a cap with a user-releasable, stowable mouthpiece that restricts flow when stowed (Compl. ¶71-72).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 10,676,255 - "Drink Bottles", issued June 9, 2020.*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the ’911 Patent. The technology relates to a drink bottle cap with a pivotally mounted drink spout. The spout assembly incorporates a "manual on/off valve" whereby pivoting the spout into a closed or stowed position causes a flexible tube in the fluid path to be crimped, thereby preventing liquid flow (’255 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
    • Accused Features: The Park I, Park II, Riverside I, and Riverside II water bottles are accused of infringing by allegedly incorporating a pivoting spout that functions as a manual on/off valve by crimping a flexible tube (Compl. ¶83-84).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Defendant’s Riverside I, Riverside II, Genesis, Park I, and Park II water bottles (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are portable water bottles intended for general consumer use. The complaint provides photographic evidence of the lids of these products (Compl. pp. 5-7). The photographs show lids with integrated carrying loops and mouthpieces that pivot between a stowed position, where the mouthpiece is recessed or flush with the lid, and a deployed position, where it is raised for drinking (Compl. p. 5). For example, the images of the "Riverside I" product show a two-tone plastic lid with a translucent mouthpiece that flips upward from a recessed position. (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges that Defendant is a direct competitor of Plaintiff in the water bottle market (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’911 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a cap assembly base removably coupled to the fluid container The accused lids are designed to screw onto water bottles. ¶18 col. 22:11-13
a resilient mouthpiece pivotal relative to the cap assembly base The accused products have a mouthpiece that pivots upward for drinking and downward for storage. The visual evidence of the Riverside I lid shows this pivoting action. ¶23; p. 5 col. 22:20-22
a manual on/off valve having a closed configuration, in which the manual on/off valve obstructs the fluid conduit to restrict drink fluid from flowing...and an open configuration... The complaint alleges that the pivoting mechanism itself functions as the manual on/off valve, where the stowed position corresponds to the "closed configuration" and the deployed position corresponds to the "open configuration." ¶23-24 col. 22:23-34
wherein the manual on/off valve includes a flexible tube that defines a portion of the fluid conduit; The complaint alleges the existence of an internal flexible tube as part of the fluid path. This feature is not visible in the provided photographs. ¶23-24 col. 22:28-30
wherein when the manual on/off valve is in the closed configuration, the tube is crimped to obstruct the flow of drink fluid through the fluid conduit... The complaint alleges that when the mouthpiece is pivoted to the stowed position, it crimps the internal flexible tube, thereby stopping the flow of liquid. ¶23-24 col. 22:31-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the simple pivoting mechanism of the accused products, as depicted in the complaint's photographs, constitutes a "manual on/off valve" as that term is used in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory hinges on the presence and operation of an internal "flexible tube" that is "crimped" when the mouthpiece is stowed. A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products contain this specific internal mechanism and that it operates in the claimed manner.

’028 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a mouthpiece assembly...selectively configured between a dispensing configuration...and a stowed configuration The accused products feature a mouthpiece that pivots between a deployed (dispensing) and a recessed (stowed) position, as shown in the provided photographs of the Genesis and Park lids. ¶35; pp. 6-7 col. 5:1-5
wherein the mouthpiece assembly is biased to the dispensing configuration The complaint alleges this feature is present, but the provided photographs do not show evidence of a spring-loading or other biasing mechanism that would cause the mouthpiece to automatically move to the dispensing configuration. ¶36 col. 5:26-33
a tube that includes a crimping region constructed of a resiliently deformable material and is adapted to restrict the flow of drink liquid through the liquid passage when the mouthpiece assembly is in the stowed configuration The complaint alleges the accused products contain an internal deformable tube with a crimping region to restrict flow. This mechanism is not visible in the complaint's photographs. ¶36 col. 5:41-55
a second catch structure adapted to be selectively engaged with the first catch structure to retain the mouthpiece assembly in the stowed configuration The complaint alleges the presence of a catch mechanism that holds the mouthpiece in the stowed position. The photographs show the mouthpiece fitting into a recess, which may be alleged to function as the catch. ¶36 col. 5:56-6:2
a user release mechanism adapted to automatically disengage the first and second catch structures...and thereby release the mouthpiece assembly to move via its bias... The complaint alleges this feature is present. The provided photographs do not depict an apparent button, slider, or other distinct release mechanism for automatic deployment. ¶36 col. 5:41-6:2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused products, which appear to have manually-operated pivoting spouts, can be said to meet the claim limitations requiring that the mouthpiece be "biased to the dispensing configuration" and released by a "user release mechanism."
    • Technical Questions: As with the '911 patent, a factual dispute may arise over the existence and operation of the claimed internal "crimping region." A further question is what component of the accused products, if any, performs the function of the "user release mechanism" required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "user release mechanism" (from the '028 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because claim 1 of the '028 Patent requires a mechanism that "automatically disengage[s]" the catch to "release the mouthpiece assembly to move via its bias." The accused products, as depicted, appear to be simple manual pivot spouts without an obvious button or slider. The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to read on the user simply lifting the spout manually.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the mechanism is "adapted to automatically disengage the first and second catch structures upon actuation of the user release mechanism" (’879 Patent, col. 13:61-64). An argument for a broader reading might suggest that the user's direct manual force on the spout itself could be considered "actuation."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments of the "user release mechanism," such as a "sliding member 238" that includes a "user engagement pad 240" and an "actuator" (’879 Patent, col. 12:57-65; Fig. 11). This disclosure of a distinct, separate component (a slider/button) that the user acts upon suggests the possibility that the term requires more than just manually lifting the mouthpiece itself.

  • The Term: "biased to the dispensing configuration" (from the '028 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: This term is recited in combination with the "user release mechanism" and implies that the mouthpiece has a stored energy (e.g., from a spring or resilient material) that causes it to move to the open position upon release. This is central to the "automatic" deployment feature. Infringement will depend on whether the accused products contain such a biasing element.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the bias "may be provided by the internal bias created by the material from which at least a portion of the mouthpiece assembly is constructed" (’879 Patent, col. 9:62-65). This could support an argument that the natural resiliency of the plastic itself provides the "bias," without needing a separate spring.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states that "a biasing mechanism 50 may include at least one spring" (’879 Patent, col. 9:5-6). The patent's description of the mouthpiece moving "automatically via, or under, its bias...upon release" suggests a more active, spring-like motion rather than just being movable by a user (’879 Patent, col. 5:30-33).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The allegations are based on Defendant's alleged marketing, selling, and instructing retailers and customers to use the Accused Products, as well as selling infringing components such as replacement lids that are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶20, 26-27, 38-39).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all six patents-in-suit. The basis for the allegation is Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving actual notice from Plaintiff via correspondence, with the first notice dating back to November 7, 2018 (Compl. ¶25, 30, 37, 42, 49, 54, 61, 66, 73, 78, 89).

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

This case appears to present two primary areas of dispute that will be central to its resolution:

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the claim terms "user release mechanism" and "biased to the dispensing configuration", which describe an automatically deploying mouthpiece in the '028 patent family, be construed to cover the seemingly manual, non-spring-loaded pivoting spouts of the accused products? The outcome of claim construction on these terms may be dispositive for a significant portion of the case.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused products contain the internal "flexible tube" and "crimping region" required by the asserted claims? As this mechanism is not visible in the complaint's photographic exhibits, the case will likely turn on evidence from product teardowns, expert testimony, or internal design documents.