DCT
2:17-cv-02547
Camcal Enterprises LLC v. Corlay LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Camcal Enterprisess LLC dba BOTTLEKEEPER (Arizona)
- Defendant: Corlay LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-02547, C.D. Cal., 07/11/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" product infringes two patents related to protective and sealing enclosures for beverage bottles.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns insulated containers designed to hold, protect, and seal standard beverage bottles (e.g., beer bottles), allowing for consumption while maintaining temperature and preventing spills.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270 is a continuation of the application that resulted in the asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527, indicating a shared specification and close technical relationship. A Certificate of Correction was issued for the '270 patent on August 15, 2017, correcting minor typographical errors in the claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-01-14 | Priority Date for ’527 and ’270 Patents (Prov. App. Filed) |
| 2016-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527 Issued |
| 2017-05-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270 Issued |
| 2017-07-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527, "Protective Bottle Enclosure," Issued Nov. 29, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem of consuming beverages "on the go" from bottles, such as glass bottles, that lack re-sealable caps. Once opened, these bottles can spill, lose effervescence, and their contents can warm to ambient temperature (’527 Patent, col. 1:15-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part protective enclosure. It comprises a main body (upper portion) and a removable base that screws on, allowing a standard bottle to be placed inside (’527 Patent, col. 2:49-54). A key component is a removable cap that screws onto the top of the enclosure. This cap contains an internal stopper designed to create a "double-seal": an "inner seal" with the mouth of the bottle itself and an "outer seal" with the enclosure, preventing leakage and preserving the beverage (’527 Patent, col. 1:56-62; Fig. 3). The interior of the enclosure is lined with an "elastomeric form" to insulate and securely hold the bottle (’527 Patent, col. 5:36-52).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a reusable system for insulating, protecting, and, crucially, re-sealing non-resealable bottles, addressing multiple common issues with a single integrated device (’527 Patent, col. 1:47-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims... (including, but not limited to, claim 1)" (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the essential elements of the enclosure:
- A container with an upper portion (including a shoulder and neck) and a removably coupled base.
- A continuous elastomeric form wrapped within the upper portion.
- An external, removable cap with a bottom portion that includes a stopper and a cylindrical sleeve.
- The cap is configured to be fully seated to form a first seal with the container.
- The stopper is configured to form a second seal with the open mouth of the bottle.
U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270, "Protective Bottle Enclosure," Issued May 2, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '527 patent's application, the '270 patent addresses the same problems of spillage, loss of freshness, and temperature change in non-resealable beverage bottles (’270 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
- The Patented Solution: The '270 patent describes a similar protective enclosure with a two-part container (upper portion and base) and a sealing cap. The claims focus more specifically on the structural arrangement and materials, for example, defining the upper and lower portions as being made of aluminum and detailing the threaded engagement between them (’270 Patent, col. 9:24-44). The cap features a "plug" (analogous to the '527 patent's "stopper") that inserts into the bottle's mouth to seal it, and a sleeve that engages threads on the enclosure's neck (’270 Patent, col. 10:14-33).
- Technical Importance: This patent appears to secure rights on more specific structural and material implementations of the protective enclosure concept introduced in the parent patent family (’270 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims... (including, but not limited to, claim 5)" (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 5 recites the essential elements of the enclosure:
- A base portion with a sidewall and bottom wall.
- An upper portion with a cylindrical body, a narrower lower section, and a narrower neck section, with an internal cavity extending between its openings.
- The lower section of the upper portion is configured to threadably engage the base portion's sidewall.
- A removable cap with a plug connected to a cylindrical sleeve.
- The sleeve is configured to threadably engage the neck section, and the plug is configured to seal the open bottle inside.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" (Compl. ¶8, ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a "bottle enclosure" (Compl. ¶8). Based on the product name and the context of the patents-in-suit, the "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" is alleged to be a device designed to hold a standard beverage bottle. The complaint includes a reference to visual evidence from the defendant's website. This visual, a website page for the "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie," illustrates the product (Compl. ¶8; Exhibit 2). The complaint alleges that Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling these bottle enclosures in the United States (Compl. ¶8, ¶9, ¶16, ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) but does not provide an element-by-element mapping of the accused product to the claim limitations (Compl. ¶9, ¶17). The following charts are constructed based on the asserted independent claims and the general allegations against the "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie."
’527 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A protective bottle enclosure for enclosing and sealing an open bottle inside the enclosure...the enclosure comprising: a container including an upper portion...and a base...configured to removably couple... | The "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" is alleged to be a bottle enclosure with a multi-part container body that allows a bottle to be placed inside. | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 2:11-28 |
| a continuous elastomeric form wrapped within the upper portion and bound between the shoulder and the bottom... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. | N/A | col. 5:36-44 |
| an external, removable cap configured to removably engage the container, a bottom portion of the cap comprising a stopper and a cylindrical sleeve that partially extends inside of the neck... | The accused product is alleged to include a removable cap that engages the container and has a sealing component ("stopper") and a sleeve. | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 4:29-54 |
| wherein the cap is configured to be fully seated against the upper portion of the container and to form a first seal between the cap and the container... | The accused product's cap is alleged to seat against the container, creating a seal. | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 7:14-18 |
| the cap being further configured to seal the open mouth of the bottle and the stopper being configured to form a second seal between the cap and the bottle. | The accused product's cap and its internal "stopper" component are alleged to seal the mouth of the bottle placed inside the enclosure. | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 7:10-14 |
’270 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base portion defined by a base sidewall secured to a base bottom wall and having an open top; | The accused product is alleged to have a removable base with a bottom and sidewalls. | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 2:51-54 |
| an upper portion defined by upper sidewalls surrounding an internal cavity...the lower section being configured to be inserted into the open top of the base portion and to threadably engage the base sidewall; | The accused product is alleged to have an upper body that threadably engages with the base portion to form the complete enclosure. | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 2:55-65 |
| a removable cap comprising a plug connected to a cylindrical sleeve, the cylindrical sleeve being configured...to threadably engage the neck section... | The accused product is alleged to have a removable cap with a sleeve that threadably engages the neck of the enclosure's upper portion. | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 4:46-60 |
| the plug being configured to seal the open bottle inside the protective bottle enclosure. | The accused product's cap is alleged to contain a "plug" component that seals the mouth of the bottle when the cap is secured. | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 6:42-45 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" contains every element of the asserted claims. For the '527 patent, this includes determining if it has a "continuous elastomeric form" as claimed, an element for which the complaint provides no specific factual allegations.
- Technical Questions: The functionality of the sealing mechanism will be a focus. Does the accused product's cap create the specific "first seal" (cap-to-container) and "second seal" (stopper-to-bottle) as required by claim 1 of the '527 patent? Similarly, does the accused product's cap contain a component that meets the definition of a "plug" as recited in claim 5 of the '270 patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "stopper" (’527 Patent, Claim 1) / "plug" (’270 Patent, Claim 5)
- Context and Importance: These terms define the critical component that seals the bottle's mouth. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the corresponding part in the accused product performs the function and has the structure described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents describe multiple embodiments of this component, raising questions about the breadth of its definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple distinct embodiments for the sealing component. One is a "stopper" with an inverted conical frustum shape and a flange (col. 4:57-65, Fig. 4A), another is a different frustum shape (col. 4:70-col. 5:8, Fig. 4B), and a third is a simple "compressible pad" (col. 5:20-31, Fig. 4C). The existence of multiple distinct embodiments may support an interpretation that the term is not limited to any single structure but covers a range of sealing members.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Each embodiment is described with specific structural details. For example, stopper 60 is described as an "inverted truncated conical frustum" (col. 4:60-61), and stopper 80 is described as a "pad" (col. 5:20). A party could argue that the terms "stopper" or "plug" must be limited to the specific structures disclosed, or at least structures with similar characteristics, and do not cover any generic sealing element.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is "in conscious and willful disregard for BottleKeeper’s rights" (Compl. ¶12, ¶20). This claim is supported by the allegation that Defendant has "notice of BottleKeeper's rights in the '527 patent" and the "'270 patent" (Compl. ¶7, ¶15). These allegations could support a claim for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue, particularly at the pleading stage, will be one of evidentiary support. Does the accused "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" actually contain all the claimed elements, such as the "continuous elastomeric form" of the '527 patent? The complaint's lack of element-by-element factual allegations may become a focus of early discovery and motion practice.
- Claim Scope and Equivalence: The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope. Can the terms "stopper" and "plug," as defined and illustrated across several embodiments in the patents, be construed to read on the specific sealing mechanism used in the Defendant's product? The resolution will depend on whether the court adopts a broader, functional definition or one narrowly tied to the specific structures disclosed in the specification.
- Functionality of the "Double Seal": A key technical question will be one of functional operation. Does the accused product's cap create two distinct and separate seals—one between the cap and the container, and a second between the cap's internal component and the bottle mouth—as specifically required by claim 1 of the '527 patent, or does it achieve a seal in a technically different manner?