Camcal Enterprises LLC v. Glaciio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CAMCAL ENTERPRISES, LLC dba BOTTLEKEEPER (Arizona)
  • Defendant: Glaciio, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-02551, C.D. Cal., 04/03/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a California corporation that resides and does business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Beer Bottle Cooler" product infringes a patent related to a protective, insulating, and resealable beverage bottle enclosure.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for accessories that allow consumers to protect, insulate, and reseal common non-resealable beverage bottles, such as glass beer bottles, for transport and delayed consumption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventor, Matthew T. Campbell, to the Plaintiff. No other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-14	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527
2016-11-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527 Issues
2017-04-03	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527 - "Protective Bottle Enclosure"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527, "Protective Bottle Enclosure," issued November 29, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of consuming beverages from standard bottles "on the go" (Compl. ¶7; ’527 Patent, col. 1:19-22). Once opened, such bottles can spill, the contents can lose freshness or carbonation, and the beverage temperature equalizes with the ambient environment. Many bottles, particularly glass ones, lack a means to be resealed (’527 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part enclosure designed to hold a standard beverage bottle (’527 Patent, Abstract). It consists of a main upper body and a removable base, which allows a bottle to be inserted (’527 Patent, col. 2:49-54). A cap is configured to screw onto the neck of the enclosure. This cap contains a stopper that creates two distinct seals when fully seated: a first "outer seal" between the cap and the enclosure itself, and a second "inner seal" between the stopper and the open mouth of the bottle held inside (’527 Patent, col. 2:56-62). This dual-seal design aims to prevent leaks from both the bottle and the enclosure.
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a method to insulate, protect, and reseal otherwise non-resealable bottles, addressing a stated need for a device to carry such beverages (’527 Patent, col. 1:40-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims... including, but not limited to, claim 1" (Compl. ¶10).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A container with an upper portion (having a shoulder and neck) and a removably coupled base.
  • A "continuous elastomeric form" wrapped within the upper portion, between the shoulder and the bottom.
  • An external, removable cap with a "stopper" and a "cylindrical sleeve" that surrounds a portion of the enclosed bottle's bottleneck.
  • A configuration wherein the seated cap forms a "first seal" with the container and the stopper forms a "second seal" with the bottle's open mouth.
• The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims will be asserted (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's "Beer Bottle Cooler" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a "bottle enclosure" (Compl. ¶9). It alleges that Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, using, importing, and selling these products (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the product's construction or operation, but it does reference pages from the Defendant's website, attached as an exhibit, which purportedly show the infringing product (Compl. ¶11, Ex. 2). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's "Beer Bottle Cooler" directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’527 Patent (Compl. ¶10). However, the complaint does not provide a detailed, limitation-by-limitation explanation of its infringement theory or include a claim chart. The infringement allegation is stated in a conclusory fashion (Compl. ¶10).

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of claim 1, the infringement analysis will likely focus on several technical and legal questions:
  • Structural Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused product contains the specific structures recited in the claim. This includes the "continuous elastomeric form," the cap with both a "stopper" and a "cylindrical sleeve," and the two-part body with a removable base. Evidence will be required to show a one-to-one correspondence between the product's components and these claim elements.
  • Functional Questions: The claim requires the cap to perform a dual-sealing function: a "first seal" with the container and a "second seal" with the bottle (’527 Patent, col. 10:33-40). A central dispute may be whether the accused product's cap and internal components actually create two separate and distinct seals that meet these limitations, or if it creates only a single seal or seals in a different manner. The distinction between the "outer seal" (cap-to-container) and "inner seal" (stopper-to-bottle) described in the patent's specification will be critical (’527 Patent, col. 7:18-24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "stopper"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the component responsible for creating the "second seal" with the bottle's mouth. Its construction is central to the infringement analysis, as different physical structures could be argued to meet or not meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification discloses multiple embodiments of the "stopper," including an inverted conical frustum and a simple pad (’527 Patent, Figs. 4A-4C).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for a broad, functional definition, asserting that a "stopper" is any component on the cap's underside that presses against the bottle mouth to create a seal. The disclosure of multiple distinct embodiments, such as the frustum-style stopper (60) and the pad-style stopper (80), could support an argument that the term is not limited to a specific shape that must enter the bottle opening (’527 Patent, col. 4:10-14, col. 5:20-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires a structure that physically enters the bottle's mouth, rather than just pressing on top of it. Language in the specification describing how the "stopper 60 moves into the mouth 105 of the bottle 100" could be cited to support a more limited definition that excludes a simple flat pad that only makes surface contact with the bottle's rim (’527 Patent, col. 6:56-58).

The Term: "continuous elastomeric form"

• Context and Importance: This limitation describes the insulating liner inside the enclosure. The dispute may turn on the definitions of "continuous" and how the form is "wrapped within the upper portion." This is important for determining if a product with a multi-piece or seamed liner infringes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "continuous" simply means the liner is functionally a single unit, intended to cover the interior surface without significant gaps, even if it is manufactured from joined pieces or has molding seams.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue "continuous" implies a seamless, uninterrupted material. The claim also requires the form to be "bound between the shoulder and the bottom," which could be interpreted to require a specific placement and fit within the container, as depicted in Figure 3 (’527 Patent, col. 9:25-28, Fig. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendant's acts were in conscious and willful disregard for BottleKeeper's rights" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that "Defendant has notice of BottleKeeper's rights in the '527 patent" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged notice was pre-suit or post-suit.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the term "stopper", as disclosed in multiple embodiments in the patent, be construed to read on the specific sealing mechanism used in the Defendant’s "Beer Bottle Cooler"? The viability of the infringement case may depend heavily on whether a broader, more functional definition is adopted over a narrower, more structural one.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: does the accused product’s cap assembly actually create the two distinct and separate seals required by claim 1—a "first seal" between the cap and the container, and a "second seal" between a "stopper" and the bottle mouth? The plaintiff will need to provide evidence, likely through expert testing and testimony, demonstrating a direct correspondence to this dual-sealing functionality as described in the patent.