Camcal Enterprises LLC v. Blue Marble Products LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Camcal Enterprisess LLC dba BOTTLEKEEPER (Arizona)
  • Defendant: Blue Marble Products LLC dba TRUEHOMEBLISS.COM (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
• Case Identification: CAMCAL ENTERPRISES, LLC dba BOTTLEKEEPER v. BLUE MARBLE PRODUCTS, LLC dba TRUEHOMEBLISS.COM, 2:17-cv-05332, C.D. Cal., 07/19/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a California company that does business in the judicial district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Outag Bottle Insulator" 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 reseal standard non-resealable beverage bottles, such as glass beer bottles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527, indicating a direct lineage and shared specification between the two patents-in-suit. Both patents were assigned from the inventor to the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-14	Priority Date for ’527 and ’270 Patents
2016-11-29	’527 Patent Issued
2017-05-02	’270 Patent Issued
2017-07-19	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. (Compl. ¶6).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve problems associated with carrying opened beverage bottles, including spillage, loss of carbonation or freshness, and undesirable temperature changes, particularly for bottles that lack a re-appliable cap. (’527 Patent, col. 1:15-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a protective enclosure comprising a main upper portion and a removable base, which allows a standard bottle to be placed inside. (’527 Patent, col. 2:48-55). A key aspect is a removable cap that, when seated, creates two distinct seals: an "inner seal" between a stopper on the cap and the bottle's mouth, and an "outer seal" between the cap and the container itself, thereby preventing leakage from either the bottle or the enclosure. (’527 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a reusable system to insulate, protect, and effectively reseal common non-resealable bottles, improving convenience for consumers wishing to transport such beverages after opening. (’527 Patent, col. 1:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶9).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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, located between the shoulder and the bottom.
  • An external, removable cap with a "stopper" and a "cylindrical sleeve."
  • The cap is configured to form a "first seal" with the container and a "second seal" (via the stopper) with the open mouth of the bottle. (’527 Patent, col. 9:18 - col. 10:9).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270 - "Protective Bottle Enclosure"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270, "Protective Bottle Enclosure", issued May 2, 2017. (Compl. ¶14).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application for the ’527 Patent, the ’270 Patent addresses the same technical problems of spillage, temperature change, and loss of freshness in opened beverage bottles. (’270 Patent, col. 1:18-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is again a protective bottle enclosure with a two-part container and a resealing cap. The claims of the ’270 Patent, however, are drafted with more specific structural language, defining components like an "aluminum upper portion" with a "cylindrical body section" and a narrower "neck section," and a removable cap with a "plug." (’270 Patent, col. 9:21-48). The claims also recite the functional requirement that the cap's plug seals the open bottle. (’270 Patent, col. 10:31-34).
• Technical Importance: This patent appears to refine and narrow the definition of the invention, focusing on a more specific set of structural characteristics and materials for the enclosure. (’270 Patent, col. 1:45-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including independent claim 5. (Compl. ¶17).
• Essential elements of independent claim 5 include:
  • A base portion with a sidewall and bottom.
  • An upper portion with a cylindrical body section, a narrower lower section, and a narrower neck section.
  • The upper portion's lower section is configured to threadably engage the base portion.
  • A removable cap with a "plug" connected to a "cylindrical sleeve," where the plug is configured to seal the bottle. (’270 Patent, col. 10:5-34).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Outag Bottle Insulator." (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Outag Bottle Insulator" is a "bottle enclosure" that embodies the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶8, 16). The complaint states that copies of pages from Defendant's website illustrating the product are attached as Exhibit 2, but the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an independent technical description of the product's operation or market context. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13, 16, 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's "Outag Bottle Insulator" directly infringes the ’527 and ’270 patents by "manufacturing, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling" the product in the United States. (Compl. ¶¶9, 17). The allegations are conclusory and do not map specific features of the accused product to the elements of the asserted claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a tabular, element-by-element analysis.

• ’527 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that the "Outag Bottle Insulator" infringes at least claim 1 of the ’527 Patent. (Compl. ¶9). The core of this allegation is that the accused product is a bottle enclosure with a two-part body, an internal liner, and a cap that creates the dual seals required by the claim.
• ’270 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that the "Outag Bottle Insulator" infringes at least claim 5 of the ’270 Patent. (Compl. ¶17). This infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused product possesses the specific structural features recited in the claim, such as the defined upper and base portions and a cap with a "plug" that seals an enclosed bottle.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely concern whether the accused product's cap and liner operate in the manner required by the claims. For the ’527 Patent, a key question is whether the cap demonstrably creates two separate and distinct seals: one with the container and one with the bottle mouth. For the ’270 Patent, a question will be whether the cap's sealing component meets the definition of a "plug."
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of claim terms will be central. The analysis for both patents will raise the question of whether the physical components of the "Outag Bottle Insulator"—its liner, cap, and body—fall within the scope of terms like "continuous elastomeric form" (’527 Patent) and "plug" (’270 Patent) as they are construed by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’527 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "continuous elastomeric form"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the internal liner that provides insulation and secures the bottle. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what type of liner infringes. The definition of "continuous" (e.g., a single molded piece versus multiple connected pieces) and "elastomeric" (requiring specific material properties of elasticity) will be central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the form's function as providing insulation and securely holding the bottle, suggesting the term could encompass any liner that achieves these functions, regardless of its precise method of manufacture. (’527 Patent, col. 5:36-53, 5:61-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 depicts the "upper form 90" as a single, unitary piece that extends from the bottom of the upper portion to the shoulder. (’527 Patent, Fig. 3). This embodiment could be used to argue that "continuous" requires a one-piece, uninterrupted structure.

’270 Patent, Claim 5

• The Term: "plug"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the component of the removable cap that directly seals the bottle's mouth. The infringement analysis for the cap will depend on whether the accused product's sealing mechanism is properly characterized as a "plug."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification is a continuation of the ’527 patent, which uses the broader term "stopper." A party could argue that "plug" should be interpreted functionally to mean any object that fits into and seals the bottle's opening, consistent with its purpose. (’270 Patent, col. 10:31-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The shared specification across both patents discloses specific embodiments for the sealing element, such as an inverted conical frustum ("stopper 70") or a compressible pad ("stopper 80"). (’270 Patent, Figs. 4B, 4C). A party may argue these specific examples limit the scope of "plug" to structures that are inserted into the bottle opening, as opposed to structures that might seal over the top of it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's infringement was and continues to be "in conscious and willful disregard for BottleKeeper's rights." (Compl. ¶¶12, 20). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendant has "notice" of Plaintiff's patent rights, although the complaint does not specify whether this notice was pre-suit or is based on the filing of the lawsuit itself. (Compl. ¶¶7, 15).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the term "continuous elastomeric form," as used in the ’527 Patent, be construed to read on the specific liner used in the accused product? Similarly, does the sealing element in the accused product's cap meet the definition of a "plug" as required by the ’270 Patent? The case's outcome may depend heavily on the breadth the court gives to these structural terms.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: does the accused product's cap perform the specific dual-sealing function required by claim 1 of the ’527 Patent? The Plaintiff will need to provide evidence that the cap creates both a first, "outer seal" with the container body and a second, "inner seal" with the mouth of the bottle itself, a potentially complex factual determination.
• A third question will relate to willfulness: what evidence, if any, exists to support the allegation that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit? The determination of willfulness and potential for enhanced damages will likely turn on whether the Plaintiff can prove that the Defendant's alleged notice occurred prior to the filing of the complaint.