Camcal Enterprises LLC v. Blue Marble Products LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CAMCAL ENTERPRISES, LLC dba BOTTLEKEEPER (Arizona)
  • Defendant: BLUE MARBLE PRODUCTS, LLC dba TRUEHOMEBLISS.COM (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-05332, C.D. Cal., 07/19/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant does business in the Central District of California and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Outag Bottle Insulator" product infringes patents related to a protective and sealing enclosure for beverage bottles.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses containers designed to hold, insulate, and reseal standard, non-reclosable beverage bottles (e.g., glass beer bottles), allowing for consumption over time while preventing spills and maintaining temperature.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit were assigned to the Plaintiff from the inventor, Matthew T. Campbell. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-14	Earliest Priority Date for ’527 & ’270 Patents
2016-11-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527 Issues
2017-05-02	U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270 Issues
2017-07-19	Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem that beverages in bottles without re-sealable caps can spill, lose carbonation, or undesirably change temperature once opened, making them difficult to transport and consume over time (’527 Patent, col. 1:17-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part enclosure that holds a standard beverage bottle. It consists of an upper body and a removable base that screws on to encase the bottle (’527 Patent, col. 2:50-54). A key feature is a removable cap that screws onto the enclosure and contains a stopper. When sealed, this cap creates two distinct seals: an "inner seal" between the stopper and the open mouth of the bottle, and an "outer seal" between the cap and the enclosure itself, preventing leaks from either the bottle or the container (’527 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a method to protect, insulate, and effectively reseal common non-reclosable bottles, enhancing their portability and preserving the quality of the beverage inside.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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, bound between the shoulder and the bottom.
  • An external, removable cap with a stopper and a cylindrical sleeve that extends inside the container's neck.
  • The cap is configured to be fully seated to form a first seal with the container.
  • The cap is also configured to seal the bottle's open mouth, with the stopper forming a second seal between the cap and the bottle.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’527 Patent, col. 9:15-41; Compl. ¶9).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’527 Patent, the ’270 Patent addresses the same technical problem of protecting and resealing beverages in non-reclosable bottles (’270 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
• The Patented Solution: The solution described is identical to that in the parent ’527 Patent: a two-part container with a removable base and a cap featuring an internal stopper designed to seal the enclosed bottle (’270 Patent, col. 2:52-68). The claims of the ’270 Patent, however, recite the invention with different and more specific structural limitations.
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a reusable external device that adds modern container functionality (insulation, protection, resealability) to traditional beverage bottles.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 5 include:
  • A base portion with a sidewall and a bottom wall.
  • An upper portion with an internal cavity, a cylindrical body section, a narrower lower section, and a narrower neck section.
  • The upper portion's lower section is configured to be inserted into and threadably engage the base portion's sidewall.
  • A removable cap comprising a "plug" connected to a cylindrical sleeve, which is configured to be partially inserted into the upper portion's opening to surround the bottle's bottleneck and threadably engage the neck section.
  • The plug is configured to seal the open bottle inside the enclosure.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’270 Patent, col. 10:5-34; Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant's "Outag Bottle Insulator" products (Compl. ¶8, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "bottle enclosures" that embody the patented inventions (Compl. ¶8, ¶16). The complaint references, but does not include, pages from Defendant's website that allegedly illustrate the accused product (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). No specific technical details about the structure or operation of the accused product are provided in the complaint itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed mapping of the accused product's features to the elements of the asserted claims. The infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that the "Outag Bottle Insulator" embodies the inventions claimed in the ’527 and ’270 patents (Compl. ¶8, ¶16). The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) by Defendant's manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing of the accused products in the United States (Compl. ¶9, ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific factual allegations mapping the product to the claims, the central disputes will likely be evidentiary and definitional.
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary question will be whether discovery reveals that the "Outag Bottle Insulator" possesses the specific structures recited in the claims. For the ’527 Patent, this includes the "continuous elastomeric form" inside the upper portion and the cap's dual-seal functionality (a first seal with the container and a second seal with the bottle).
  • Scope Question: For the ’270 Patent, a key issue may be whether the accused product's cap contains a "plug" that operates in the manner required by claim 5, and whether its upper and lower sections meet the claim's specific structural and engagement requirements with the base.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "stopper" (’527 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The "stopper" is the critical component alleged to form the "second seal" with the bottle's mouth, which is a core concept of the invention. The scope of this term will be central to determining whether the accused product's cap infringes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple embodiments of the stopper, including an "inverted truncated conical frustum" (stopper 60), an alternate frustum (stopper 70), and a "compressible pad" (stopper 80), suggesting the term is not limited to a single structure (’527 Patent, col. 4:9-11, col. 4:51-53, col. 5:20-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be limited by features common to the disclosed embodiments, such as the requirement that the stopper be made of a resilient, compressible material like rubber that allows it to be constricted by the bottle's mouth to form a seal (’527 Patent, col. 4:15-19).

The Term: "plug" (’270 Patent, Claim 5)

• Context and Importance: Similar to "stopper" in the ’527 Patent, the "plug" is the element that seals the bottle opening. Its construction will be dispositive for infringement of the asserted claim of the ’270 patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "plug" in the claims but uses "stopper" throughout the detailed description when referring to the sealing component. A plaintiff may argue that "plug" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as a component that fills an aperture, consistent with the functions described for the various "stopper" embodiments (’270 Patent, Figs. 4A-4C).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the choice of a different term ("plug" instead of "stopper") in the claims of the continuation patent implies a different scope, potentially pointing to distinctions between the embodiments or prosecution history to support a narrower construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶9, ¶17).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is willful based on "conscious and willful disregard for BottleKeeper's rights" (Compl. ¶12, ¶20). It also makes a general allegation that Defendant has notice of the patents, but does not specify when or how such notice was provided prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶7, ¶15).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint lacks specific factual detail, the case will hinge on whether discovery demonstrates that the accused "Outag Bottle Insulator" has a physical structure that meets, element-for-element, the limitations of the asserted claims, particularly regarding the internal elastomeric liner and the specific dual-sealing mechanism of the cap.
• The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: The scope of the terms "stopper" (’527 Patent) and "plug" (’270 Patent) will be critical. The court’s interpretation of these terms will determine whether the accused product's sealing component, whatever its specific design, falls within the boundaries of the patent claims.