DCT
2:17-cv-05799
Camcal Enterprises LLC v. Zuflux LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CAMCAL ENTERPRISES, LLC dba BOTTLEKEEPER (Arizona)
- Defendant: ZUFLUX, LLC dba VAPE ARMOR! (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-05799, C.D. Cal., 08/04/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's principal place of business being located within the Central District of California and allegations that Defendant conducts business and that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" product infringes two patents related to protective, sealing enclosures for beverage bottles.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns insulated consumer beverage containers designed to fully enclose, protect, and seal a standard, non-resealable glass bottle (e.g., a beer bottle), allowing it to be transported and consumed without spillage or loss of temperature.
- 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 a direct lineage between the patented technologies. The complaint alleges both patents were duly assigned from the inventor to the Plaintiff.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-01-14 | Priority Date for ’527 Patent and ’270 Patent |
| 2016-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,505,527 Issued |
| 2017-05-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,637,270 Issued |
| 2017-08-04 | 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 seeks to solve problems associated with consuming beverages from standard glass bottles "on the go," namely spillage from an open mouth, loss of freshness or carbonation, and the contents undesirably equalizing with the ambient temperature ('527 Patent, col. 1:12-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part enclosure that houses a standard bottle. It consists of an upper body and a removable base that screws on to secure the bottle inside ('527 Patent, col. 2:49-66). A key aspect is a removable cap that, when screwed onto the enclosure, creates two distinct seals: an "outer seal" between the cap and the enclosure itself, and an "inner seal" formed by a stopper on the cap that presses into and seals the mouth of the bottle held within ('527 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This "double-seal" approach aims to provide a comprehensive solution that not only insulates and protects the glass bottle but also effectively re-seals the beverage itself, preserving its quality after being opened ('527 Patent, col. 2:46-62).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A container with an upper portion and a removably coupled base.
- A "continuous elastomeric form" wrapped inside the upper portion.
- An external, removable cap with a "stopper" and a "cylindrical sleeve."
- The cap is configured to form a "first seal" with the container.
- The stopper is configured to form a "second seal" with the open mouth of the bottle inside.
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.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application for the '527 Patent, the '270 Patent addresses the same problems of spillage, temperature loss, and freshness loss in portable beverage bottles ('270 Patent, col. 1:24-49).
- The Patented Solution: The '270 Patent describes the same fundamental device: a two-part container with a sealing cap ('270 Patent, Fig. 2). The claims, however, define the invention with different structural language. Asserted claim 5 describes the connection between the base and upper portion in more detail, requiring the upper portion to have a "lower section" that is "inserted into the open top of the base portion" and "threadably engage[s] the base sidewall" ('270 Patent, col. 10:11-18).
- Technical Importance: This patent appears to protect a specific structural implementation of the core invention, focusing on the precise mechanical interface between the main components of the enclosure ('270 Patent, col. 2:54-66).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 5 requires:
- A base portion with a bottom wall and an open top.
- An upper portion with a lower section configured to be "inserted into the open top of the base portion" and threadably engage it.
- A removable cap with a "plug" connected to a "cylindrical sleeve," where the sleeve threadably engages the neck of the upper portion.
- The "plug" is configured to seal the open bottle inside the enclosure.
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" used for "containing, concealing, and insulating a bottle" ('527 Patent, col. 2:17-20, incorporated by reference in allegations). The complaint provides a website screenshot depicting the accused "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie," which appears as a cylindrical container with a removable cap designed to hold a beverage bottle (Compl. ¶8, Ex. 2). The complaint alleges that Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling these bottle enclosures (Compl. ¶8, ¶16). The complaint does not provide further detail on the technical operation or market position of the accused product.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed, limitation-by-limitation infringement analysis. The allegations are made generally, stating that the accused product embodies the inventions and infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶8-9, ¶16-17). The following tables summarize the infringement theory implied by these allegations.
’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... comprising: a container including an upper portion... and a base... configured to removably couple with the upper portion; | The "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" is alleged to be a bottle enclosure with a container composed of an upper portion and a removably coupled base (Compl. ¶8). | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 2:49-56 |
| a continuous elastomeric form wrapped within the upper portion and bound between the shoulder and the bottom, the elastomeric form being generally cylindrical; | The accused product is alleged to contain an internal component meeting the description of a "continuous elastomeric form" (Compl. ¶8-9). | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 5:44-53 |
| an external, removable cap... a bottom portion of the cap comprising a stopper and a cylindrical sleeve that partially extends inside of the neck of the upper portion and surrounding a portion of the bottleneck; | The accused product is alleged to possess a removable cap with a "stopper" and "cylindrical sleeve" that functions as claimed (Compl. ¶8-9). | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 4:8-14, 46-52 |
| 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 form a "first seal" with the container body when fully seated (Compl. ¶8-9). | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 7:13-24 |
| 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 stopper is alleged to form a "second seal" with the mouth of the enclosed bottle (Compl. ¶8-9). | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 7:8-13 |
’270 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A protective bottle enclosure... comprising: a base portion defined by a base sidewall secured to a base bottom wall and having an open top; | The accused "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" is alleged to have a base portion with a sidewall, bottom, and open top (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 2:51-56 |
| an upper portion... 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's upper portion is alleged to have a lower section that inserts into and threads onto the base portion as claimed (Compl. ¶16-17). | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 2:56-66 |
| a removable cap comprising a plug connected to a cylindrical sleeve... configured to be partially inserted into the upper opening to surround a portion of the bottleneck and to threadably engage the neck section... | The accused product is alleged to have a removable cap with a plug and sleeve that inserts into and threads onto the upper portion's neck (Compl. ¶16-17). | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 4:32-35, 50-60 |
| the plug being configured to seal the open bottle inside the protective bottle enclosure. | The plug on the accused product's cap is alleged to seal the mouth of the enclosed bottle (Compl. ¶16-17). | ¶16, ¶17 | col. 4:8-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual. The complaint does not provide any technical evidence or analysis demonstrating how the "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" actually operates. Discovery will focus on whether the product possesses the specific structures recited in the claims, such as the "stopper" or "plug," the "continuous elastomeric form," and the specific threadable engagements.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions regarding the scope of the claims. For the '527 Patent, a question is whether the accused product's internal liner, if any, meets the "continuous elastomeric form" limitation. For the '270 Patent, a question is whether the mechanical connection between the upper and base portions of the accused product functions as a "lower section... inserted into the open top of the base portion" as required by claim 5.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "stopper" (’527 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical to the "double-seal" concept central to the '527 patent. The infringement analysis for claim 1 hinges on whether a feature on the underside of the accused product’s cap qualifies as a "stopper" that creates the claimed "second seal" with the bottle mouth.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple distinct embodiments for this component, describing it as an "inverted truncated conical frustum" (stopper 60), an alternate frustum shape (stopper 70), and a simple "pad" (stopper 80) ('527 Patent, col. 4:9-11; col. 4:51-52; col. 5:19-21). Plaintiff may argue this demonstrates the inventor's intent for "stopper" to encompass a wide range of resilient structures capable of sealing a bottle mouth.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term requires the specific functionality described, such as being "compressed and constricted radially by the mouth" ('527 Patent, col. 8:66-68). Further, they may point to the detailed geometries of the preferred embodiments, such as the frustum with an "inward shoulder 99" formed with a flange, as defining the necessary structure ('527 Patent, col. 7:8-12).
The Term: "continuous elastomeric form" (’527 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: This element is a required structural component of the container itself. If the accused product lacks an internal liner, or if its liner is not "continuous," there can be no literal infringement of claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a clear structural requirement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of this form as providing "insulation to the bottle," "impact protection," and to "hold the bottle securely" ('527 Patent, col. 5:37-43). Plaintiff may argue that any single-piece liner providing these functions should be considered a "continuous elastomeric form."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific: "wrapped within the upper portion and bound between the shoulder and the bottom" ('527 Patent, col. 9:25-27). Defendant may argue this requires a single, uninterrupted liner that spans the full length of the upper container body as depicted by "upper form 90" in Figure 3, and that separate pads or a non-cylindrical insert would not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and is willful. This allegation is based on "information and belief" that Defendant had "notice of BottleKeeper's rights" and acted in "conscious and willful disregard" thereof, warranting treble damages (Compl. ¶7, ¶12, ¶15, ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be evidentiary and factual: The complaint provides no detailed technical comparison between the accused product and the patent claims. The case will depend on whether discovery shows that the "Stainless Steel Bottle Koozie" actually incorporates the specific components and performs the precise sealing functions required by the asserted claims, particularly the "double-seal" mechanism.
The outcome may also turn on a question of definitional scope: The construction of the term "stopper" (and the related term "plug") will be critical. The court will need to determine whether the term, in light of the multiple embodiments in the specification, should be interpreted broadly to cover any resilient sealing member on the cap's interior, or more narrowly to require a specific structure that interacts with the bottle mouth in a particular way.
A further key question will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused product contain a liner that meets the "continuous elastomeric form" limitation of the '527 patent, and does the interface between its base and upper body match the specific "insert and engage" mechanism claimed in the '270 patent? A mismatch on these structural elements could present a significant hurdle for the infringement case.