DCT
2:18-cv-05526
Blue Rhino Global Sourcing Inc v. Best Choice Products
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blue Rhino Global Sourcing, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: BEST CHOICE PRODUCTS a/k/a SKY BILLIARDS, INC. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Moore & van Allen PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-05526, M.D.N.C., 01/26/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, where Plaintiff is located, and Defendant allegedly conducted business, offered products for sale, and sold infringing products to customers within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s outdoor patio heaters infringe patents related to the structural design and packaging of such heaters, specifically features concerning a slidable fuel-tank shroud and "knocked-down" packaging for retail sale.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns freestanding, gas-powered outdoor heaters, commonly known as patio heaters, which are used in commercial and residential settings to warm outdoor spaces.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that products sold by the Plaintiff under the patents-in-suit have been properly marked pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-09-18 | Earliest Priority Date for '877 and '647 Patents |
| 2002-10-29 | U.S. Patent No. 6,470,877 Issues |
| 2003-11-25 | U.S. Patent No. 6,651,647 Issues |
| 2017-01-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,470,877, "Heating Apparatus," Issued October 29, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in prior art freestanding patio heaters, including inefficient heating due to heat radiating horizontally rather than downward, and the difficulty of accessing the fuel tank valve, which was typically housed inside a large base or shroud (’877 Patent, col. 1:29-49). It also notes that the large, expensive reflector domes on prior art heaters were cumbersome to store and ship (’877 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a heating apparatus with a shroud designed to fit over the fuel tank. A key feature is that this shroud is "slidably engaged" on the heater's main support post for vertical movement, but also includes a specific "access opening" sized to allow an operator to reach the fuel tank's control valve without needing to slide the entire shroud (’877 Patent, col. 2:25-30; col. 16:40-57). This design aims to provide easy valve access while maintaining a clean aesthetic.
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve user convenience and potentially reduce manufacturing complexity by simplifying access to the fuel tank controls compared to designs that might require lifting a heavy shroud or opening a hinged door.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 1: An apparatus comprising:
- a heat emitter including a burner assembly
- an elongate support member mounting the heat emitter
- a shroud for fitting over the fuel tank, being "slidably engaged on said elongate support member for reciprocal vertical movement"
- the shroud including an "access opening" sized to allow operator access to the fuel tank control valve "without sliding said shroud"
- Independent Claim 10: An apparatus comprising the elements of Claim 1, and further requiring:
- the elongate support member is supported by a base with a "plurality of legs"
- the shroud is configured for "surrounding said legs and the tank, and engaging said base"
U.S. Patent No. 6,651,647, "Heating Apparatus with Slidable Shroud," Issued November 25, 2003
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ’877 Patent, addresses similar problems of heating inefficiency and cumbersome design. It further highlights the difficulty and cost associated with shipping and retailing large, pre-assembled patio heaters, noting that their size makes them inconvenient for end-users to transport and for retailers to display (’647 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a heating apparatus provided in a "disassembled format" and packaged within a "single container." The solution is a "knocked-down" or kit version of the patio heater, where all constituent parts—the burner, support post, base, legs, shroud, and dome—are designed to be enclosed together for efficient shipping and retail sale (’647 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-14).
- Technical Importance: This invention addressed a commercial and logistical problem by creating a product form-factor suitable for the mass retail market, where products are typically shipped flat-packed and assembled by the consumer.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶26).
- Independent Claim 13: A heating apparatus "provided in disassembled format," comprising:
- a burner assembly and upper housing
- an elongate support member
- a base and at least three legs
- a shroud for enclosing a space defined by the legs
- a dome mountable above the burner
- a "single container configured for enclosing" all of the above-listed components
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendant’s "Best Choice Products-branded outdoor heaters," specifically model SKY158 (the "BCP Heaters") (Compl. ¶18).
- Functionality and Market Context: The BCP Heaters are alleged to be outdoor patio heaters imported and sold by the Defendant through its own website and various online marketplaces like Amazon and Walmart (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges these heaters are provided in a disassembled format within a single package (Compl. ¶26), and that their structure includes a fuel tank shroud with an access opening, a main support post, a burner assembly, and a base (Compl. ¶¶19-21). An Owner's Manual is provided as Exhibit C to the complaint (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the BCP Heater's components with the figures from the '877 Patent (Compl. p. 7). This comparison depicts the accused heater's exploded-view assembly, including its stand, tank housing, post, and burner components (Compl. ¶24, p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'877 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a heat emitter including a burner assembly for igniting fuel from the fuel tank to provide heat emanating from the emitter; | The BCP Heaters include a heat emitter with a burner assembly for igniting fuel. | ¶19 | col. 16:42-45 |
| an elongate support member mounting the heat emitter at an upper end thereof and including a gas line extending therethrough for feeding fuel from the tank to the burner assembly for ignition; | The BCP Heaters have an elongate support member mounting the heat emitter and including a gas line. | ¶19 | col. 16:46-50 |
| a shroud for fitting over the fuel tank, being slidably engaged on said elongate support member for reciprocal vertical movement | The BCP Heaters include a shroud for fitting over the fuel tank that is slidably engaged on the support member. | ¶19 | col. 16:51-54 |
| and including an access opening at a predetermined location on the shroud with the opening being sized to expose a portion of said fuel tank and allow an operator access to the fuel tank control valve...without sliding said shroud relative to said support | The BCP Heaters' shroud includes an access opening at a predetermined location, sized to allow an operator access to the fuel tank control valve without sliding the shroud. | ¶19 | col. 16:54-57 |
'647 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A heating apparatus provided in disassembled format, comprising: a burner assembly for igniting fuel from a fuel source; an upper housing for the burner assembly; | The BCP Heaters are provided in disassembled format and include a burner assembly and upper housing. | ¶21, ¶26 | col. 17:1-4 |
| an elongate support member for spacing the housing from ground level; | The BCP Heaters include an elongate support member. | ¶21 | col. 17:5-6 |
| a base and at least three legs configured for suspending said elongate support member from said base and for defining a space for the fuel source; | The BCP Heaters include a base and at least three legs for suspending the support member and defining a space for the fuel source. | ¶21 | col. 17:7-10 |
| a shroud for enclosing a space defined by said at least three legs; | The BCP Heaters include a shroud for enclosing the space defined by the legs. | ¶21 | col. 17:11-12 |
| a dome mountable above said burner assembly; | The BCP Heaters include a dome mountable above the burner assembly. | ¶21 | col. 18:1-2 |
| and a single container configured for enclosing said burner assembly, said upper housing, said elongate support member, said base, said at least three legs, said shroud and said dome | The BCP Heaters are provided in a single container that encloses all of the listed components. | ¶21, ¶26 | col. 18:2-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: For the ’877 Patent, a central question may be the proper interpretation of "slidably engaged... for reciprocal vertical movement." While the claim requires this capability, it simultaneously requires an access opening whose stated purpose is to make sliding unnecessary. The dispute may focus on whether a loose fit that allows for lifting the shroud off for tank replacement meets the "slidably engaged" limitation, or if a more specific sliding mechanism is required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: For the ’647 Patent, the dispute will likely be factual. What evidence does the complaint provide that the BCP Heaters are consistently sold with all enumerated components enclosed in a "single container"? The complaint references photographic evidence in Exhibit D (Compl. ¶26), which will be central to resolving this question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: "slidably engaged on said elongate support member" (’877 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the physical relationship between the shroud and the support post. Infringement of the '877 patent hinges on whether the accused BCP Heaters' shroud is "slidably engaged" as claimed, especially given the patent's own tension between enabling sliding and obviating the need for it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to define "slidably engaged" in a special way, suggesting it could be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Plaintiff may argue this simply means the shroud is mounted on the post in a way that permits it to slide up and down, even if that is not its primary operational function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term must be read in the context of the entire claim, which introduces an "access opening" specifically to allow operation "without sliding said shroud" (’877 Patent, col. 16:57). This creates an arguable distinction from prior art where sliding was the only way to access the tank. A court might be asked to decide if the term implies a specific type of sliding engagement that is distinct from merely being liftable or removable.
Term 2: "a single container configured for enclosing" (’647 Patent, Claim 13)
- Context and Importance: This is the key limitation of the "kit" claim. The entire infringement theory for the '647 patent rests on the defendant's packaging and distribution method. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends entirely on how the product is sold.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that "configured for" does not require that every single screw and washer be inside the main box, but that the container is designed and sized to hold all the major structural components as a kit for retail sale. The abstract similarly refers to a "single carton" for enclosing the "disassembled assembly" (’647 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant could argue for a strict interpretation, suggesting that if any claimed component (e.g., the dome, the base) is ever shipped or sold separately from the "single container," infringement cannot occur. The claim explicitly lists the components that must be enclosed, leaving little room for omission.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead separate counts for inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 35). While it mentions an Owner's Manual (Compl. ¶18), which could be evidence of inducement, it does not build a specific inducement claim around it.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been "intentional and willful, making this an exceptional case" (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 37). The allegations are stated conclusively and do not provide a specific factual basis, such as pre-suit notice or knowledge of the patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and function: For the '877 patent, does the accused heater's shroud meet the "slidably engaged" limitation, and how does that limitation's meaning interact with the co-existing "access opening" that is explicitly for use "without sliding" the shroud?
- A key question will be evidentiary and factual: For the '647 patent, does the Defendant's standard packaging for the BCP Heater model SKY158 in fact constitute a "single container" that encloses all of the components enumerated in Claim 13, as alleged in the complaint and its exhibits?
- A third question relates to the strength of visual evidence: The complaint provides compelling side-by-side comparisons of the patent drawings and the accused product (Compl. ¶24, p. 7). A primary focus of discovery will be to determine if this visual correspondence holds up to detailed technical scrutiny and whether there are non-obvious functional or structural differences between the claimed invention and the accused device.