DCT
2:19-cv-00257
Eko Brands LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Eko Brands, LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (Nevada / California); Adrian Rivera (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DLA Piper LLP (US); Lowe Graham Jones
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00257, C.D. Cal., 01/11/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants reside or are found in the district, offer to sell and sell the accused products in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ single-serve, reusable coffee capsules infringe a patent related to the structural design of such capsules, which are intended for use in Keurig-style brewers.
- Technical Context: The technology operates within the single-serve beverage market, where reusable filter capsules provide a waste-reducing and customizable alternative to proprietary, disposable pods.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a significant history of litigation between the parties. The patent-in-suit is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855, which Plaintiff Eko Brands previously asserted against Defendant Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises (ARM). That prior case resulted in a jury verdict of infringement against ARM and a finding that the '855 patent was not invalid.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-05-09 | '751 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-12-01 | Defendants allegedly received Notice of Allowance for '751 Patent |
| 2018-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 10,154,751 Issued |
| 2018-12-20 | Defendants allegedly received notice of issued '751 Patent |
| 2019-01-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,154,751 - Beverage brewing device
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the "needless waste" created by disposable single-use beverage cartridges and the limited beverage selection they offer consumers (’751 Patent, col. 1:29-37).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a reusable beverage capsule designed to be compatible with single-serve brewers that use both a top-down water inlet probe and a bottom-up outlet probe. The solution features a cup with a substantially flat bottom, which allows the device to be set on a countertop for easy, hands-free filling (’751 Patent, col. 3:36-42). To accommodate the brewer's upward-extending outlet probe, the device incorporates a "receptacle" that extends upward from the bottom surface into the brewing chamber to receive that probe during use (’751 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This design addresses a practical usability challenge by creating a stable, flat-bottomed reusable capsule that remains compatible with the internal mechanics of widely used brewing machines.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-4 against the "ECO-FILL/ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0" product and claims 1 and 3 against the "ECO-FLOW" product (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 1, a device claim, includes the following essential elements:
- A lid with an inlet probe opening.
- A cup comprising a sidewall and a bottom wall.
- The bottom wall has a "planar inner surface" and defines a "receptacle opening."
- A "receptacle" is "secured to the bottom wall over the receptacle opening" and extends upwardly from the bottom wall, having a specific convex/concave geometry to receive the brewer’s outlet probe.
- The receptacle is a "continuous layer of material that prevents fluid flow."
- One or more mesh filters are included in the sidewall and/or bottom wall.
- The internal surfaces together define a volume for receiving brewing material that is sealed except for the filters and the upper opening.
- The complaint’s phrasing, "the infringed claims include at least claims 1-4," suggests Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants’ "ECO-FILL/ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0" and "ECO-FLOW" brand single-serve, reusable beverage capsules (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products are reusable filter cartridges designed to replace disposable "K-cups" in single-serve coffee brewers (Compl. ¶¶11-12, 19). They allow consumers to fill the capsule with their own coffee grounds for brewing. The complaint includes a photograph of the accused products' packaging to illustrate their branding and market positioning (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides annotated photographs of the accused products, mapping their features to the elements of the asserted claims. The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0 product, with labels corresponding to elements of the asserted claims (Compl. pp. 7-8). A similar annotated photograph is provided for the ECO-FLOW product, highlighting its structural features (Compl. p. 10).
'751 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lid (1) defining an inlet probe opening (2) sized to receive the inlet probe; | The product includes a hinged lid, labeled (1), with an opening, labeled (2), alleged to receive the brewer's inlet probe. | ¶24, p. 8 | col. 16:62-64 |
| a cup (3) comprising— a sidewall (4) having a circular upper edge (5)... a lower edge (7)... and an inner sidewall surface (9)... | The product's main body is identified as the claimed cup (3), which has a sidewall (4) with an upper edge (5), lower edge (7), and an inner surface (9). | ¶24, p. 8 | col. 15:1-5 |
| a bottom wall (10) having a planar inner surface (11) and planar outer surface (12)... the bottom wall (10) defining a receptacle opening (13)... | The product features a bottom wall (10) with what is alleged to be a planar inner surface (11) and outer surface (12). This bottom wall is alleged to define an opening (13) for the receptacle. | ¶24, p. 8 | col. 15:6-12 |
| a receptacle (15) secured to the bottom wall (10) over the receptacle opening (13) and extending upwardly from the bottom wall (10)... the receptacle (15) having a convex inner surface (16) and a concave outer surface (17)... sized to receive the outlet probe... | An upward-extending structure, labeled (15), is alleged to be the claimed receptacle. It is described as having a convex inner surface (16) and a concave outer surface (17) and being sized to receive the brewer's outlet probe. | ¶24, pp. 8-9 | col. 15:13-20 |
| ...the receptacle (15) being a continuous layer of material that prevents fluid flow through the continuous layer of material; | The receptacle is alleged to be a continuous, non-porous layer of material that prevents fluid from passing through it. | ¶24, p. 9 | col. 15:19-21 |
| one or more mesh filters (18) included in at least one of the sidewall (4) and the bottom wall (10); | The product incorporates mesh filters, labeled (18), in its sidewall and bottom wall. | ¶24, p. 9 | col. 15:22-24 |
| wherein the convex inner surface (16), planar inner surface (11) and inner sidewall surface (9) define a volume for receiving brewing material, the volume being sealed except for the one or more mesh filters (18) and the upper opening (6). | The combination of the receptacle's inner surface, the bottom wall's inner surface, and the inner sidewall surface are alleged to form a sealed container for coffee grounds, with openings only for water to filter through and at the top. | ¶24, p. 9 | col. 15:25-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "receptacle... secured to the bottom wall." The litigation may question whether this language reads on a device that is integrally molded as a single piece, or if it requires the attachment of two separate components. The interpretation of "secured to" will be a central issue.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused product's receptacle is a "continuous layer of material that prevents fluid flow." The defense may present evidence that the material is not perfectly impervious or that its function differs from what is required by the claim. Similarly, the meaning of "planar inner surface" will be contested, raising the question of whether a surface with multiple openings for filters and a receptacle can be considered "planar."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"receptacle... secured to the bottom wall"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the method of manufacture and final construction of the accused product will be compared against its meaning. If "secured to" is construed to require two separate parts being joined, and the accused product is a single molded unit, it may support a non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between "integrally formed" and "secured to" is a common battleground in patent cases involving mechanical devices.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses molding different components together, stating "the filter 38 may be molded within the body 26 or otherwise fused into the sidewall 28" (’751 Patent, col. 3:23-25). A party could argue this suggests "secured to" is used broadly in the patent to include integral formation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common meaning of "secured to" implies joining two distinct items. The patent’s exploded-view Figure 2, while illustrating a different embodiment, conceptually separates the receptacle structure (as part of element 92) from the cup body, which could be used to argue that the patent contemplates distinct, attached components.
"planar inner surface"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "planar" will determine if the bottom surface of the accused device, which contains mesh filters and a central receptacle opening, meets this limitation. A narrow definition could make it difficult for the plaintiff to prove literal infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the term "substantially flat" when describing the bottom surface in the detailed description (e.g., '751 Patent, col. 2:53-54; col. 3:36-37). This suggests that the patentee did not intend "planar" to mean perfectly and continuously flat, but rather generally flat in a way that allows the device to rest stably on a counter.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "planar" requires a geometrically flat plane. The claim states that this "planar inner surface... intersects the inner sidewall surface," which could be argued to imply a continuous, uninterrupted surface up to the point of intersection.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint contains boilerplate language alleging "active inducement" (Compl. ¶5), but the formal cause of action is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and no specific facts are pleaded to support a standalone inducement claim (Compl. ¶27). The claims are directed to the device itself, making direct infringement the primary theory of liability.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that Defendants were provided with a Notice of Allowance for the patent-in-suit on or around December 1, 2018, and were sent a copy of the issued patent on December 20, 2018 (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges that Defendants' continued sales after receiving this notice constitute "willful disregard of Eko's patent rights" (Compl. ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and structural interpretation: can the phrase "receptacle... secured to the bottom wall," as used in the patent, be construed to cover the single-piece, integrally molded construction of the accused capsules? The outcome of this definitional dispute may be dispositive of literal infringement.
- A second key question will revolve around geometric scope: does the accused product's bottom, which incorporates mesh filters and an upwardly-extending structure, possess a "planar inner surface" as required by the claim, or does its complex topography place it outside the literal scope of the patent's language?
- Finally, a central theme will be the impact of the parties' litigation history. Given that the asserted patent is a continuation of a patent that Defendants were previously found to infringe, the court will likely scrutinize Defendants' conduct following notice of the '751 patent's issuance. This history raises a significant question regarding willfulness and whether Defendants' continued conduct was objectively reckless.