Liberty Hardware Mfg Corp v. Contractors Wardrobe Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Liberty Hardware Mfg. Corp. (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: Contractors Wardrobe, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP; Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-09210, C.D. Cal., 12/19/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a California corporation that resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s component-based shower door systems and associated packaging infringe four utility patents and two design patents related to shower door packaging assemblies and shower door guide assemblies.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the retail sale and do-it-yourself installation of shower doors, focusing on packaging that allows for in-box product viewing and guide assemblies designed for easier, more accurate installation.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it placed Defendant on notice of infringement via a letter dated December 11, 2020, approximately two years before filing the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-01-01	Plaintiff alleges it began filing patent applications for its component-based system.
2014-01-29	Earliest Priority Date for '543 Patent, '055 Patent, and '726 Patent.
2015-05-12	Issue Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D729,055.
2015-07-31	Earliest Priority Date for '810 Patent, '093 Patent, and '666 Patent.
2015-09-29	Issue Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D739,726.
2017-06-13	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,676,543.
2017-08-29	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,743,810.
2018-07-17	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,024,093.
2019-05-07	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,280,666.
2020-01-01	Defendant allegedly launched its component-based "CW Select Products Program."
2020-12-11	Plaintiff allegedly put Defendant on notice of infringement.
2022-12-19	Complaint Filing Date.

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,676,543 - “Shower Door Glass Pane Packaging Assembly,” issued June 13, 2017 ('543 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional packaging for shower doors as obscuring the product from customer view, forcing retailers to use valuable shelf space for separate, unpackaged display models which can be damaged ('976,543 Patent, col. 1:10-13; col. 2:32-46). Additionally, consumer handling of tall packaging can lead to tipping and corner damage ('976,543 Patent, col. 3:1-7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a packaging assembly, such as a cardboard box, featuring openings on opposed front and back surfaces. These openings align to allow light to pass through the glass shower door pane inside, permitting customers to see the actual product without unboxing it. The design also contemplates a handle placed below the center of gravity to make it less likely to tip when moved by a customer ('976,543 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-40; col. 3:8-17).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the retail experience by integrating the display and packaging functions, potentially reducing retailers' costs and shelf space requirements while protecting the product ('976,543 Patent, col. 2:44-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶40, 47).
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A packaging assembly comprising at least one shower door glass pane and a box sized to receive it.
  • The glass pane has a height, width, and thickness.
  • An opening is formed in opposed surfaces of the box to expose a portion of the glass pane.
  • The opening permits a customer to view the portion of the glass pane through the opening.
  • The opening is formed through a peripheral side of the box, exposing the thickness of the glass pane.
  • A removable packaging member is sized to be mounted to the exposed portion for transportation.

U.S. Patent No. 9,743,810 - “Shower Door Guide Assembly,” issued August 29, 2017 ('810 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background explains that installing prior art bypassing shower doors can be difficult. The supporting crossbeam from which the doors hang often requires the installer to independently position and secure separate mounting cleats or collars to the shower walls, a process prone to misalignment ('810 Patent, col. 1:15-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a shower door guide assembly with a pair of pre-positioned brackets and a crossbeam. The brackets contain specially shaped receptacles, and the crossbeam has corresponding terminal ends. Installation is achieved by inserting one end of the crossbeam into a bracket and then pivoting and translating the crossbeam to engage the other bracket. The geometry is designed to prevent a simple "vertical drop-in" installation, which simplifies the process and ensures alignment ('810 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:44-58).
• Technical Importance: The patented solution aims to make shower door installation easier and more foolproof for the do-it-yourself market, reducing the potential for installation errors and improving structural integrity compared to prior art systems ('810 Patent, col. 4:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶52, 59).
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A shower door guide assembly with a pair of spaced-apart brackets, each adapted to be mounted to a support surface and having a receptacle.
  • A crossbeam with a guide for a roller assembly.
  • The crossbeam's terminal ends are received in the receptacles for pivoting about a lengthwise axis and translation during installation.
  • A "vertical drop-in of the crossbeam is not permitted."
  • The receptacles have a lower contact region and two lateral side contact regions.
  • An "ingress opening" is formed through one of the lateral side contact regions.
  • The lateral side contact region with the ingress opening has a height less than the other lateral side contact region.

U.S. Patent No. 10,024,093 - “Shower Door Guide Assembly,” issued July 17, 2018 ('093 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the '810 Patent's application, this patent also addresses the problem of shower door installation. Its claims refine the geometry of the bracket-and-crossbeam system, focusing on the specific heights of the lateral contact regions within the bracket's receptacle to ensure a non-drop-in, pivot-and-translate installation ('093 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:39-48).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).

Accused Features

The guide assembly of the CW Select Products, which allegedly incorporates the claimed bracket and crossbeam structure (Compl. ¶¶61-64).

U.S. Patent No. 10,280,666 - “Shower Door Guide Assembly,” issued May 7, 2019 ('666 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

This patent, also in the '810/'093 family, further details the shower door guide assembly. The claims concentrate on the interaction between the crossbeam and an "upper contact region" in the bracket, which constrains the crossbeam to minimize deflection under the weight of the doors. It also defines the "ingress opening" as being formed through this upper contact region ('666 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:53-62).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).

Accused Features

The guide assembly of the CW Select Products, specifically its alleged use of brackets and a crossbeam with the claimed contact regions and ingress opening (Compl. ¶¶73-76).

U.S. Design Patent No. D729,055 - “Door Packaging,” issued May 12, 2015 ('055 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims the unique ornamental design for door packaging, not its function. The protected design consists of the visual appearance of the packaging, characterized by specific shapes and arrangements of cutout windows on the package's surface ('055 Patent, Figures 1-12).

Asserted Claims

The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶96).

Accused Features

The overall visual appearance of the packaging for the CW Select Products, which is alleged to be substantially similar to the patented design (Compl. ¶¶85, 89).

U.S. Design Patent No. D739,726 - “Door Package,” issued September 29, 2015 ('726 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims the ornamental design for what appears to be a handle for a door package. The protected design is the specific visual appearance of the handle component itself ('726 Patent, Figures 1-5).

Asserted Claims

The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶109).

Accused Features

The ornamental design of the handle on the packaging for the CW Select Products, which is alleged to be substantially similar to the patented design (Compl. ¶¶98, 102).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "CW Select Products Program," which includes the "Cw Select Coast, Cw Select Ariel, Cw Select Surfliner, Cw Select Zephyr family of products" (Compl. ¶33). The CW Select Surfliner is identified as a representative Accused Product (Compl. ¶38).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are component-based shower door and assembly systems sold through the retailer Menards (Compl. ¶¶31, 33). The system is marketed as an easy, three-step process for customers to design their own shower enclosure by selecting a header, glass, and hardware (Compl. ¶34). An "Illustrated Parts Breakdown" diagram included in the complaint shows the various components of the "Surfliner" guide assembly, including hanger assemblies, a track, and wall mounts (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges Defendant is a direct competitor to Plaintiff in the shower door and bath market (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶40, 52). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations and visual evidence provided in the complaint.

'543 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the packaging for the Accused Products, as exemplified by the CW Select Surfliner, infringes Claim 1 of the '543 patent (Compl. ¶40). The core of the infringement theory is that the accused packaging is a box with cutout windows that expose the glass door inside, allowing a customer to see the product (Compl. ¶35). A photograph of the accused packaging shows these window features (Compl. ¶35, p.7). The allegation implies that these windows constitute an "opening...in opposed surfaces of the box" that also extends through a "peripheral side," as claimed.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the cutouts in the accused packaging meet the claim limitation of an "opening...formed in opposed surfaces of the box." The defense may argue its design does not have openings on truly "opposed" surfaces in the manner required by the patent. The interpretation of "peripheral side" will also be critical.
• Technical Questions: Does the accused packaging include a "removable packaging member" for the exposed portion as required by the claim? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element.

'810 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the shower door guide assembly within the Accused Products infringes Claim 1 of the '810 patent (Compl. ¶52). The infringement theory rests on the structure and installation method of the accused assembly. The complaint alleges the accused assembly includes the claimed pair of brackets and crossbeam, and that its installation requires the claimed "pivoting" and "translation" because a "vertical drop-in...is not permitted" (Compl. ¶52). The "Illustrated Parts Breakdown" for the Surfliner product depicts components labeled "Right Wall Mount," "Hanger Assembly," and a track, which Plaintiff will likely map to the claimed brackets and crossbeam (Compl. ¶35, p.7).

Identified Points of Contention

• Functional Questions: The key dispute will be whether the accused assembly's structure functionally prevents a "vertical drop-in." This negative limitation will require a detailed analysis of the physical product to determine if its geometry forces the pivot-and-translate motion recited in the claim.
• Structural Questions: Do the receptacles in the accused brackets have the specific "lower contact region" and two "lateral side contact regions" with different heights as claimed? The resolution of this will depend on the actual geometry of the defendant's hardware.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term ('543 Patent): "opening is formed in opposed surfaces of the box"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement allegation against the accused packaging. Whether the accused packaging's cutouts meet this structural requirement will be a primary point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose is "to permit light to pass through the shower doors" and provide an "unobfuscated view" ('543 Patent, col. 2:36-43). A party could argue any set of openings that achieves this functional goal on different sides of the box meets the limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiment explicitly shows an opening "formed through the front panel 46 and a rear panel 50" ('543 Patent, col. 2:36-38). A party could argue this limits the term to separate and distinct openings on the front and back faces, as opposed to, for example, a single continuous opening that wraps around a corner.

Term ('810 Patent): "wherein a vertical drop-in of the crossbeam is not permitted"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the technological core of the '810 patent, distinguishing it from prior art that could be assembled with a simple downward motion. The entire infringement case for the guide assembly hinges on proving the accused product has this functional characteristic.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains this feature results from the geometry of the "ingress opening" which is formed through a lateral side region of the receptacle, thereby "prescribing the pivoting while translating installation" ('810 Patent, col. 5:44-58). A party might argue that any bracket-crossbeam geometry that forces such a complex (non-vertical-drop-in) motion infringes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific shape of the receptacle and ingress opening shown in Figures 9-11 could be used to argue for a narrower construction. A party may contend that only an assembly that is blocked from a vertical drop-in because of the specific disclosed geometry falls within the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The stated basis is that Defendant sells the Accused Products with "materials and instructions for operation" that direct and encourage end-users to assemble and use them in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶43, 55, 67). The in-store display advertising a "3 simple steps" process may be used as evidence of these instructions (Compl. ¶34).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The allegation is grounded in Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a notice letter from Plaintiff on December 11, 2020, which allegedly identified the patents-in-suit (e.g., Compl. ¶¶42, 54, 66).

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

This case presents two distinct sets of infringement questions, one focused on packaging and the other on mechanical assembly.

• A primary issue will be one of structural and visual similarity: For the packaging patents, the dispute will center on interpretation and comparison. Can the term "opposed surfaces" in the '543 utility patent be construed to read on the accused packaging's design? And for the '055 and '726 design patents, is the overall ornamental appearance of the defendant's packaging and handle "substantially similar" to the patented designs in the view of an ordinary observer?

• A second key question will be one of functional operation: For the guide assembly patents ('810, '093, '666), the case will turn on a highly technical analysis of how the accused product works. Does the physical geometry of the defendant's bracket and crossbeam system functionally preclude a "vertical drop-in" and instead compel the specific "pivot-and-translate" installation method that is central to the asserted claims?