DCT
2:25-cv-03167
Blue Chip Mfg Inc v. Memmer
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blue Chip Machining, Inc. (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Scott Memmer d/b/a Charmed Life Picks (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03167, C.D. Cal., 04/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s residence and principal place of business in the Central District of California, as well as the alleged manufacturing and sale of infringing products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s polyimide guitar picks infringe a patent directed to the specific material composition of high-performance picks.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns materials science as applied to musical accessories, specifically the use of a polyimide-graphite composite to create guitar picks with superior durability, feel, and tonal properties compared to traditional materials.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has used the specified material since approximately 2008. It also alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit, citing a 2019 online forum post as evidence.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-03-17 | Plaintiff's alleged first use of its "Brown Mark" |
| 2008-04-02 | '678 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-07-30 | '678 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-12-05 | Date of forum post alleging Defendant's knowledge of the '678 Patent |
| 2025-04-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,366,678, PICK FOR USE WITH A STRINGED INSTRUMENT, issued July 30, 2019. (Compl. ¶8).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a guitar pick that avoids the limitations of conventional materials. Plastic picks are described as lacking durability and being prone to warping and chipping, while materials like tortoise shell, though tonally desirable, are difficult to obtain due to cost and the endangered status of the source animal. (’678 Patent, col. 2:33-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a guitar pick constructed from a specific polyimide material. As described in the detailed description, this material provides a combination of desirable physical properties: dimensional stability to resist warping, inherent lubricity for smooth string release, wear resistance for longevity, and specific rigidity for optimal tonality. (’678 Patent, col. 2:60-66; col. 3:1-21). The patent proposes that these inherent material properties, rather than a surface treatment, provide a superior and longer-lasting pick.
- Technical Importance: The invention offers a solution to replicate the performance characteristics of rare and expensive materials like tortoise shell using a modern, consistent, and durable engineered polymer composite. (’678 Patent, col. 2:46-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A pick for use with a stringed instrument, said pick being constructed of a material comprising:
- a polyimide material characterized by a ring-shaped molecular structure containing nitrogen, and
- additionally comprising graphite.
- The complaint’s infringement count focuses on "at least claim 1." (Compl. ¶35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "polyimide guitar picks," collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products." (Compl. ¶26). Specific models identified include the "clf-75 mm polyimide teardrop," "clt-90 polyimide tri," and "black aerospace" picks. (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are high-performance guitar picks. A central allegation is that Defendant’s own marketing materials explicitly identify the material used. The complaint references a copy of Defendant's website, attached as Exhibit D, which allegedly states the picks are made "from genuine DuPont Vespel SP-1." (Compl. ¶26). Further, a past version of the website, referenced as Exhibit E, allegedly included a review claiming Defendant's picks are handmade from the "same two materials" as Plaintiff's picks. (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'678 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pick for use with a stringed instrument | Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells guitar picks designed for use with stringed instruments. | ¶¶24, 32 | col. 2:13-17 |
| said pick being constructed of a material comprising: a polyimide material characterized by a ring-shaped molecular structure containing nitrogen | Defendant’s products are marketed as "polyimide" picks. The complaint alleges that the "DuPont Vespel SP-1" material, which Defendant advertises as the source material, is a polyimide with the claimed molecular structure. | ¶¶26, 33, 34 | col. 3:25-29 |
| and additionally comprising graphite | The complaint alleges that the "DuPont Vespel SP-1" material used by Defendant contains graphite, thereby meeting this limitation. | ¶¶33, 34 | col. 4:31-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A primary issue for the court will be a factual one: does the "DuPont Vespel SP-1" material, as used in Defendant’s accused picks, in fact contain both a polyimide with a ring-shaped nitrogen structure and graphite? The case may depend heavily on material analysis and expert testimony to verify the composition of the accused products.
- Scope Questions: The claim language appears chemically specific. The dispute may therefore center less on the meaning of the terms (claim construction) and more on whether the accused material falls within that specific definition. The complaint's reliance on Defendant's own advertising identifying the material ("Vespel SP-1") suggests Plaintiff's theory is that this specific commercial material meets all claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a deep analysis of claim construction disputes, as the asserted terms are standard in materials science. However, one term is fundamental to the scope of any patent claim.
- The Term: "comprising"
- Context and Importance: This transitional phrase is critical for defining the breadth of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its established meaning ("including but not limited to") would mean that the presence of other, unrecited substances in Defendant's material would not necessarily avoid infringement, so long as the claimed polyimide and graphite are also present.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification supports the standard, open-ended meaning of "comprising" by disclosing embodiments with additional filler materials. For example, it describes potential compositions including "polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)" and "molybdenum disulfide" in addition to polyimide and graphite. (’678 Patent, col. 4:30-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not appear to contain explicit language that would support interpreting "comprising" in a closed manner (i.e., as "consisting of").
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of contributory and induced infringement, asserting that Defendant's acts of manufacturing and selling the "Infringing Products" contribute to and induce infringement by others, presumably the end-user musicians. (Compl. ¶31).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful. The basis for this allegation is purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’678 patent, supported by claims that Plaintiff provided notice on "numerous occasions" and by a reference to a December 5, 2019 online forum post, attached as Exhibit F, in which Defendant allegedly "publicly admitted knowledge" of the patent. (Compl. ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of material fact: Can Plaintiff prove through discovery and expert analysis that the specific material used by Defendant—allegedly "DuPont Vespel SP-1"—actually contains both the claimed polyimide and graphite? The resolution of the infringement claim appears to rest almost entirely on this technical verification.
- A key question for damages will be state of mind: Does the evidence, particularly the alleged 2019 forum post and any other pre-suit communications, demonstrate that Defendant knew of the ’678 Patent and the infringing nature of its conduct, which would be central to Plaintiff's claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?