DCT

2:25-cv-03167

Blue Chip Machining Inc v. Scott Memmer

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03167, C.D. Cal., 01/16/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants reside in the judicial district and have manufactured and sold the accused products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s high-performance polyimide guitar picks infringe a patent related to the use of specific polyimide materials for constructing musical instrument picks.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns materials science as applied to musical accessories, specifically the use of high-performance polymers like polyimide to create guitar picks with superior durability, tone, and longevity compared to traditional plastics or tortoise shell.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior patent litigation, IPR proceedings, or other patent-specific procedural events. It does note that Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of related trademarks for its guitar picks.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-03-17 Plaintiff's alleged first use of its products in commerce
2008-04-02 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,366,678
2019-07-30 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,366,678
2025-11-13 Formation date of Defendant CHARMED LIFE GUITAR PICKS & ACCESSORIES, INC.
2026-01-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,366,678 - *Pick for Use with a Stringed Instrument*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of conventional guitar picks. Plastic picks are said to lack dimensional stability and durability, being "prone to warping, chipping, and breaking during use," while tortoise shell picks, though tonally desirable, are costly and derived from endangered species (’678 Patent, col. 1:33-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a musical pick constructed from a polyimide material. As described in the specification, this material provides a unique combination of physical properties: increased dimensional stability (resistance to warping), desirable lubricity (a low coefficient of friction for smooth string release), increased resistance to wear, and desirable rigidity, which together result in "exceptional tonality and longevity" (’678 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-22).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a synthetic material that could replicate or exceed the performance characteristics of tortoise shell, solving long-standing issues of durability and supply in the market for high-performance musical picks (’678 Patent, col. 1:52-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a line of "polyimide" guitar picks sold by Defendants under various model identifiers, including "clf-75 mm polyimide teardrop," "clt-1.50 mm polyimide tri," and "Sea Turtle 1.25 mm Polyimide Triangle" (collectively, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶29, ¶33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are "100% machined and finished in the U.S.A., from genuine DuPont Vespel SP-1" (Compl. ¶30). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have advertised their picks are made from the "same" or "identical material used by a famous maker in Tennessee," which Plaintiff asserts is a direct reference to its own business and products (Compl. ¶31). A photograph provided in the complaint shows a Charmed Life "Sea Turtle" pick, which is a triangular guitar pick with a turtle logo (Compl. ¶33).

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... Defendants manufacture and sell guitar picks, including models described as "teardrop" and "triangle" shapes, intended for use with stringed instruments. ¶29, ¶32, ¶33 col. 2:23-28
said pick being constructed of a material comprising: a polyimide material characterized by a ring-shaped molecular structure containing nitrogen... The accused products are expressly marketed as "polyimide" guitar picks and are allegedly manufactured from "genuine DuPont Vespel SP-1." The patent specification identifies Vespel® as an exemplary polyimide material suitable for the invention. ¶29, ¶30 col. 2:31-35
and additionally comprising graphite. The complaint alleges the accused products are made from "DuPont Vespel SP-1." The patent specification describes embodiments of the invention comprising polyimide combined with graphite, such as a composition of "85% polyimide and 15% graphite." ¶30 col. 3:31-32

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The complaint’s central infringement allegation rests on the accused picks being made of "DuPont Vespel SP-1" (Compl. ¶30). A primary technical question will be whether this specific grade of Vespel contains graphite, as required by claim 1. If Vespel SP-1 is an unfilled polyimide, the complaint's own factual allegation may not support a finding of literal infringement of this claim element.
  • Evidentiary Question: What evidence does the complaint provide to substantiate that the accused picks are, in fact, made from the specific material ("Vespel SP-1") alleged? The complaint appears to rely on Defendants' marketing statements (Compl. ¶30), which may or may not reflect the actual, testable composition of the products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a polyimide material"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the entire scope of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the claims are limited to a narrow class of specific, high-performance polyimides or cover a broader range of polymers meeting the general definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broader scope by stating that "the polyimide material can be a material other than the material known as Vespel® without departing from the scope or spirit of the present invention" (’678 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly detailed description of the physical properties of Vespel®, including density, tensile strength, and thermal conductivity (’678 Patent, col. 2:35-50). A party could argue that these detailed examples implicitly define the required characteristics of a suitable "polyimide material," limiting the claim scope to materials with similar high-performance properties.

  • The Term: "additionally comprising graphite"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is critical for infringement of claim 1 and distinguishes it from claims covering other formulations. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused material contains graphite at all, and potentially in what quantity.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not require a specific percentage or concentration of graphite. An argument could be made that any amount of graphite, even if present as an impurity or in trace quantities, would satisfy the plain meaning of "comprising graphite."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific exemplary compositions, such as "85% polyimide and 15% graphite" or "60% polyimide and 40% graphite" (’678 Patent, col. 3:31-32). A party might argue that these examples imply the term requires a functionally significant amount of graphite added as a filler, not a de minimis amount.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect patent infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants committed infringing acts "with full knowledge of Plaintiff's prior rights" and with "the willful intent to cause confusion and to trade on Plaintiff's goodwill" (Compl. ¶39-40). It further alleges that Defendants' advertising made a "direct reference to Plaintiff's business and products" (Compl. ¶31). These allegations, if proven and applied in a patent context, may support a claim that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff and its intellectual property, which could be a basis for willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of material fact and evidence: does the "DuPont Vespel SP-1" material that allegedly constitutes the accused picks (Compl. ¶30) actually contain graphite, as affirmatively required by the plain language of independent claim 1 of the ’678 Patent? The resolution of this technical question may be dispositive for infringement of that claim.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: how will the court construe the term "a polyimide material"? Whether it is interpreted broadly to cover a wide range of polymers or narrowly limited to the specific high-performance commercial grades detailed in the patent specification (’678 Patent, col. 2:31-50) will significantly impact the overall infringement analysis for all asserted claims.