DCT
5:20-cv-00554
Char Broil LLC v. Nexgrill Industries Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Char-Broil, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Nexgrill Industries, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP; GABLEGOTWALS
- Case Identification: 5:20-cv-00554, C.D. Cal., 03/17/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is a registered California corporation that maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, resides in the district, and has allegedly committed infringing acts and derived substantial revenue from those acts within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s universal, adjustable heat tents for barbecue grills infringe a patent related to an adjustable shield for gas burners.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns heat shields, or "heat tents," which are placed over gas burners in barbecue grills to protect them from food drippings and to help distribute heat evenly.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff, Char-Broil, is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit, with full rights to sue for infringement. It also alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and that Defendant's accused products directly replaced Plaintiff's own patented products at a major retailer, Wal-Mart.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-08-12 | ’566 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-08-28 | ’566 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-03-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,279,566 - "Shield for Gas Burner"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that barbecue grills are not configured with a standard size or shape of cooking chamber, which required the design, production, and maintenance of inventories for numerous sizes and configurations of burner shields, creating significant cost and complexity for manufacturers (ʼ566 Patent, col. 1:49-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an adjustable-length shield for a gas burner composed of two primary components: a "base member" and a "sliding member" that telescopically engage one another (’566 Patent, Abstract). This design allows a single shield model to be adjusted to fit cooking chambers of various sizes and shapes, thereby providing a universal solution (’566 Patent, col. 3:62-col. 4:4). Both members are formed with a "centerline fold," creating a tent-like shape to deflect drippings away from the burner below (’566 Patent, col. 3:15-17).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a universal, adjustable apparatus that addressed the market need for a one-size-fits-many burner shield, reducing the manufacturing and inventory burdens associated with producing model-specific parts (’566 Patent, col. 1:60-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A shield for use in a barbecue grill, the barbecue grill having a cooking chamber with a gas burner disposed therein, the shield comprising:
- a base member having first and second side panels and a centerline fold disposed therebetween; and
- a sliding member having a centerline fold disposed between first and second side panels, the sliding member being adapted to engage the base member for adjusting the length of the shield.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "universal heat tent products," with the complaint specifically identifying "Nexgrill Model No. 670-0001 'Small Heat Tent'" and "Wal-Mart Model Nos. 571256508 and 571256509" as examples (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are adjustable-length heat shields for use in barbecue grills (Compl. ¶12). A photo of the product packaging shows it is marketed as a "UNIVERSAL SMALL HEAT TENT" that "Adjusts to Fit Multiple Sizes" and "Extends from 12 to 21 in L." (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges these products are made of two pieces that slide relative to each other to achieve the adjustable length (Compl. p. 5). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's products "directly replaced Char-Broil's products at Wal-Mart," suggesting a direct competition for shelf space for universal-fit replacement parts (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’566 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base member having first and second side panels and a centerline fold disposed therebetween | The accused product includes a component identified as a base member, which is tent-shaped with two side panels and a centerline fold. An annotated photo in the complaint labels one of the two sliding pieces as the "base member." (Compl. p. 5). | ¶16 | col. 3:10-20 |
| a sliding member having a centerline fold disposed between first and second side panels | The accused product includes a second component identified as a sliding member, which is also tent-shaped with two side panels and a centerline fold. An annotated photo in the complaint labels the second of the two sliding pieces as the "sliding member." (Compl. p. 5). | ¶16 | col. 3:45-56 |
| the sliding member being adapted to engage the base member for adjusting the length of the shield | The two members of the accused product are configured to slide relative to one another to adjust the overall length of the heat tent. The complaint includes a photograph annotating this engagement. (Compl. p. 5). | ¶16 | col. 4:40-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint labels the two nearly identical telescoping pieces of the accused product as a "base member" and a "sliding member." A potential question for the court is whether these terms, as used in the patent, require a specific structural relationship (e.g., one piece acting as a female receiver and the other as a male insert) that may or may not be present in the accused product's design.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the sliding member be "adapted to engage" the base member. The patent's preferred embodiment describes a specific engagement mechanism where flanges on the base member form a "channel" that retains the sliding member (’566 Patent, col. 3:40-44). A central question will be whether the accused product's engagement mechanism falls within the literal scope of the claim or, alternatively, is equivalent to the claimed structure. The complaint does not provide detail on the specific mechanism of engagement beyond showing that the parts slide together.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "adapted to engage"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed adjustability. The infringement analysis will depend on how the court defines the required interaction between the "base member" and "sliding member." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any method of slidable connection infringes, or if only a more specific "telescopic" connection, as detailed in the patent's specification, is covered.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1, "adapted to engage," does not specify a particular structure for the engagement, suggesting that any structure that allows the two members to connect and slide for length adjustment could be covered.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the base member has inwardly-extending "flanges (54 and 56)" which "form a channel (60) through which the sliding member (14) may be retained" (’566 Patent, col. 3:40-44). A defendant may argue this detailed description of a "channel" for "retaining" the sliding member limits the scope of "adapted to engage" to this or a very similar telescopic structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "instructing, aiding, assisting, and encouraging" the sale and use of the infringing products by its customers and end-users (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant having "knowledge and notice of the Patent-in-Suit" and continuing its infringing acts despite this notice (Compl. ¶21). The basis for this knowledge is an allegation that Plaintiff "directly notif[ied] Defendant of its rights under the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case appears to hinge on two primary questions for the court:
A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly should the phrase "adapted to engage" be interpreted? The case may turn on whether this term is given its broad, plain meaning, or if it is limited by the specification to the specific channel-and-flange "retaining" mechanism described in the patent's preferred embodiment.
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical comparison: does the accused product's mechanism for joining its two adjustable pieces meet the requirements of Claim 1, either literally as construed by the court, or alternatively under the doctrine of equivalents? The outcome will depend on the factual evidence presented regarding the specific structure and operation of the accused heat tents.