DCT
1:16-cv-02866
Classic Brands LLC v. Woodstream Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Classic Brands, LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: Woodstream Corporation (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Polsinelli PC
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-02866, D. Colo., 11/23/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly residing in the District of Colorado via a local office, attending trade shows, promoting and selling products, and distributing products through retailers within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Perky-Pet" brand bird feeders, which feature rotating perches and integrated ant moats, infringe four of its utility patents and two of its design patents related to these features.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves bird feeders with adjustable perches, allowing a single feeder to be configured to attract specific bird species (e.g., goldfinches) while excluding others, a feature with notable consumer and retail appeal.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant filed its own patent application on a rotating perch feature, which was met with a final rejection by the USPTO citing Plaintiff's '301 Patent as prior art. Defendant subsequently abandoned its application, a fact Plaintiff may use to argue pre-suit knowledge and willfulness. The complaint also notes that the '837 patent-in-suit is a reissue of the '481 patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-03-28 | '481 & '837 Patents Priority Date (Filing of '481 application) |
| 2012-04-02 | '301, '302, '235, '765 Patents Priority Date |
| 2012-09-14 | Defendant Woodstream files its own patent application on rotating perch |
| 2013-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. D682,481 Issues |
| 2014-03-14 | Plaintiff files reissue application for '481 Patent |
| 2014-09-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,833,301 Issues |
| 2014-09-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,833,302 Issues |
| 2014-12-26 | USPTO issues final rejection of Woodstream's application, citing '301 Patent |
| 2015-07-30 | Woodstream abandons its patent application |
| 2016-01-12 | U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,837 Issues |
| 2016-03-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,295,235 Issues |
| 2016-07-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,380,765 Issues |
| 2016-11-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,833,301 - "Bird Feeder with Rotating Perch", Issued September 16, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the failure of conventional bird feeders with fixed perches to accommodate the different feeding habits of various bird species ('301 Patent, col. 1:15-24). For example, a goldfinch can feed while hanging upside down, but a house finch cannot, forcing a consumer wanting to attract one but not the other to purchase a specialized feeder (Compl. ¶8).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a bird feeder with a perch that can be moved to multiple positions around a feeding port by rotating it about an axis extending through the opening in the feeder's wall ('301 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-61). This allows a user to adjust a single feeder to attract different types of birds, for example by moving the perch from a standard position below the opening to an inverted position above it (Compl. ¶9; '301 Patent, Figs. 7A-C).
- Technical Importance: This adjustable design offers consumers versatility and convenience, eliminating the need to purchase multiple feeders to attract a variety of birds (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- a reservoir configured to hold bird food, the reservoir having an opening in a wall to provide access to the bird food;
- a port mounted on the wall providing access to the opening in the wall; and
- a perch from which a bird may access the port, the perch connected such that the perch is movable to a plurality of positions around the port, wherein the perch is moved to the plurality of positions by rotating the perch about an axis line extending through the opening in the wall.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 (Compl. ¶41).
U.S. Patent No. 8,833,302 - "Bird Feeder with Rotating Perch", Issued September 16, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the '301 Patent, this patent targets the limitation of fixed-perch bird feeders that cannot easily cater to the varied feeding positions of different bird species ('302 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a bird feeder where a perch is connected to the feeder's wall using a port that includes a "protruding portion extending from a surface" ('302 Patent, Claim 1). This protruding portion itself defines an opening for bird food access, and the overall assembly allows the perch to be moved to various positions around the opening in the wall ('302 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-43).
- Technical Importance: This patent describes a specific structural arrangement for achieving an adjustable perch, providing a versatile feeding solution in a single product (Compl. ¶¶9-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶41).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- a reservoir having an interior configured to hold bird food, the reservoir having an opening in a wall to provide access to the interior of the reservoir; and
- a perch connected to the wall using a port such that the perch is moveable to a plurality of positions around the opening in the wall, the port including a protruding portion extending from a surface, the protruding portion defining an opening providing access to the opening in the wall.
- Essential Elements of Claim 7:
- a perch having a projecting portion extending from a surface, the perch configured to be connected to a wall on a reservoir such that the perch is movable to a plurality of positions around an opening in the wall of the reservoir,
- wherein the perch is moved to the plurality of positions by rotating the perch about an axis line extending through the opening in the wall.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 (Compl. ¶41).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,295,235
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,295,235, "Bird Feeder With Rotating Perch", Issued March 29, 2016 (Compl. ¶16).
- Technology Synopsis: The '235 Patent claims a bird feeder apparatus comprising a "ring" that defines an opening and is configured to engage a reservoir wall. A perch, described as a "projecting portion," extends from a surface that covers the ring and is movable relative to an axis line, allowing for adjustment to attract different bird species (Compl. ¶17; '235 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 14 (Compl. ¶¶17, 41).
- Accused Features: The "Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeders" are accused of infringing by incorporating a rotatable perch feature (Compl. ¶¶20-22).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,380,765
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,380,765, "Bird Feeder with Rotating Perch", Issued July 5, 2016 (Compl. ¶18).
- Technology Synopsis: The '765 Patent claims methods of using a bird feeder with adjustable perches. The claimed methods include providing a feeder with feeding stations and "moving the projecting portion" of the perches between a first and second position to convert the feeder for specific uses, such as "exclusive goldfinch feeding" (Compl. ¶19; '765 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶¶19, 41).
- Accused Features: Defendant's sale and promotion of the "Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeders" is alleged to induce infringement by end-users who practice the claimed methods of adjusting the perches (Compl. ¶¶21-22, 42).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent Nos. D682,481 and RE45,837
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D682,481 ("Screw-On Ant Moat for a Bird Feeder," issued May 14, 2013) and its reissue, U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,837 (issued January 12, 2016) (Compl. ¶¶27, 29).
- Technology Synopsis: These are design patents that protect the ornamental design for a screw-on ant moat, which is a small, cup-like reservoir filled with water to prevent ants from reaching a hummingbird feeder's nectar (Compl. ¶¶30, 33).
- Asserted Claims: All claims of both patents (Compl. ¶¶49-50).
- Accused Features: The aesthetic, non-functional appearance of the "Built in ant moat" on various "Perky-Pet Ant Moat Feeders" is alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶¶31-32). Photographs of the accused products show the allegedly infringing ant moat design (Compl. p. 14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names two categories of products: "Perky-Pet Rotating Perch Feeders" (including Models 360, 361, and 400) and "Perky-Pet Ant Moat Feeders" (including Models 209B, 203CPBN, etc.) (Compl. ¶¶20, 23, 32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused feeders are sold under the "Perky-Pet" brand through major retailers and e-commerce channels (Compl. ¶¶5, 39). The "Rotating Perch Feeders" are explicitly marketed for their adjustable perches; a screenshot from Defendant's website shows "4 rotating, flower shaped feeding ports" and instructs users to "Place perch above port to feed only goldfinches" (Compl. p. 11, ¶24). This functionality is presented as a key selling point to attract customers (Compl. ¶21). The "Ant Moat Feeders" are marketed with a "Built in ant moat" feature designed to keep ants away from the nectar (Compl. p. 15, ¶33).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,833,301 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a reservoir configured to hold bird food, the reservoir having an opening in a wall to provide access to the bird food; | The accused feeders include a tube that holds bird seed and has openings in its wall for seed to pass through. | ¶23 | col. 2:45-53 |
| a port mounted on the wall providing access to the opening in the wall; and | The accused feeders have flower-shaped feeding ports mounted at the openings in the reservoir wall. | ¶24 | col. 2:55-58 |
| a perch from which a bird may access the port, the perch connected such that the perch is movable to a plurality of positions around the port, wherein the perch is moved to the plurality of positions by rotating the perch about an axis line extending through the opening in the wall. | The accused feeders have perches that can be rotated to different positions, as advertised on the packaging with phrases like "PERCHES ROTATE!" and shown in product photos. | ¶22 | col. 3:56-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "port." The court may need to determine if the accused products' flower-shaped feeding assemblies meet the structural and functional definition of a "port" as described and illustrated in the '301 Patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges rotation based on marketing materials and external views. A key question for discovery will be whether the internal mechanism that connects the perch to the port and facilitates rotation in the accused product operates in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings.
U.S. Patent No. 8,833,302 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a reservoir having an interior configured to hold bird food, the reservoir having an opening in a wall to provide access to the interior of the reservoir; and | The accused feeders have a seed reservoir tube with openings in its wall. | ¶23 | col. 2:40-44 |
| a perch connected to the wall using a port such that the perch is moveable to a plurality of positions around the opening in the wall, the port including a protruding portion extending from a surface, the protruding portion defining an opening providing access to the opening in the wall. | The accused feeders' flower-shaped ports protrude from the reservoir wall, and this structure defines the opening through which birds access the seed. The perch is connected to this assembly and moves around it. | ¶24 | col. 5:30-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the '302 Patent will likely focus on the phrase "protruding portion extending from a surface, the protruding portion defining an opening." The parties may dispute whether the integrated, decorative port of the accused product constitutes such a structure.
- Technical Questions: The nature of the connection between the "perch," "port," and "wall" in the accused product will be a factual question. Evidence will be needed to show whether the accused product's assembly is "connected to the wall using a port" in the specific manner claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the '301 Patent: "port"
- The Term: port
- Context and Importance: This term is a core structural element of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the accused feeders, with their flower-shaped feeding assemblies, meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely be a primary non-infringement argument for the defendant.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional description, stating the port is a component "through which a bird may access the bird food in the reservoir" ('301 Patent, col. 2:55-56). This could support an interpretation covering any structure that performs this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, such as Figure 7D, depict "port 112" as a specific, multi-featured component. A defendant may argue the term should be limited to the structure of the disclosed embodiments and their equivalents, rather than any functionally similar component.
Term from the '302 Patent: "protruding portion... defining an opening"
- The Term: protruding portion extending from a surface, the protruding portion defining an opening
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the central structure of the port in independent claim 1. The infringement case for the '302 patent hinges on whether the accused product's feeding mechanism can be characterized by this two-part structural definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the protruding portion "may have a variety of shapes, including, but not limited to, rectangular, elliptical, triangular, and polygonal" ('302 Patent, col. 4:57-62), suggesting the term is not confined to the precise geometry shown.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments in the patent consistently show the "protruding portion 704" as a distinct, somewhat cylindrical structure extending from a separate base "surface 702" (see '302 Patent, Fig. 7D). This could support a narrower construction requiring a similar multi-component structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis is that Defendant sells the accused products to retailers and provides instructions and marketing materials (e.g., website content, product packaging) that allegedly encourage and instruct end-users to operate the feeders in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶42, 51).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶46, 55). For the rotating perch patents, the allegation is primarily based on Defendant's prosecution of its own patent application on the same technology, during which the USPTO rejected its claims over Plaintiff's '301 Patent. The complaint alleges that this event provided Defendant with actual knowledge of its infringement, which it disregarded by continuing to sell the products (Compl. ¶26). For the ant moat design patents, the allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant "chose to copy" the design (Compl. ¶35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the terms "port" ('301 patent) and "protruding portion... defining an opening" ('302 patent), which are described with specific structural details in the patents, be construed to read on the integrated, flower-shaped feeding assemblies of the accused "Perky-Pet" feeders?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness: what is the legal significance of the USPTO's rejection of Defendant’s own patent application over the '301 Patent? The court will have to determine if this fact establishes the objective recklessness necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages for the rotating perch patents.
- For the design patents, a central question for the fact-finder will be substantial similarity: does the ornamental design of the accused ant moats create the same overall visual impression as the claimed designs in the '481 and '837 patents, from the perspective of an ordinary observer?