DCT
1:16-cv-03173
Pit Barrel Cooker Co LLC v. Myers Container LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pit Barrel® Cooker Co., LLC (Colorado/Kentucky)
- Defendant: Myers Container, LLC (Delaware/Oregon); Daniel Roth; James Bise; and Logan White
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Elkus & Sisson, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-03173, D. Colo., 12/23/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Colorado based on allegations that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Colorado, that Defendants market and sell products to Colorado residents, and that a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant Myers Container stipulated exclusive venue in Denver, Colorado.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, a former supplier and its employees, are contributorily and inducibly infringing a patent on a portable barrel cooker by manufacturing and supplying specially designed metal drums to a third-party competitor for use in an infringing product.
- Technical Context: The technology is in the field of outdoor cooking equipment, specifically focusing on upright, drum-style charcoal cookers designed for both grilling and smoking.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a breakdown of a business relationship where Defendants, under a non-disclosure agreement, gained access to Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information for its "Pit Barrel® Cooker." Plaintiff also notes its awareness of a separate lawsuit it filed against the direct infringer, Barrel House Cooker, LLC (BHC), which it alleges provides Defendants with knowledge of the patent and infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-07-14 | '334 Patent Priority Date |
| ~June 2014 | Plaintiff and Defendants begin business relationship under an NDA |
| 2014-12-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,919,334 issues |
| 2015-08-26 | Competitor Barrel House Cooker, LLC (BHC) is formed |
| ~Nov. 2015 | BHC begins selling the accused "barrel house cooker" |
| 2016-12-23 | Complaint is filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,919,334 - “Portable Barrel Cooker” (Issued Dec. 30, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve problems common to conventional charcoal grills, namely the occurrence of flare-ups from dripping grease and the inconsistent heat that can make smoking food for long periods difficult and variable ('334 Patent, col. 1:9-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an upright, cylindrical barrel cooker. Its key features include a charcoal basket positioned at the bottom, a bottom vent to control airflow, a lid, and a system for suspending food (e.g., on hooks from rods) a significant, "predetermined distance" above the heat source ('334 Patent, col. 1:26-36). This configuration is designed to create a convection-like environment for even cooking, prevent flare-ups by keeping food far from the coals, and allow for consistent heat regulation for both grilling and smoking ('334 Patent, col. 3:58-63).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a method for achieving consistent, high-heat cooking and smoking results in a simple, portable, and relatively foolproof apparatus, distinguishing it from more complex smokers or standard kettle grills (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 17 (Compl. ¶81).
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A cooking apparatus for outdoor use, comprising:
- an upright metal drum of cylindrical configuration and uniform diameter with a lower closed end;
- a cylindrical basket removably positioned above the drum's lower closed end for containing a heating material;
- a vent in a lower portion of the drum in "outer spaced relation" to the basket;
- a removable lid;
- at least one removable suspension rod traversing the upper end of the drum;
- a food suspension member (e.g., a hook) removably positioned on the rod to suspend food a "predetermined distance" above the basket; and
- suspension rod supports on the upper portion of the drum.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "barrel house cooker," which is manufactured and sold by a third party, Barrel House Cooker, LLC ("BHC") (Compl. ¶13, ¶80). The Defendants are accused of manufacturing and supplying the steel drum component of this product to BHC (Compl. ¶86).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the "barrel house cooker" is a direct copy of Plaintiff's Pit Barrel® Cooker that "perform[s] substantially the same functions, in the same way, to accomplish the same result" (Compl. ¶60). An image provided in the complaint depicts the "barrel house cooker" as an upright, black, drum-style cooker with a lid, suspension rods, and a charcoal basket, appearing structurally similar to the patented invention (Compl. ¶80). The complaint alleges that the steel drums supplied by Defendants to BHC are not general-purpose components but were made using Plaintiff's proprietary information and have no other substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶71, ¶86). This is contrasted with an image of what are presented as standard, multi-purpose drums that Myers otherwise sells (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges contributory and induced infringement against the Defendants, based on the direct infringement of the '334 Patent by the third-party "barrel house cooker." The following chart summarizes the allegations for the lead asserted claim.
'334 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an upright metal drum of cylindrical configuration and of uniform diameter having a lower closed end | The accused "barrel house cooker" is alleged to be an upright, cylindrical metal drum with a closed bottom, which is the component allegedly supplied by Defendants (Compl. ¶77). The image provided shows such a structure (Compl. ¶80). | ¶¶ 77, 81.i-iii | col. 2:21-26 |
| a cylindrical basket removably positioned above said lower closed end of said drum and containing a heating material | The complaint alleges the accused cooker contains a cylindrical basket for heating material. An exploded-view diagram of the accused product shows a component that appears to be a removable charcoal basket (Compl. ¶80). | ¶¶ 81.iv-v | col. 3:32-37 |
| a vent in a lower portion of the drum in outer spaced relation to said basket | The product is alleged to have a vent in its lower portion. The diagram of the accused cooker appears to show a circular vent near the bottom of the drum (Compl. ¶80). | ¶ 81.vi | col. 2:50-57 |
| a removable lid mounted on said drum | The accused cooker is alleged to have a removable lid, which is depicted in the provided diagram (Compl. ¶80). | ¶ 81.vii | col. 2:38-44 |
| at least one removable suspension rod traversing an upper end of said drum, including a food suspension member removably positioned on said rod for suspending food...a predetermined distance above said basket | The complaint alleges the accused cooker includes removable suspension rods and food suspension members. The diagram shows two rods traversing the top opening of the drum with hooks, for suspending food above the basket at the bottom (Compl. ¶80). | ¶¶ 81.viii-xii | col. 3:1-18 |
| and suspension supports located on an upper portion of said upright metal drum | The complaint alleges the presence of suspension supports. The diagram of the accused cooker shows what appear to be holes or slots at the top of the drum for inserting the suspension rods (Compl. ¶80). | ¶¶ 81.xiii-xiv | col. 2:63-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue for the contributory infringement claim is whether the steel drums supplied by Defendants are "staple article[s] or commodit[ies] of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶87). The complaint alleges they are not, claiming they are made using Plaintiff's proprietary information (Compl. ¶71) and that Defendants' own marketing shows different, generic drums (Compl. ¶27). This suggests a factual dispute over the nature of the specific drums supplied to BHC.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides high-level allegations of infringement but lacks detailed technical evidence showing how the accused "barrel house cooker" meets every claim limitation. For example, it raises the question of what evidence will show the accused cooker's vent is "in outer spaced relation to said basket," a specific spatial and functional requirement of the claim ('334 Patent, col. 3:52-55).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "predetermined distance"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the invention's stated purpose of preventing food from burning and ensuring even cooking. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the spacing in the accused cooker falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the positioning "allows for heat to cook the food G without the high heat concerns that one typically has with a standard charcoal grill" ('334 Patent, col. 3:60-62). Plaintiff may argue that any fixed distance designed into the product that achieves this functional goal meets the "predetermined" requirement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states, "Optimally, there is at least 12 inches of distance between the heat source and the food G" ('334 Patent, col. 3:61-63). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the term to a distance of at least 12 inches, potentially creating a non-infringement defense if the accused product's spacing is less.
The Term: "in outer spaced relation to said basket"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific location of the air vent relative to the charcoal basket, which the patent teaches is important for proper oxygen circulation. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires the accused product to match this specific spatial arrangement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent figures (e.g., FIG. 1) show the vent (23) on the main drum wall, physically separate from and outside the perimeter of the charcoal basket (39, shown in FIG. 2). Plaintiff may argue this is all the term requires.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states this placement "allows oxygen to pass under the basket 39" ('334 Patent, col. 3:53-54). A defendant could argue the term requires not just any external placement, but a specific configuration that demonstrably facilitates airflow under the basket, and may argue their design does not function in this precise way.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: This is the exclusive basis for the patent claim against these Defendants. The complaint alleges Defendants knew of the '334 patent from their prior business relationship with Plaintiff and from a separate lawsuit against BHC (Compl. ¶35, ¶84). It alleges inducement by asserting Defendants sold the drums with the "specific intent" that they be used to create the infringing cooker (Compl. ¶86). It alleges contributory infringement by asserting the drums are a material component, not a staple article of commerce, and are specially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶87).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendants' "full knowledge of the ‘334 Patent and Plaintiff’s rights therein" before and during the allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶90). The extensive narrative of the soured business relationship and alleged misappropriation of trade secrets is presented to support the claim of knowing and intentional conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of indirect liability: Can Plaintiff prove that the steel drums supplied by Defendants were not staple articles of commerce, but were instead "especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement"? The case will likely hinge on evidence showing whether the drums were generic or incorporated specific, non-standard features based on Plaintiff's proprietary designs.
- A second key question will be evidentiary and factual: Beyond the narrative of a failed business deal, what specific evidence will establish that Defendants acted with the requisite knowledge and specific intent to encourage BHC’s infringement, as required for a claim of inducement?
- Finally, the case may involve a question of claim scope: How will the court construe "predetermined distance"? Whether this term is interpreted as a functional requirement or is limited by the "at least 12 inches" example in the specification could be determinative for the underlying question of direct infringement by the BHC product.