Warming Trends LLC v. Flame DesignZ LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Warming Trends, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Flame DesignZ, LLC (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC; Edwards Maxson Mago & Macaulay LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00252, D. Colo., 01/30/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a limited liability company organized under Colorado law and residing within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “Eco Burner 2.0” product infringes a patent related to modular gas burner systems for creating ornamental flame displays.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns customizable gas fire pit burners that use a modular design and specific jet technology to produce taller, brighter, and more aesthetically pleasing flames than conventional ring burners.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a contentious history between the parties, including prior state court litigation initiated in 2016-2017 concerning trade secrets allegedly related to the technology in the patent-in-suit. This prior litigation was resolved by a Settlement and Release Agreement in December 2018. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent application during this prior dispute and received multiple notices of alleged breach and infringement before and after the patent issued.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-08-04	’117 Patent Priority Date
2016-07-25	’117 Patent Application Filing Date
2018-12-19	Settlement and Release Agreement Executed
Early 2019	Defendant allegedly begins selling accused Eco Burner 2.0
2019-02-07	Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2020-02-25	U.S. Patent No. 10,571,117 Issues
2023-01-30	First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,571,117, “System and Method for Building Ornamental Flame Displays,” issued February 25, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges with prior art gas fire pit systems, which were often not readily customizable, inefficiently produced small or dull flames, and relied on materials like galvanized pipe that were difficult to assemble into gas-tight connections without marring the components' surfaces with tools like pipe wrenches (’117 Patent, col. 2:21-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular burner system constructed preferably from brass, using interconnecting nipples and connectors to form various arrangements (’117 Patent, col. 5:20-25). A key aspect is the use of "blind" nipples, which are manufactured as a single, integral piece with one closed end, eliminating the need for separate end caps and the associated risk of leaks (’117 Patent, col. 8:1-6). Jets are mounted into the sides of these nipples, using the Venturi effect to mix air with the gas to produce a taller, brighter flame than systems that simply release gas through holes (’117 Patent, col. 6:6-8).
• Technical Importance: The system was designed to provide architects and designers with the flexibility to create custom flame arrangements while ensuring reliable, repeatable, and aesthetically pleasing assembly without the risk of leaks or surface damage associated with traditional plumbing methods (’117 Patent, col. 2:40-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’117 Patent, col. 9:36-49).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A modular burner system with a plurality of burners.
  • At least two burners must include a nipple made of brass and a jet made of brass.
  • For each of those two burners, the nipple has a threaded first end and a closed second end.
  • The nipple has a side wall defining a bore that extends from the first end toward the second end.
  • The nipple’s first end, second end, and side wall are of "integral, one piece, construction free of joints."
  • The nipple has a threaded hole through its side wall into the bore.
  • The jet has a threaded end that engages the nipple's threaded hole.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s “Eco Burner 2.0” and related burner systems (Compl. ¶37).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Eco Burner 2.0 is a modular burner system constructed of brass and designed for use in fire pits with natural gas or propane (Compl. ¶37, ¶42). The system is depicted as comprising multiple pipe-like burners arranged in various configurations, such as a cross shape (Compl. ¶37). A screenshot from Defendant’s website included in the complaint shows the assembled Eco Burner 2.0 product, which appears to be a modular assembly of pipes and jets (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges a representative version of the accused product has six burners, six nipples, and ten jets (Compl. ¶41).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’117 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a plurality of burners, at least two of the burners including a nipple that is brass and a jet that is brass;	The Accused Instrumentalities are modular burner systems constructed of brass, with one representative version having "6 burners with a total of 6 nipples and 10 jets."	¶39, ¶41-42	col. 9:6-12
the nipple has a first end that is threaded and a second end that is closed;	The complaint alleges, based on a representative photo, that the nipple has a threaded first end and a closed second end. A still from a YouTube video is provided as evidence for the closed end.	¶39, ¶43	col. 8:62-64
the nipple has a side wall between the first end and the second end, the side wall defining a bore, the bore extends through the first end to the second end;	Based on a representative photo, the complaint alleges the nipple has a side wall defining a bore that runs between its ends.	¶39, ¶44	col. 8:28-30
the first end, second end, and side wall of the nipple are of integral, one piece, construction free of joints;	The complaint alleges on information and belief that the nipple is of integral, one-piece construction, citing a representative photo from a video as support.	¶39, ¶45	col. 8:1-3
the nipple has a threaded hole extending through the side wall of the nipple to the bore; and	Based on a representative photo from a video, the complaint alleges the nipple has a threaded hole through its side wall into its internal bore.	¶39, ¶46	col. 8:30-32
the jet has a threaded end threadedly engaged with the threaded hole.	The complaint alleges the accused product includes a jet with a threaded end that engages the threaded hole in the nipple, supported by a representative photo.	¶39, ¶47	col. 8:36-38

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint’s allegations for several key limitations, such as the nipple being of "integral, one piece, construction free of joints," are made "upon information and belief" and supported by low-resolution video stills (Compl. ¶45). A central dispute may arise over the definition of "integral" and "free of joints." The defense could argue that their manufacturing process (e.g., welding or brazing an end cap onto a pipe) does not fall within a proper construction of this claim term, even if the final product appears seamless in a video.
• Technical Questions: The primary technical question will be whether the accused Eco Burner 2.0 actually embodies the features as alleged. The complaint’s visual evidence, such as a still from a promotional video showing the burner in operation, will require substantiation through discovery and inspection of the physical product (Compl. ¶44). The factual accuracy of the "integral, one piece" construction will be a critical point of proof.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "integral, one piece, construction free of joints"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to distinguishing the invention from prior art systems that may have used standard pipes with separate, threaded end caps. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused nipple is manufactured as a single, continuous component or as an assembly of multiple pieces.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone definition, which could leave room for argument. A party might argue that certain modern manufacturing techniques (e.g., friction welding) create a bond so complete that the resulting product is "free of joints" for the purposes of the patent, which was concerned with leak-prone mechanical joints.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the "one-piece, integral, construction not only eliminates joints that may leak from improper assembly or from weathering" ('117 Patent, col. 8:3-5). This language, combined with the patent's contrast to prior art using "mating end caps" ('117 Patent, col. 2:49), suggests the term requires the nipple to be formed from a single, solid piece of stock material, excluding any process that joins two or more separate components.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint includes a general allegation that Defendant contributes to and induces infringement by third parties (Compl. ¶6). However, the specific factual allegations in the patent infringement count focus on Defendant's own acts of making, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products, which primarily supports a theory of direct infringement (Compl. ¶37).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology dating back to at least 2017-2018, when it was a party to a trade secret lawsuit involving the technology and allegedly used the patent application in its defense (Compl. ¶¶16, 18). The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff sent multiple written notices of breach and infringement starting in 2019, both before and after the patent issued (Compl. ¶¶31-32). Finally, it alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶52).

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

• A core issue will be one of factual proof versus pleading: The infringement case, as pled, relies heavily on publicly available images and "information and belief" to allege that the accused product meets key structural limitations like being of "integral, one piece, construction." A dispositive question will be whether discovery and physical inspection of the Eco Burner 2.0 confirm this specific manufacturing characteristic, or reveal that it is an assembly of multiple components falling outside the claim scope.
• A second key issue will be willfulness and the relevance of the parties' history: Given the extensive pre-filing history alleged in the complaint—including prior litigation over related technology, a settlement agreement, and multiple notice letters—the question of whether Defendant’s alleged infringement was "objectively reckless" will be central. The outcome of this inquiry will significantly impact potential damages if infringement is found.