DCT
1:19-cv-01028
Freal Foods LLC v. Welbilt Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: f'real Foods, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Welbilt, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01028, D. Del., 06/03/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Welbilt, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of automated beverage blenders infringes two patents related to self-rinsing splash shield technology for mixing machines.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated, self-service beverage blenders designed for retail environments, focusing on systems that minimize splashing during mixing and automatically clean food-contact surfaces to ensure hygiene.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least August 2018 due to correspondence between the parties. The U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150 is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-11-15 | Priority Date for ’150 and ’662 Patents |
| 2006-12-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150 Issued |
| 2009-04-21 | U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 Issued |
| 2017-10-01 | Defendant allegedly promotes Accused Products at trade show |
| 2018-08-01 | Defendant allegedly gains knowledge of patents via correspondence |
| 2018-10-01 | Accused Products allegedly installed in convenience stores |
| 2019-06-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,144,150 - "Rinseable Splash Shield And Method Of Use" (Issued Dec. 5, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In automated beverage machines, mixing ingredients in an open cup can cause material to splash onto the machine and surrounding area, creating a need for cleaning (Compl. ¶12; ’150 Patent, col. 1:49-51). Furthermore, preventing cross-contamination of flavors and bacterial growth between uses requires a timely and effective cleaning process for the blender components, without requiring extensive retailer involvement (Compl. ¶10, ¶12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a mixing machine with a reusable "splash shield" that covers the cup during the blending process. After blending is complete, the machine automatically separates the cup from the shield, encloses the shield and mixing element behind doors, and rinses them with fluid from a nozzle. This allows for an automated, in-place cleaning cycle between uses while shielding the user access area from the rinse fluid (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:36-50; Fig. 7).
- Technical Importance: This technology enables the deployment of self-service, automated frozen drink stations in high-traffic retail locations by addressing key sanitation and operational challenges (Compl. ¶9-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 24 (Compl. ¶29, ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following key elements:
- Providing a vessel containing contents to be mixed.
- Providing a mixing machine with a holder for the vessel, a rotatable mixing element, a splash shield positionable over the vessel's opening, and a nozzle oriented towards the shield.
- After mixing, separating the splash shield and the vessel.
- Directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield using the nozzle while "shielding the access location from the rinsing fluid."
U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 - "Rinseable Splash Shield And Method Of Use" (Issued Apr. 21, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same splashing and sanitation issues as the parent ’150 Patent (’662 Patent, col. 1:47-49). It also implicitly addresses the problem of ensuring the vessel (cup) is not contaminated by the rinsing fluid intended for the machine components (’662 Patent, col. 6:44-46).
- The Patented Solution: The ’662 Patent, a continuation-in-part of the ’150 Patent, refines the automated rinsing method. The claimed method involves mixing the beverage with the splash shield in place, then "unshielding the vessel opening" and directing rinse fluid onto the shield while simultaneously "isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid." This ensures the finished beverage, now ready for the consumer, is separated from the cleaning process (’662 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:40-46).
- Technical Importance: This refined process provides a clear, sequential method for blending and then cleaning, ensuring the user's cup is removed or protected before the automated rinse cycle begins (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least claims 21 and 22 (Compl. ¶38).
- Independent Claim 21 is a method claim with the following key elements:
- Providing a vessel containing material to be mixed.
- Providing a mixing machine with a holder, a rotatable mixing element, a splash shield, and a nozzle.
- After mixing, "unshielding the vessel opening and directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield... while isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Multiplex FreshBlender®, the Multiplex Blend In Cup® Workstation, and the MAM9904 Blend-In-Cup® – Manual Fill (collectively, the “Accused Products”) (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are automated machines that prepare frozen drinks. The user places a cup, which is then moved to a mixing chamber where a splash shield covers the cup and a blade mixes the contents (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). After mixing, the cup is moved back to an access area for retrieval by the user (Compl. ¶18). The complaint states that after the drink is removed, the mixing chamber and splash shield are "automatically rinsed by rinse nozzles directed at the splash shield" (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). The complaint includes a series of photographs depicting the accused Multiplex FreshBlender with a cup inside, the splash shield lowered, and water being sprayed inside the chamber (Compl. p. 6).
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products have significant commercial presence, citing installations in approximately 600 Kwik Trip convenience stores since October 2018 (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for rinsing a splash shield on a mixing machine... | Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale the Accused Products, which are mixing machines that practice the patented inventions. | ¶29 | col. 4:51-52 |
| providing a vessel containing contents to be mixed, the vessel including an opening; | A user places a cup (vessel) loaded with material to be mixed into a holder in the Accused Products. | ¶18, ¶22 | col. 2:56-61 |
| further providing a mixing machine having a holder... a rotatable mixing element... a splash shield... and a nozzle... | The Accused Products are mixing machines that include a holder, a rotatable mixing element (blade), a splash shield that covers the cup during mixing, and rinse nozzles oriented towards the splash shield. | ¶18, ¶21, ¶23 | col. 3:15-39 |
| after mixing the contents of the vessel... separating the splash shield and the vessel; | After mixing, the Accused Products raise the splash shield and move the mixed drink back to a retrieval area, which separates the shield from the cup. | ¶18, ¶22 | col. 4:30-36 |
| and directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield using the nozzle while shielding the access location from the rinsing fluid. | After the drink is removed, the Accused Products automatically rinse the splash shield using nozzles. The user access area is shielded from this rinsing process. A photograph depicts the rinsing process occurring within an enclosed chamber (Compl. p. 6). | ¶18, ¶23 | col. 4:36-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of the term "shielding the access location." The patent specification describes hinged doors that enclose the rinse chamber (’150 Patent, col. 3:40-42). The dispute may focus on whether the Accused Products' configuration, which allegedly rinses inside a mixing chamber separate from the user access point, meets this limitation as it is construed by the court.
’662 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for rinsing a splash shield on a mixing machine... | Defendant makes, uses, and sells the Accused Products, which are mixing machines that perform the claimed method. | ¶38 | col. 6:47-48 |
| providing a vessel containing material to be mixed... | A user places a cup loaded with material into a holder. | ¶22, ¶26 | col. 5:31-33 |
| further providing a mixing machine having a holder... a rotatable mixing element... a splash shield... a nozzle... | The Accused Products are mixing machines containing a holder, a rotatable mixing element, a splash shield, and rinse nozzles. | ¶22, ¶26 | col. 5:34-40 |
| after mixing... unshielding the vessel opening and directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield... while isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid. | After mixing, the splash shield is automatically "unshielded" and the user removes the blended drink. The machine then sprays rinsing fluid to clean the splash shield. The removal of the cup before the rinse cycle begins allegedly constitutes "isolating the vessel." | ¶22, ¶26 | col. 5:40-46 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the meaning of "isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid." The complaint's theory is that because the user removes the cup before the rinse cycle begins, the vessel is isolated (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). The factual dispute will be whether the operational sequence of the Accused Products—specifically the timing of cup removal relative to the start of the rinse cycle—satisfies this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: “shielding the access location from the rinsing fluid” (’150 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is critical because it defines the safety and sanitation feature of the automated cleaning process. Infringement hinges on whether the Accused Products' design, which separates the mixing/rinsing chamber from the cup retrieval point, performs this function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses functional language. Plaintiff may argue that any structure that prevents rinse fluid from reaching the "access location" meets the limitation, regardless of its specific form (’150 Patent, col. 4:48-50).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes "a pair of automatic hinged doors 36" and an "enclosure 40" to perform this function (’150 Patent, col. 3:40-47). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to an active barrier, like a door, that moves to enclose the rinse area, rather than a passive, static separation of chambers.
Term 2: “isolating the vessel from the rinsing fluid” (’662 Patent, claim 21)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed method's sequence. It defines the state of the system when rinsing occurs. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends on the temporal and spatial relationship between the user's cup and the machine's self-clean cycle.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "isolating" suggests separation. Plaintiff may argue that once the cup is removed from the machine's interior to the access point, it is "isolated," and the subsequent rinse cycle therefore meets this limitation (Compl. ¶22, ¶26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's operational sequence shows the cup holder moving the cup out of the rinse chamber, after which the doors close and rinsing begins (’662 Patent, Figs. 4-7). A defendant may argue "isolating" requires an affirmative act by the machine to create a barrier or move the vessel away, rather than relying on the user to remove the vessel before the rinse cycle initiates.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant provides "operating information and/or demonstrations to users and prospective users" that instruct on the infringing use (Compl. ¶31, ¶41). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Products and their self-cleaning components are not staple articles of commerce and are specifically designed to perform the patented processes (Compl. ¶32, ¶42).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant having "actual knowledge" of both patents since at least August 2018 as a result of "correspondence between f'real and Welbilt" (Compl. ¶30, ¶40). The complaint alleges that continued infringement after this date was willful, deliberate, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶33, ¶43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the functional limitations "shielding the access location" ('150 Patent) and "isolating the vessel" ('662 Patent) be interpreted broadly to cover any machine architecture that separates the rinsing and user-access areas, or will they be construed more narrowly to require specific structures or actions disclosed in the patents, such as movable doors or machine-actuated vessel removal?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: does the accused technology, as it actually functions, perform the required steps in the claimed order? Specifically, the case may turn on factual evidence demonstrating the precise relationship between the user's removal of the beverage cup and the initiation of the automated rinse cycle, which will determine whether the vessel is truly "isolated" from the rinsing fluid as required by the ’662 Patent.