DCT
1:23-cv-00999
North Atlantic Imports LLC v. LoCo Crazy Good Cookers Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: North Atlantic Imports, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: LoCo – Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.; Foley & Lardner LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00999, D. Del., 09/08/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation that distributes and sells the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s propane griddles infringe a patent related to a system for controlling convective heat flow, and further brings claims for false advertising and false marking.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of outdoor cooking appliances, specifically addressing the management of heat and airflow in gas-powered griddles to improve performance and safety.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on August 24, 2022, providing notice of the alleged infringement. The complaint also includes claims that Defendant falsely advertises its products as "patented," which forms the basis for separate counts of false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and false marking.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-05-04 | ’473 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-05-26 | ’473 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-01-01 | Defendant LoCo allegedly enters market (approx.) |
| 2022-08-24 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2023-09-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,660,473 - "System, Device and Method for Controlling Convective Heating of a Griddle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,660,473, “System, Device and Method for Controlling Convective Heating of a Griddle,” issued May 26, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with conventional griddles used over gas burners, including poor temperature control across the cooking surface and the uncontrolled flow of hot convective air around the griddle's periphery, which can create a hazard for the user at the front of the grill (’473 Patent, col. 1:44-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a griddle with a specific rib structure on its underside. This structure includes a front rib that blocks heat from escaping toward the user and multiple lateral ribs that form channels. These channels are designed to capture convective heat from the burners and funnel it toward the rear of the griddle, allowing for both zoned temperature control and safer operation by directing hot exhaust gases away from the front (’473 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-20). Figure 6A of the patent illustrates this intended heat flow (’473 Patent, Fig. 6A).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to offer more precise and segmented control over cooking temperatures while simultaneously enhancing user safety by managing the flow of hot exhaust gases.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of the ’473 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A frame and multiple burners.
- A griddle suspended by the frame.
- A front rib and multiple lateral ribs on the griddle's underside surface.
- The lateral ribs extend from the front rib toward the rear end, creating distinct heating regions, each with a burner positioned below.
- The lateral ribs extend downward to a height sufficient to "funnel convection heat" from the burners toward the rear of the griddle.
- The front rib and lateral ribs are "integrally formed with the underside surface of the griddle."
- The lateral ribs "directly extend from the underside surface" and are spaced and separate from one another.
- The complaint’s phrasing suggests it may assert other claims, including dependent claims, as the case proceeds.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are LoCo Propane Griddles, including Model Nos. LCG3ST3C36 and LCG1STTC36 (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are propane griddles that function as a cooking system and closely imitate the patented technology (Compl. ¶35, ¶37). The complaint contains a visual from the patent, Figure 1, to illustrate the technology that LoCo's products allegedly infringe (Compl. ¶15, p. 4). Plaintiff asserts that the accused products are sold through the same retail channels, such as Lowe's and Home Depot, and compete directly with Plaintiff's Blackstone-branded products (Compl. ¶29, ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,660,473 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame extending with a front side, a rear side, a left side, and a right side each extending between a lower portion and an upper portion | The accused products are alleged to have a frame with front, rear, left, and right sides extending between upper and lower portions (Compl. ¶37(1)). | ¶37 | col. 4:56-59 |
| multiple burners coupled to and extending between the front side and the rear side of the frame | The accused products are alleged to have multiple burners coupled to the frame, extending between its front and rear sides (Compl. ¶37(2)). | ¶37 | col. 5:20-24 |
| a griddle sized to be suspended by the frame..., the griddle having a cooking surface and an underside surface..., the griddle including a front rib and multiple lateral ribs, the front rib extending along the front end of the underside surface, and the multiple lateral ribs extending along the underside surface from the front rib to the rear end of the underside surface... | The accused products are alleged to include a griddle suspended on the frame with a cooking surface and an underside surface, which in turn includes a front rib and multiple lateral ribs extending from the front to the rear. | ¶37 | col. 7:1-27 |
| the multiple lateral ribs being spaced from each other so as to define multiple heating regions such that each heating region is defined between adjacently extending lateral ribs, each of the heating regions includes one of the multiple burners positioned below one of the multiple heating regions | The lateral ribs on the accused products are allegedly spaced to define multiple heating regions, with each region positioned over one of the multiple burners. | ¶37 | col. 7:56-61 |
| each of the lateral ribs extend downward from the underside surface a height so as to funnel convection heat from any one of the multiple burners toward the rear end of the underside surface of the griddle and from the rear side of the frame | The lateral ribs on the accused products are alleged to extend downward to a height that funnels convection heat from the burners toward the rear of the griddle and frame. | ¶37 | col. 9:13-17 |
| wherein the front rib and the multiple lateral ribs are integrally formed with the underside surface of the griddle | The front and lateral ribs of the accused products are alleged to be integrally formed with the griddle's underside surface (Compl. ¶37(4)). | ¶37 | col. 10:41-43 |
| wherein the multiple lateral ribs directly extend from the underside surface of the griddle such that each lateral rib is spaced and separate from an adjacent lateral rib | The lateral ribs on the accused products are alleged to extend directly from the griddle's underside surface and to be spaced and separate from each other (Compl. ¶37(5)). | ¶37 | col. 10:44-48 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of the functional limitation "funnel convection heat." The dispute may focus on whether the accused product's rib structure is designed to and actually performs this specific heat-directing function, or if it has a different primary purpose (e.g., structural rigidity) with only an incidental effect on air movement.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the ribs are "integrally formed" with the griddle. A key factual question for discovery will be the actual manufacturing process of the accused products. If the ribs are attached via a secondary process, such as welding, a dispute may arise as to whether this meets the "integrally formed" limitation, which could be construed to mean cast or stamped from a single piece of material.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "integrally formed"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the physical relationship between the claimed ribs and the griddle plate. Infringement may depend on whether the defendant’s manufacturing method (e.g., casting as a single piece vs. welding separate components) falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "integrally formed." A party could argue it encompasses any method that results in a single, inseparable unit, which might include certain types of welding.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification mentions "casting or stamping" as a known manufacturing process for the griddle and separately discusses "coupling" parts with "known techniques, such as welding" (’473 Patent, col. 9:58-64). A party could use this distinction to argue that "integrally formed" is limited to single-piece fabrication methods like casting, and that welding is a method of "coupling" rather than integral formation.
The Term: "funnel convection heat"
- Context and Importance: This functional language describes the purpose of the lateral ribs. The outcome of the case could turn on the degree of control and directionality required to satisfy this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the griddle's structure to a specific performance outcome.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses more general terms like "channel convection heat" and describes the heat being "drawn toward the rear" as following a "path of least resistance" (’473 Patent, col. 2:47-48; col. 9:13-17). This could support an interpretation where any structure that generally guides heat rearward would suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description explains how the structure causes heat to be "funneled toward the rear end... through the opening 150" (’473 Patent, col. 9:26-29). This suggests a more controlled process of directing heat toward a specific exit point, which could support a narrower construction requiring a more focused channeling effect.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes a general allegation of inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶38). A potential basis for inducement could be Defendant’s user manuals, which allegedly instruct customers on how to use the griddles in an infringing manner. The complaint includes an image of an "Owners Manual" for an accused product (Compl., p. 6), which may be used to support this theory.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a cease-and-desist letter on August 24, 2022 (Compl. ¶19-20, ¶38). The complaint also presents screenshots of Defendant’s marketing materials claiming its technology is "patented" (Compl. ¶21), which Plaintiff alleges is false and may be used to argue an intentional disregard for patent rights.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope and manufacturing reality: can the term "integrally formed," as used in the patent, be construed to cover the actual manufacturing process used for the accused griddles? The case may depend on whether evidence shows the ribs are cast as a single unit with the griddle plate or attached via a secondary process like welding.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: does the accused product's rib structure perform the specific function of "funneling" convection heat toward the rear, as required by Claim 1, or is there a material difference in its technical operation and purpose?
- A parallel issue shaping the litigation will be the non-patent claims, particularly the allegation that Defendant engaged in false marking by advertising its products as "patented." The resolution of this claim, supported by visual evidence from Defendant's own marketing, may influence the overall context of the dispute, especially as it relates to allegations of willful infringement and the competitive narrative presented to the court.