DCT
1:25-cv-00161
Flexeserve Inc v. Welbilt Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flexeserve, Inc. (Texas) and The Alan Nuttall Partnership Ltd. (UK)
- Defendant: Welbilt, Inc. d/b/a Merco (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ashby & Geddes LLP; Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
- Case Identification: Flexeserve, Inc. v. Welbilt, Inc., 1:25-cv-00161, D. Del., 02/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated there, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s open-fronted food storage cabinets infringe a patent related to thermally insulated, multi-zone food display technology.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns heated and cooled open-fronted display cabinets used in commercial food service settings like supermarkets, convenience stores, and restaurants.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent notice letters to Defendant regarding the asserted patent on July 11, 2024, and August 9, 2024. It further details subsequent communications regarding a non-disclosure agreement for Defendant to provide product information, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-11-06 | ’897 Patent Priority Date (GB 1219949.3) |
| 2016-10-11 | ’897 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024 (exact date unspecified) | Defendant displays accused product at National Restaurant Association trade show |
| 2024-07-11 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-08-09 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-12-23 | Plaintiff proposes edits to Defendant's non-disclosure agreement |
| 2025-02-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,462,897 - “Open-Fronted Cabinet”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional multi-tiered food display cabinets, which typically have either no temperature control or a single temperature regime for the entire unit. It notes that even in cabinets with zoned heating, heat transfer between shelves via conduction or convection makes it "very difficult to separate" refrigerated and heated areas within the same cabinet (’897 Patent, col. 1:7-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an open-fronted food cabinet built around an "interior chassis structure" composed of panels made from a "structural sandwich composite material having thermal insulation properties." This chassis, which includes a base, rear, top, and intermediate panels, provides both structural support and thermal barriers between different sections of the cabinet. This design allows for different portions to be independently heated or cooled, with a removable "cassette" mechanism mounted in a rear aperture to provide the temperature alteration (’897 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:30-41; Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows a single display unit to be configured with multiple, distinct temperature zones—for example, one shelf can be heated while another is chilled—without significant thermal interference between them (’897 Patent, col. 2:42-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An open fronted food storage cabinet with a defined interior space.
- An interior chassis structure comprising a base panel, a plurality of rear panels, a top panel, and at least one intermediate panel.
- The panels are mechanically connected to one another.
- The intermediate panel is positioned between adjacent rear panels to divide the interior space into a first and second portion.
- The base, rear, intermediate, and top panels are each formed from a "structural sandwich composite material having thermal insulation properties."
- At least one of the rear panels includes an aperture for a mounted temperature-altering mechanism.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief requests a judgment that Defendant has infringed "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶B).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Merco Market and/or Merco Merchandising Cabinet ('MMC')" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the MMC is an "open fronted food storage cabinet" that was "displayed and offered for sale" at the 2024 National Restaurant Association trade show (Compl. ¶14).
- The complaint describes the accused product's functionality using language that mirrors the patent claims, alleging it has "an interior chassis comprised of mechanically connected panels formed from a structural sandwich, dividing the interior space into portions, and an aperture in which a temperature altering mechanism is mounted" (Compl. ¶21). A photograph included in the complaint shows a multi-shelved, open-fronted commercial display unit (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The following table is constructed from the narrative allegations in the complaint.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An open fronted food storage cabinet having a top, rear, base and opposing sides... defining an interior space... accessible through an opening to the front of the cabinet... | The MMC is alleged to be an "open fronted food storage cabinet with a defined interior space, accessible through the front..." (Compl. p. 5). This is visually depicted in photographs of the accused product at a trade show. | ¶21 | col. 7:25-30 |
| wherein the cabinet includes an interior chassis structure comprised of a base panel, a plurality of rear panels, a top panel and at least one intermediate panel which are mechanically connected to one another, the at least one intermediate panel being positioned between adjacent ones of the plurality of rear panels to divide the interior space into a first portion and a second portion... | The MMC is alleged to have "an interior chassis comprised of mechanically connected panels... dividing the interior space into portions..." | ¶21 | col. 7:30-36 |
| wherein further the base, rear, intermediate and top panels are each formed from a structural sandwich composite material having thermal insulation properties... | The complaint alleges the panels of the MMC's interior chassis are "formed from a structural sandwich..." The complaint provides no specific evidence regarding the material composition of the MMC's panels. | ¶21 | col. 7:36-40 |
| and wherein further at least one of the rear panels includes an aperture to which a mechanism operable to alter the temperature within the interior space of the cabinet is mounted. | The complaint alleges the MMC has "an aperture in which a temperature altering mechanism is mounted." No specific detail is provided on the nature or location of this mechanism. | ¶21 | col. 7:40-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the MMC's internal shelving and walls constitute an "interior chassis structure" as that term is used in the patent, or if it is a more conventional cabinet assembly to which the claims do not read.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be the composition of the accused product's panels. The complaint alleges they are made from a "structural sandwich" material, but provides no supporting detail (’897 Patent, col. 7:38-39; Compl. ¶21). The case may depend on whether discovery reveals the MMC's panels are in fact a composite with a polymer core and metal skins, as described in the patent, or a more conventional material like solid metal or plastic.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "structural sandwich composite material having thermal insulation properties"
- Context and Importance: This term is a critical limitation in claim 1. Infringement hinges on whether the material used to construct the panels of the accused MMC meets this specific definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a point of novelty and is more specific than a generic "insulated panel."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is somewhat broad, requiring only a "structural sandwich composite material" with "thermal insulation properties" (’897 Patent, col. 7:38-39). A party could argue this covers any layered material that provides both structure and insulation, not just the specific examples in the specification.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, stating the material "may include an inner core of expanded polymer and outer metal layers," specifically mentioning "expanded polystyrene (EPS)" or "expanded polypropylene (EPP)" and "Aluminium alloy" skins (’897 Patent, col. 3:47-51, col. 4:62-65). A party could argue the claim should be limited to this class of materials, which are explicitly described as fulfilling the invention's purpose.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or induced infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement. The stated basis for willfulness includes allegations that Defendant copied Plaintiffs' commercial "Flexeserve Zone" cabinets and was aware of the ’897 Patent "at least as of the time of the 2024 National Restaurant Association trade show" (Compl. ¶¶15-16). The complaint also establishes post-suit knowledge by citing notice letters sent to Defendant on July 11 and August 9, 2024 (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of material composition: Does discovery show that the accused MMC is constructed from the "structural sandwich composite material" with a polymer core as specified in the patent, or does it use conventional materials that fall outside the claim scope?
- A second key question will be one of structural definition: Does the internal framework of the accused MMC meet the specific definition of a mechanically connected "interior chassis structure" as claimed, or is it a standard shelving arrangement that the patentee differentiated its invention from? The answer will likely depend on claim construction and a detailed technical comparison.