Cambria Co LLC v. Ohm Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cambria Company LLC (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: OHM International Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01543, D. Del., 12/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s engineered quartz slabs infringe three patents related to the ornamental design and manufacturing process for slabs featuring complex, veined patterns.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on engineered quartz surfaces, a composite material used for high-end countertops and surfaces, designed to emulate the aesthetic qualities of natural quarried stone.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-00-00	Plaintiff Cambria introduces its "Coastal Collection" of quartz designs
2015-01-30	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2019-02-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,195,762 is issued
2019-04-09	U.S. Patent No. 10,252,440 is issued
2025-07-29	U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718 is issued
2025-12-19	Complaint is filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,195,762 - "Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while engineered stone offers improved physical properties over quarried stone, it often falls "noticeably short of the complicated look and texture of quarried stone" such as marble or granite (’762 Patent, col. 1:35-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method for creating synthetic slabs with complex, repeatable veining patterns. This is achieved by sequentially depositing two or more differently colored particulate mineral mixes (e.g., quartz and resin binder) into a single slab mold using a series of complementary stencils. This process creates distinct regions of color that extend through the thickness of the slab, which are then compacted and cured to form the final product (’762 Patent, col. 2:1-21; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables the mass production of engineered stone slabs that have consistent, predefined veining patterns, allowing a manufacturer to replicate the desirable aesthetics of rare natural stone across numerous products (’762 Patent, col. 4:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 22 (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of independent claim 22 are:
  • A processed slab with a rectangular shape of at least 2 feet by 6 feet.
  • The slab's major surface is defined by a set of at least a first and a second different particulate mineral mix.
  • The first mix occupies the entire slab thickness at a "set of first regions," which includes a vein in a "generally widthwise direction" and a second vein in a "generally lengthwise direction."
  • The second mix occupies the entire slab thickness at a "set of second regions."
  • The first mix is absent from the second regions, and the second mix is absent from the first regions.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,252,440 - "Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’762 Patent, the ’440 Patent addresses the difficulty of creating engineered stone that emulates the complex, non-uniform appearance of natural quarried stone in a repeatable manufacturing process (’440 Patent, col. 1:35-39).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims a process for forming a veined slab. The method involves sequentially dispensing a first pigmented particulate mix through a first stencil into a slab mold, and then dispensing a second, different mix through a second, complementary stencil into the remaining regions of the mold. The combined mixes are then subjected to vibration and compaction to form the final, solid slab (’440 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This patented process provides a defined, repeatable manufacturing method for creating engineered slabs with predetermined, complex veining patterns that can be reproduced consistently across multiple molds (’440 Patent, col. 4:11-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 14, which recites only method steps (Compl. ¶¶15, 30).
• The essential elements of independent claim 14 are:
  • A process of forming a processed slab.
  • Sequentially dispensing at least a first and a second different pigmented particulate mineral mix into a slab mold.
  • The first mix is dispensed into a first set of regions, and the second mix is dispensed into a second, different set of regions.
  • Vibrating and compacting the mixes to form a rectangular processed slab of at least 3 feet by 6 feet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718 - "Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718, titled “Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto,” issued on July 29, 2025 (the “’718 Patent”).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family as the other asserted patents, claims a slab product defined by its specific aesthetic structure. The claims describe a "main interconnected material" that forms an irregular, branching channel, and a "plurality of interstitial material portions" located within that channel, creating a complex, veined appearance that extends through the slab’s thickness (’718 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:19-38).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶38).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the visual and structural characteristics of the Defendant’s processed slabs, such as the "Giselle" design, embody the claimed configuration of a main branching material and distinct interstitial portions (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as processed quartz slabs sold by Defendant OHM International Inc. at least under the “Valiant” brand name, providing the “Giselle” design as a specific, non-limiting example (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are engineered stone slabs intended for use as countertops and other decorative surfaces (Compl. ¶¶7, 17). The complaint includes an image of the accused "Giselle" product, showing a light-colored slab with prominent, dark, branching veins that create a marble-like appearance (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges that the Accused Products were created to copy Plaintiff's commercially successful products and are manufactured using a process that infringes the ’440 Patent, resulting in a physical slab that infringes the ’762 and ’718 Patents (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as Exhibits D, E, and F, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶22, 30, 38). Therefore, the following is a summary of the narrative infringement theory presented in the body of the complaint.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the Defendant’s "Giselle" slab, and other similar products, possess the physical structure claimed in the ’762 and ’718 Patents and are made by the method claimed in the ’440 Patent (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides an image of the accused "Giselle" product as exemplary visual evidence of the infringing veined design (Compl. ¶18). For the ’762 Patent, the complaint alleges the "Giselle" product is a slab with different particulate mixes forming distinct regions that include veins running in both lengthwise and widthwise directions, as required by claim 22 (Compl. ¶22; ’762 Patent, cl. 22). For the ’440 Patent, the complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the Accused Products are manufactured using a method of sequential dispensing and compaction as claimed, thereby infringing process claim 14 (Compl. ¶30; ’440 Patent, cl. 14). For the ’718 Patent, the complaint alleges the "Giselle" product's appearance corresponds to the claimed structure of a "main interconnected material" and "interstitial material portions" (Compl. ¶38; ’718 Patent, cl. 9).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the irregular, branching patterns in the accused "Giselle" product meet the specific geometric limitations of the asserted claims. For the ’762 Patent, this raises the question of whether the product contains distinct veins that can be characterized as running in "generally widthwise" and "generally lengthwise" directions. For the ’718 Patent, the dispute may focus on whether the product’s visual elements can be discretely categorized as a single "main interconnected material" and separate "interstitial material portions."
  • Technical Questions: Infringement of the ’440 method patent will present an evidentiary question. What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant uses the claimed process of sequential stenciling, as opposed to another manufacturing method that could achieve a similar aesthetic result? The infringement allegation for this patent appears to be based on an inference from the final product's appearance, a theory that will likely be tested during discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "occupies the entire slab thickness" (’762 Patent, cl. 22)

• Context and Importance: This term is used in claim 22 of the ’762 Patent to describe the spatial arrangement of the first and second particulate mixes. Its construction is critical because it defines the vertical extent of the claimed veining pattern. The dispute may turn on whether this requires perfect, unadulterated columns of each material or if it allows for some blending or partial-depth features. The patent’s description of creating a natural look even when cut suggests the through-body nature of the veins is a key feature (’762 Patent, col. 6:58-62).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general description of the process involves "vertically" pouring mixes, which could support an interpretation where the fundamental character of a region is defined by a single mix from top to bottom, even with minor boundary imperfections (’762 Patent, col. 5:18-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "entire slab thickness" and the depiction of sharply defined, non-overlapping regions in patent figures may support a stricter construction requiring complete and exclusive occupation of a vertical column by a single mix (’762 Patent, Figs. 2B, 3B, 5B, 5D).

The Term: "a first vein in a generally widthwise direction . . . and a second vein in a generally lengthwise direction" (’762 Patent, cl. 22)

• Context and Importance: This language from claim 22 requires a specific geometric orientation for at least two veins in the slab. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused "Giselle" product displays a complex, branching, and seemingly random pattern (Compl. ¶18). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether elements of this pattern can be fairly characterized as aligning with the slab's primary axes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "generally" suggests the claim does not require perfectly straight or orthogonal veins. The patent’s stated goal of emulating "natural quarried stone" (’762 Patent, col. 5:48-51), which is inherently irregular, could support construing this term to cover veins that meander but have an overall directional trend.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "vein" implies a continuous, identifiable feature and that "generally widthwise" requires the primary axis of that entire feature to be oriented across the slab’s width, not just a small segment of a larger, multi-directional network.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis for inducement is Defendant’s alleged active promotion of the Accused Products through marketing materials, its website, and its sales and distribution channels, which are said to encourage infringing sales and uses (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 31-32, 39-40).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the patents and its infringement since "at least the filing of this Complaint" and has failed to cease its infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶27-28, 35-36, 43-44).

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

• A central issue will be one of process versus product inference: For the ’440 method patent, can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence—either through discovery or reverse engineering—to demonstrate that the accused slab’s specific veined structure can only be achieved by the claimed method of sequential stenciling, or will the Defendant be able to show that alternative, non-infringing manufacturing techniques could yield a visually similar outcome?
• A key factual question will be one of structural interpretation: Do the irregular, organic patterns of the accused "Giselle" slab satisfy the specific geometric and structural limitations recited in the product claims? This will likely require the court to determine if the product’s features can be mapped to the ’762 Patent’s requirement for distinct "widthwise" and "lengthwise" veins and the ’718 Patent’s claim of a "main interconnected material" distinct from surrounding "interstitial" portions.