DCT
6:25-cv-01661
BruMate Inc v. Corkcicle LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BruMate, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Corkcicle Capital Group, LLC (Florida) and 1300 Brookhaven, LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wolter, Van Dyke, Davis PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:25-cv-01661, M.D. Fla., 10/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and maintain a regular and established place of business within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Leakproof Cruiser" insulated beverage container infringes a patent related to a no-spill, rotatable straw and lid mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology operates within the highly competitive consumer market for portable, insulated drinkware, where features enhancing convenience and preventing spills are significant product differentiators.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to a predecessor entity of the Defendant on March 7, 2025, providing notice of pending patent applications related to the technology-in-suit and Plaintiff's infringement concerns. The complaint also notes a corporate transaction where Defendant 1300 Brookhaven, LLC sold its assets to Defendant Corkcicle Capital Group, LLC on August 22, 2025.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-07-26 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,384,613 |
| 2025-03-07 | Plaintiff's counsel sends notice letter regarding related patent applications to Defendant's predecessor |
| 2025-08-12 | U.S. Patent No. 12384613 issues |
| 2025-08-22 | Defendant 1300 Brookhaven, LLC sells assets to Defendant Corkcicle Capital Group, LLC |
| 2025-10-02 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,384,613 - "No Spill Straw"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,384,613, "No Spill Straw", issued August 12, 2025 (the "’613 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that lids for travel beverage containers are often not fully leak-proof, and those that are may require cumbersome, two-handed operation (’613 Patent, col. 1:24-32). Conventional straw-based lids, in particular, present a potential source of leakage (’613 Patent, col. 1:65-col. 2:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lid system featuring a straw mechanism that can be removably inserted into a body portion and rotated between a sealed, "closed state" and a "dispensing state" (’613 Patent, col. 1:47-53). To ensure proper assembly and sealing, the straw mechanism includes ridges that function as keys, which must align with corresponding notches in the lid's body, permitting insertion in only a single orientation (’613 Patent, col. 6:33-38). This rotation aligns or misaligns fluid openings to prevent or allow beverage flow, and the entire mechanism can be disassembled for cleaning (’613 Patent, col. 2:5-8; FIG. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to offer the convenience of a straw with the security of a leak-proof seal, operated through a simple rotational motion, addressing a key usability challenge in the portable drinkware market.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 20, as well as independent claim 11 and its dependents 12-18 (’613 Patent, col. 9:29-col. 12:24; Compl. ¶16).
- Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- A lid structure comprising a body portion with an engagement cavity and a first fluid opening.
- A straw mechanism that is removably inserted into the cavity.
- The straw mechanism includes a bottom portion with at least two protruding ridges sized to pass through corresponding notches in the cavity, allowing for insertion in only a single orientation.
- The straw mechanism includes a spout portion with a second fluid opening.
- The straw mechanism is rotatable within the cavity between an open state (where the openings align for fluid flow) and a closed state (where the first opening is blocked to inhibit fluid flow).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Leakproof Cruiser" insulated tumbler (the "Cruiser Product") (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Cruiser Product incorporates a patented mechanism "whereby a portion of the lid structure can be rotated to effectively open and close the lid structure" (Compl. ¶14). A photograph of the accused "Cruiser Product" lid shows a central straw emerging from a component that appears to be rotatable within the main lid body (Compl. p. 5). The complaint positions the accused product as a direct market competitor to Plaintiff's own "Era" branded tumblers, which allegedly practice the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶12, 20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint states that a detailed claim chart is provided as Exhibit B; however, this exhibit was not available for analysis. The following table is constructed based on the narrative infringement allegations contained within the complaint (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
’613 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body portion having a top side that defines an engagement cavity sized to receive a straw mechanism, and a first opening offset from a central axis of the body portion... | The Cruiser Product contains a gasket with a body portion defining an engagement cavity for a straw mechanism and a first opening for fluid communication. | ¶16 | col. 9:30-35 |
| a straw mechanism configured to be removably inserted into the engagement cavity... | The Cruiser Product includes a straw mechanism that is removably inserted into the engagement cavity. | ¶16 | col. 9:35-38 |
| ...the straw mechanism including a bottom portion having at least two protruding ridges, each protruding ridge being sized and arranged to pass through a corresponding notch formed on or within the engagement cavity so that the straw mechanism can be fully inserted only in a single orientation... | The straw mechanism of the Cruiser Product has a bottom portion with at least two protruding ridges that pass through corresponding notches, permitting insertion in a single orientation. | ¶16 | col. 9:39-44 |
| ...and a spout portion having a distal end surface that presents a second opening offset from the central axis... | The straw mechanism of the Cruiser Product has a spout portion with a second opening. | ¶16 | col. 9:44-46 |
| ...wherein the straw mechanism is rotatable within the engagement cavity between an open state in which the second opening is aligned with the first opening...and a closed state in which the first opening is blocked to inhibit fluid flow. | The straw mechanism of the Cruiser Product is rotatable between an open state where the openings align to permit fluid flow and a closed state where the first opening is blocked to inhibit flow. | ¶16 | col. 9:46-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's features meet the specific structural limitations of the claims. For instance, does the accused product's receiving structure constitute an "engagement cavity" with "notches" as described in the patent, and does its straw mechanism possess "protruding ridges" that perform the claimed keying function for "single orientation" insertion?
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Cruiser Product’s mechanism achieves a "closed state in which the first opening is blocked to inhibit fluid flow." An evidentiary dispute may arise over whether the accused device actually "blocks" the opening in the manner required by the claim or operates via a different sealing mechanism that falls outside the claim's scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "engagement cavity"
Context and Importance: This term defines the interface between the stationary lid body and the rotatable straw mechanism. Its construction will be critical, as the specific features of the cavity (e.g., notches, stop tabs) are tied to the key limitations of single-orientation insertion and limited rotation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a functional definition: "an engagement cavity sized to receive a straw mechanism" (’613 Patent, col. 9:31-32). Plaintiff may argue this covers any recess that receives and allows rotation of the straw component.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the cavity (308) as a structure with specific features, including notches (322, 324) and stop tabs (320) that enable the claimed functionality (’613 Patent, FIG. 4; col. 6:31-49). Defendant may argue that these disclosed features are integral to the term's meaning.
The Term: "protruding ridges"
Context and Importance: This term describes the "key" part of the mechanism that ensures single-orientation assembly. Whether the accused product's corresponding structures can be defined as "protruding ridges" will be a likely point of non-infringement argument.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. Plaintiff may argue it reads on any protrusions on the straw mechanism that mate with corresponding features on the lid body to control alignment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the ridges (404, 406) as having different lengths to ensure insertion in only one way (’613 Patent, col. 6:26-38). Dependent claim 2 further specifies the ridges are of "different sizes." Defendant may argue that this specific structural configuration, disclosed as the solution to the orientation problem, confines the scope of the term in Claim 1.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It asserts pre-suit knowledge based on a March 7, 2025 notice letter regarding the patent family, as well as the alleged "identicality" of the accused product to Plaintiff's own commercial product (Compl. ¶¶18, 20). Post-suit knowledge is inherent from the filing of the complaint itself. These allegations form the basis for the claim that Defendants acted with "intentional disregard for the Patent" (Compl. ¶¶20, 27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "protruding ridges", as described in the patent's embodiment with different lengths to create a keying system, be construed to cover the specific alignment mechanism used in the accused "Cruiser Product"? The case may turn on whether these specific structural details are read into the independent claim.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what factual evidence will be presented to prove that the accused product’s sealing mechanism functions by "block[ing]" the "first opening" as required by the claim, versus operating through an alternative method of inhibiting fluid flow that may not meet the literal claim language? The resolution will depend on a detailed technical comparison of the two devices.