DCT

8:23-cv-00370

YETI Coolers LLC v. Bote LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:23-cv-00370, M.D. Fla., 02/17/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has advertised, offered for sale, and sold the accused products to customers within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s soft-sided coolers and tote bags infringe four utility patents and twenty-seven design patents related to insulating containers, bags, and drinkware accessories.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the high-performance portable cooler and accessories market, focusing on features that enhance durability, insulation, and water resistance in non-rigid containers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties had a prior business relationship, beginning around December 2010, where Defendant was an authorized promoter and seller of Plaintiff’s products. This history is presented as a basis for Defendant’s alleged knowledge of Plaintiff’s products and intellectual property rights.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-12-01 Approximate start of business relationship between YETI and Bote
2014-02-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’352, ’918, and ’422 Patents
2015-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,139,352 Issues
2017-02-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’741 Patent
2021-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,994,918 Issues
2021-11-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,172,741 Issues
2021-11-30 U.S. Patent No. 11,186,422 Issues
2023-02-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,139,352 - "Insulating Container"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,139,352, "Insulating Container," issued September 22, 2015 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating portable, non-rigid coolers that are substantially impervious to liquids, a feature typically associated with heavier, rigid containers (’352 Patent, col. 1:10-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an insulating container constructed with an outer shell, an inner liner, and a foam insulation layer "floating" between them. The core of the solution is a "substantially waterproof" closure that seals the container's opening, designed to prevent liquid from leaking out regardless of the container's orientation (’352 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-59).
  • Technical Importance: This approach combines the portability and light weight of soft-sided coolers with the waterproof reliability of hard-shelled coolers (Compl. ¶¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • An insulating container comprising:
    • an outer shell;
    • an inner liner forming a storage compartment;
    • a foam layer floating in between the outer shell and the inner liner, the foam layer providing insulation;
    • an opening extending through the outer shell and the inner liner;
    • a closure adapted to substantially seal the opening, the closure being substantially waterproof so as to resist liquid from exiting the opening when the insulating container is in any orientation.

U.S. Patent No. 10,994,918 - "Insulating Device and Method for Forming Insulating Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,994,918, "Insulating Device and Method for Forming Insulating Device," issued May 4, 2021 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the structural problem of a soft-sided cooler's lid bowing or deforming when the cooler is carried by a top handle, which can compromise the seal and durability (’918 Patent, col. 42:40-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an insulating device featuring a specialized lid assembly. This assembly includes not only an outer shell and inner liner but also a "reinforcement patch" and a "reinforcement panel," with the panel being more rigid than the shell or liner. The specific placement, size, and rigidity of these components relative to the top handle are configured to provide structural support and prevent the lid from bowing under load (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-44).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provides structural rigidity to a flexible lid, improving the cooler's durability and user experience, particularly when transported while full.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • An insulating device with an outer shell, inner liner, and an unattached foam insulating layer.
    • A substantially waterproof closure adapted to seal an opening to the storage compartment.
    • A lid assembly that includes an outer shell, inner liner, insulating layer, a top handle, a lid assembly reinforcement patch, and a lid assembly reinforcement panel.
    • A series of limitations defining the structural relationship, relative rigidity, and positioning of the handle, patch, and panel, configured to prevent the lid assembly from bowing when carried upright.

U.S. Patent No. 11,186,422 - "Insulating Device and Method for Forming Insulating Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,186,422, "Insulating Device and Method for Forming Insulating Device," issued November 30, 2021 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’422 Patent discloses an insulating device with a reinforced lid assembly similar to that of the ’918 Patent. It adds the requirement of a "base" that is more rigid than the device's outer shell and inner liner, providing structural integrity to both the top and bottom of the soft-sided container (Compl. ¶83; ’422 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶82).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the KULA Softy 2.5 and KULA Softy 5 Coolers infringe by incorporating an outer shell, inner liner, insulating layer, closure, a rigid base, and a reinforced lid assembly (Compl. ¶¶82, 85).

U.S. Patent No. 11,172,741 - "Tote Bag"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,172,741, "Tote Bag," issued November 16, 2021 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’741 Patent is directed to a tote bag with specific structural features, including a semi-rigid base to help it stand upright, reinforcement patches for the straps, a waterproof zippered inner pocket, and a "top tape material" configured to surround the opening's interior circumference. These elements combine to create a durable and highly functional tote bag (Compl. ¶93; ’741 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bote Highwater Tote infringes by including an outer shell, a plurality of straps and reinforcement patches, a semi-rigid base, a waterproof inner zippered pocket, and a top tape material structure (Compl. ¶¶92, 95).

Design Patents

  • Counts V through XXXI of the complaint assert infringement of twenty-seven separate U.S. Design Patents (Compl. ¶¶101-316). These patents cover the ornamental designs for bags (D822,997, D822,998, D822,999), bottles (e.g., D784,775, D799,906), lids (e.g., D760,586, D843,212), and beverage holders (e.g., D752,397, D779,285). The infringement allegations contend that the overall appearance of various accused Bote products—including the Highwater Tote, MAGNEBottle, and MAGNEKoozie products—is substantially the same as the designs claimed in these patents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names the KULA Softy 2.5 Cooler, KULA Softy 5 Cooler, Highwater Tote, MAGNETumbler 20oz and 32oz, MAGNEBottle 36oz, and MAGNEKoozie 12oz Shorty and Slim products (Compl. ¶54).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The KULA Softy Coolers are soft-sided insulating containers. Marketing materials included in the complaint describe them as being "constructed with watertight, heavy duty softshell filled with badass insulation" and featuring "a watertight zipper" that "won't leak a drop" (Compl. ¶55; Illustration 34). Cross-sectional images provided in the complaint depict a thick foam layer sandwiched between an outer shell and an inner liner (Compl. Illustration 32).
  • The Highwater Tote is a tote bag featuring an outer shell, carrying straps, and an interior compartment with a pocket (Compl. Illustration 35).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant introduced its accused coolers, bags, and drinkware after Plaintiff had launched its commercially successful Hopper® coolers, Camino® bags, and Rambler® drinkware, suggesting the accused products are intended to compete directly with Plaintiff's established product lines (Compl. ¶59).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'9,139,352 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an outer shell; The accused KULA Softy coolers have an outer shell. ¶65 col. 2:38-44
an inner liner forming a storage compartment; The accused KULA Softy coolers have an inner liner that forms a storage compartment. ¶65 col. 2:38-44
a foam layer floating in between the outer shell and the inner liner, the foam layer providing insulation; The accused coolers have an insulation layer, which includes a foam layer positioned between the outer shell and inner liner. ¶65 col. 2:45-49
an opening extending through the outer shell and the inner liner; The accused coolers have an opening that provides access to the storage compartment. ¶65 col. 2:50-51
a closure adapted to substantially seal the opening, the closure being substantially waterproof... The accused coolers have what Defendant describes as a "watertight zipper" that "won't leak a drop." ¶65 col. 2:52-59

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the term "floating." A central question for the court will be whether the foam layer in the accused coolers is unattached in a manner consistent with the patent's use of "floating," or if it is laminated, adhered, or otherwise fixed in a way that places it outside the claim scope.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused product's zipper is "substantially waterproof" to the extent required by the claim, which specifies resistance to liquid exiting "when the insulating container is in any orientation"? The complaint relies on Defendant's marketing slogans, but factual testing and analysis of the zipper's construction will be determinative.

'10,994,918 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...an insulating layer... wherein the insulating layer is an unattached foam layer; The accused coolers are alleged to contain an unattached foam layer for insulation. ¶75 col. 3:56-61
...a lid assembly [including] a lid assembly reinforcement patch, a lid assembly reinforcement panel... and a top handle... The accused coolers allegedly include a lid assembly with a top handle and reinforcement structures corresponding to the claimed patch and panel. ¶75 col. 4:1-10
...the lid assembly reinforcement panel is more rigid than the lid assembly inner liner and... more rigid than the lid assembly outer shell... The reinforcement panel within the accused cooler's lid is alleged to be more rigid than its inner liner and outer shell components. ¶75 col. 4:18-22
...the second area is greater than the first area such that the lid assembly reinforcement panel is configured to assist in preventing the lid assembly from bowing... The relative sizes and positioning of the reinforcement elements are alleged to be configured to prevent the lid from bowing when carried. ¶75 col. 4:39-44

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A key dispute may arise over whether the internal components of the accused cooler lid can be mapped to the distinct "reinforcement patch" and "reinforcement panel" elements required by the claim, each with specific locations, relative sizes, and rigidity properties.
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused product contain two distinct reinforcement components as claimed, or a single integrated component? The complaint provides a cross-sectional view of the accused cooler, but a detailed tear-down and materials analysis would be needed to verify the existence, composition, and relative rigidity of the separate patch and panel structures as recited in claim 1 (Compl. Illustration 32).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "floating" (’352 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the structural relationship between the foam insulation and the container's shell and liner. The infringement analysis for the ’352 Patent depends on whether the accused cooler's foam layer is "floating" or is instead affixed, laminated, or otherwise attached.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the foam layer as simply being "disposed between" the shell and liner, which does not inherently require a complete lack of contact or friction fitting (’352 Patent, col. 2:45-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself implies a lack of attachment. A related patent in the same family, the asserted ’918 Patent, uses the synonymous phrase "unattached foam layer," suggesting the intended meaning is a layer not adhered or welded to the shell or liner (’918 Patent, col. 3:59).

The Term: "lid assembly reinforcement panel" (’918 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because claim 1 requires both a "reinforcement patch" and a "reinforcement panel" with distinct characteristics. The definition of "panel" is critical to determining if the accused lid, which may have its own reinforcement structure, meets this specific, multi-component limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the panel's primary function is to "assist in preventing the lid assembly from bowing" (’918 Patent, col. 4:42-44). A party could argue that any internal lid component that performs this stiffening function and meets the claim's location and relative rigidity requirements constitutes the "panel."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly distinguishes the "panel" from the "patch" based on position (panel is "below a lower surface of the lid assembly outer shell"), area (panel's area is greater than patch's area), and parallel orientation to the handle (’918 Patent, col. 4:1-44). A party could argue that these specific structural requirements narrow the term to a component that is distinct from the patch and meets all listed criteria.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant’s marketing materials and hang tags for the KULA Softy coolers actively promote the infringing features, such as the "watertight zipper" and "insulation," which may support a claim of inducement (Compl. ¶55; Illustration 34).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's products and patented technology, derived from a prior business relationship where Defendant was an authorized seller of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 60, 67). Plaintiff also cites the timing of Defendant's product launches and the alleged similarity of the products as evidence of intentional and malicious conduct (Compl. ¶59).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: can the specific, multi-part reinforcement structure recited in the lid assembly claims of the ’918 and ’422 Patents—requiring a distinct "patch" and a "panel" with defined relative properties—be mapped onto the internal components of the accused KULA Softy cooler lids?
  • A key question of definitional scope will concern the term "floating" in the ’352 Patent. The case may turn on whether the method of construction used in the accused coolers results in a foam layer that is unattached to the inner liner and outer shell in a manner consistent with the patent's language.
  • The allegations of willfulness will likely depend on the factual record developed regarding the parties' prior business relationship. A central question will be what specific knowledge of Plaintiff's patented technology, as opposed to general knowledge of its commercial products, Defendant possessed before launching the accused products.