Griot's Garage Inc v. Shurhold Industries Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Griot's Garage, Inc. (Washington)
  • Defendant: Shurhold Industries, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Holland & Knight LLP; Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
• Case Identification: 9:18-cv-81035, S.D. Fla., 08/02/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant has its principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Ultimate One Bucket System" infringes a patent related to a wash bucket with an integrated system for measuring detergent and water to achieve a proper cleaning ratio.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a common problem in automotive and other washing applications: ensuring the correct mixture of concentrated detergent and water for optimal and safe cleaning.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant regarding the alleged infringement on or around December 8, 2017, nearly eight months prior to filing the lawsuit. This letter forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-04-16	'963 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2012-02-07	'963 Patent Issue Date
2017-12-08	Plaintiff's notice letter sent to Defendant
2018-08-02	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,108,963, WASH BUCKET WITH INTEGRAL MEASURING, issued February 7, 2012.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that when using wash buckets, individuals often "guestimate" the amount of detergent, leading to inconsistent, improper, and wasteful mixtures of detergent and water ('963 Patent, col. 2:42-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a wash bucket system designed to ensure a predetermined and proper ratio of detergent to water. It achieves this by providing an integrated measuring cup within the bucket, which is used in conjunction with corresponding fill marks on the bucket's side wall ('963 Patent, col. 3:1-11). A user adds detergent to a fill line on the cup and then adds water to a corresponding fill line on the bucket, ensuring the correct mixture ('963 Patent, col. 4:50-57). In many embodiments, the cup is held by a perforated shelf that allows dirt to settle below it, away from the wash mitt ('963 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:56-62).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides an all-in-one solution that removes the need for separate measuring cups and the "tedious fractional math" that might otherwise be required to achieve a correct detergent-to-water ratio ('963 Patent, col. 2:41-42).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint specifically asserts independent Claim 3, while reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶12).
  • Independent Claim 3 includes these essential elements:
    • A bucket with a bucket wall defining a bucket cavity.
    • A cup with an open upper end, positioned below the bucket's upper end, allowing detergent to be placed in the cup and water to be added to the bucket, rising above the cup to create a mixture.
    • A shelf positioned in the bucket cavity and coupled with the bucket wall.
    • The shelf divides the bucket into upper and lower portions and has holes to allow communication of water and detergent.
    • The shelf supports the cup above the lower bucket cavity.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused product as the "Ultimate One Bucket System" (Compl. ¶12).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused product as a "wash bucket with integral measuring" (Compl. ¶12). It is alleged to be manufactured, used, sold, and offered for sale by the Defendant in the United States and abroad, both directly and through distributors (Compl. ¶12, ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the product's construction or operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B, which was not included in the public filing, illustrating how the accused "Ultimate One Bucket System" allegedly infringes Claim 3 (Compl. ¶12). The complaint's narrative infringement theory is that the Defendant's product contains all elements of at least Claim 3 of the '963 Patent (Compl. ¶12, ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "shelf." The claim requires a "shelf" that is "coupled with the bucket wall" and "support[s] the cup." The litigation may turn on whether the accused product's structure meets this definition, particularly if it is a simple, removable, drop-in component.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the system to be capable of producing a "predetermined ratio" of detergent and water. A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product is designed and functions in this specific manner, as opposed to simply being a bucket with a removable insert. The complaint does not specify how the accused product achieves this claimed functional result.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a shelf positioned in the bucket cavity and coupled with the bucket wall" (from Claim 3)

• Context and Importance: This combined term is the structural heart of Claim 3. The definition of "shelf" and the nature of the required "coupling" will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical implementation of this element in the accused product will likely be a primary point of non-infringement argument.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a "lower grate or shelf" (e.g., '963 Patent, col. 3:35) and notes that in some embodiments the shelf is "removable" and "held in place laterally by the bucket side wall" ('963 Patent, col. 3:49-50). This could support an argument that "coupled" does not require a permanent or fixed attachment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Other language describes the shelf resting on a "small ledge" (col. 3:39-41) or being positioned by "vertical guide rails" (col. 3:45-48). Dependent claim 8 specifies the cup is "fixedly attached to the shelf." A defendant could argue these specific embodiments narrow the scope of "shelf" and "coupled" to structures more integrated than a simple drop-in component.

• The Term: "predetermined ratio" (from Claim 3)

• Context and Importance: This functional language is what distinguishes the invention from a generic bucket. The infringement case depends on showing the accused product is designed to achieve this result.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes achieving the ratio simply by filling the cup with detergent and the bucket with water, allowing them to mix ('963 Patent, col. 8:58-64). Plaintiff may argue that any bucket with a contained cup of a known volume is inherently capable of creating a "predetermined ratio."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses corresponding "bucket fill marks" and "cup fill marks" that work together to achieve the ratio ('963 Patent, col. 4:45-57). A defendant may argue that a product lacking such corresponding markings cannot produce a "predetermined" ratio as taught and claimed by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued infringing activities after receiving a notice letter from Plaintiff on or about December 8, 2017 (Compl. ¶13, ¶18). This alleged pre-suit knowledge is the foundation for the request for enhanced damages.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "shelf... coupled with the bucket wall" be construed to read on what may be a simple, non-fastened, removable insert in the accused product? The resolution of this construction will likely be dispositive.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functionality: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused "Ultimate One Bucket System" is not merely a bucket with a cup holder, but is specifically designed and used to "produce a combination of the detergent and water in the predetermined ratio," as required by the claim?
• Finally, the allegation of willfulness will depend on the contents of the December 2017 notice letter and Defendant's actions subsequent to its receipt, introducing questions of both knowledge and intent.