DCT
4:25-cv-00148
North Atlantic Imports LLC v. LoCo Crazy Good Cookers Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: North Atlantic Imports, LLC d/b/a Blackstone (Utah)
- Defendant: LoCo – Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. d/b/a LoCo Cookers (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00148, D. Del., 09/08/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and allegedly distributes and sells the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s propane griddles infringe a patent related to controlling convective heat flow, and further alleges false advertising and false marking based on Defendant's claims that its products contain "patented" technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses heat management in gas-powered outdoor griddles, a significant segment of the consumer outdoor cooking market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on August 24, 2022, informing Defendant of the alleged infringement. This event is cited as establishing pre-suit knowledge for the purposes of willful infringement allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-05-04 | ’473 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-05-26 | ’473 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-08-24 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2023-09-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,660,473, System, Device and Method for Controlling Convective Heating of a Griddle, issued May 26, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies issues with conventional outdoor griddles placed over flame burners, including poor temperature control over different portions of the cooking surface and dangerous convective heat "bellowing around the front of the griddle" toward the user (’473 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a cooking griddle with a specific ribbing structure on its underside. This structure includes a front rib and multiple lateral ribs that extend from the front to the back (’473 Patent, col. 2:6-12). This rib system creates distinct heating zones corresponding to the burners below and is designed to channel, or "funnel," hot air toward openings at the rear of the griddle, thereby preventing it from escaping at the front and sides where the user stands (’473 Patent, col. 2:16-21; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to offer improved user safety and more precise regional cooking temperature control by actively managing the flow of convective heat generated by the burners (’473 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (’473 Patent, col. 10:17-49; Compl. ¶36).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A frame with front, rear, left, and right sides.
- Multiple burners extending between the front and rear sides of the frame.
- A griddle suspended by the frame, having a cooking surface and an underside surface.
- The griddle includes a front rib and multiple lateral ribs on its underside.
- The lateral ribs are spaced to define multiple heating regions, with each region having a burner positioned below it.
- The lateral ribs extend downward to "funnel convection heat" from the burners toward the rear of the griddle.
- The front and lateral ribs are "integrally formed with the underside surface of the griddle."
- The multiple lateral ribs "directly extend from the underside surface" and are "spaced and separate from an adjacent lateral rib."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "LoCo Propane Griddles," specifically citing Model Nos. LCG3ST3C36 and LCG1STTC36, as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶2, 18). An image from the owner's manual for the "36" 3-Burner Patented SmartTemp™ Precision Griddle" is included in the complaint (Compl. p. 6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are cooking systems that "closely imitate the technology of the '473 Patent" and compete directly with Plaintiff's products, sometimes being sold at the same retailers (Compl. ¶35). The complaint includes screenshots of Defendant’s advertising, which claims its "patented SmartTemp technology" allows users to set and maintain precise cooking temperatures (Compl. p. 5). These advertisements are presented as evidence for separate false advertising claims but also contribute to the allegation of Defendant’s knowledge of patented technology in the field (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’473 Patent (Compl. ¶36). The core allegations from paragraph 37 of the complaint are summarized below.
’473 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame extending with a front side, a rear side, a left side, and a right side... | The Accused Products have a frame extending with a front, rear, left, and right side. | ¶37 | col. 4:56-64 |
| multiple burners coupled to and extending between the front side and the rear side of the frame; | The Accused Products have multiple burners coupled to and extending between the front and rear sides of the frame. | ¶37 | col. 5:18-24 |
| a griddle sized to be suspended by the frame... the griddle having a cooking surface and an underside surface... | The Accused Products have a griddle sized to be suspended by the frame with a cooking surface and an underside surface. | ¶37 | col. 8:10-18 |
| the griddle including a front rib and multiple lateral ribs, the front rib extending along the front end of the underside surface, and the multiple lateral ribs extending along the underside surface from the front rib to the rear end of the underside surface... | The Accused Products' griddle includes a front rib and multiple lateral ribs extending along the underside surface. | ¶37 | col. 7:9-25 |
| the multiple lateral ribs being spaced from each other so as to define multiple heating regions... each of the heating regions includes one of the multiple burners positioned below... | The lateral ribs are spaced to define multiple heating regions, each with a burner positioned below it. | ¶37 | col. 8:1-4 |
| each of the lateral ribs extend downward from the underside surface a height so as to funnel convection heat from any one of the multiple burners toward the rear end of the underside surface of the griddle... | The lateral ribs extend downward a height to funnel convection heat from the burners toward the rear end of the griddle's underside surface. | ¶37 | col. 9:12-29 |
| wherein the front rib and the multiple lateral ribs are integrally formed with the underside surface of the griddle; | The front and lateral ribs are integrally formed with the underside surface of the griddle. | ¶37 | col. 10:42-44 |
| wherein the multiple lateral ribs directly extend from the underside surface of the griddle such that each lateral rib is spaced and separate from an adjacent lateral rib. | The lateral ribs directly extend from the griddle's underside surface and are spaced and separate from each other. | ¶37 | col. 10:45-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "integrally formed." The analysis will question whether this term requires the ribs and griddle surface to be manufactured as a single, monolithic piece (e.g., via casting), or if it can be construed to read on components that are manufactured separately and then permanently joined (e.g., via welding).
- Technical Questions: The functional limitation "to funnel convection heat" will likely be a key point of contention. The case may turn on what evidence is presented to show that the accused griddle's rib structure performs this specific function of drawing heat toward the rear, as opposed to merely providing structural support or passive heat distribution.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "integrally formed"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the method used to manufacture the Accused Products—specifically, how the ribs are attached to the griddle plate—will determine literal infringement of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because different manufacturing processes (e.g., casting vs. welding) could lead to non-infringement arguments.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses forming the "ribbing structure" and then having it "coupled to the underside surface of the griddle 12 with known techniques, such as welding" (’473 Patent, col. 10:60-63). This language may support an interpretation that "integrally formed" does not require a single-piece construction and can include permanently joined components.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of metal fabrication, "integrally formed" implies that the parts are created as a single, continuous unit from the same piece of material, distinguishing it from an assembly of "coupled" or welded parts.
The Term: "funnel convection heat"
Context and Importance: This functional language defines the primary purpose of the claimed rib structure. Infringement will depend not just on the presence of ribs, but on whether those ribs operate to channel heat in the claimed manner.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the invention as "channeling the convection heat," and the detailed description states the arrangement "draws the convection heat" toward the rear (’473 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:19-20). This could support a more general interpretation of active heat direction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific mechanism for this funneling: the ribs, in combination with rear openings, create a "path of least resistance" that directs heat flow toward the rear side of the frame (’473 Patent, col. 9:15-29). An argument could be made that the term requires this specific structural and functional cooperation, not just any incidental redirection of heat.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct, contributory, and inducement infringement (Compl. ¶38). It does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how Defendant's actions constitute contributory or induced infringement beyond the general allegations of making and selling the Accused Products.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued infringement despite having knowledge of the ’473 Patent "as late as August 24, 2022," the date Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter (Compl. ¶¶19, 20, 38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of several key technical and legal questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "integrally formed," as used in Claim 1, be construed to cover the specific manufacturing process used for the Accused Products, particularly if the ribs and griddle plate are not cast as a single unit?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused griddle’s underside structure perform the specific function of "funnel[ing] convection heat" toward the rear, as required by the claim, or does it operate in a fundamentally different way that falls outside the patent’s scope?
- A third question relates to damages and intent: given the allegations of a pre-suit cease-and-desist letter and Defendant’s public claims of "patented" technology, the court will examine whether Defendant's conduct rises to the level of willful infringement, which could expose it to enhanced damages.