DCT
3:24-cv-02043
BruMate Inc v. Frost Buddy LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Brumate Inc (Delaware)
- Defendant: Frost Buddy LLC (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichel Stohry Dean LLP
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-02043, S.D. Ill., 09/18/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Southern District of Illinois on the basis that Defendant is an Illinois company that resides in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Universal Buddy" and "Universal Buddy XL" insulated beverage containers infringe a patent related to multi-component beverage container systems, and also alleges copyright infringement of two decorative designs.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to insulated beverage holders ("koozies") designed with interchangeable components to accommodate beverage cans of different sizes or to function as a standalone tumbler.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent a demand letter to Defendant on November 28, 2023, putting Defendant on notice of the patent. Subsequent discussions between the parties allegedly failed to resolve the dispute.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-02-23 | ’873 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-10-03 | ’873 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-11-28 | Plaintiff sends demand letter to Defendant |
| 2024-03-04 | Effective registration date for "OL Design" copyright |
| 2024-09-10 | Effective registration date for "GL Design" copyright |
| 2024-09-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,772,873 - "Beverage Systems and Kits and Methods of Using the Same"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market gap where existing insulated containers were not configured to hold a secondary beverage container (e.g., a can), and existing flexible "koozies" lacked lids or other compatible parts for versatile use (’873 Patent, col. 1:30-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular beverage system comprising a main container, a removable threaded gasket, and a size adapter. This configuration allows the system to securely hold beverage cans of different sizes (e.g., 12 oz. or 16 oz.) by either using or removing the adapter, with the threaded gasket securing the can in place (’873 Patent, FIG. 1, col. 9:11-34). The container can also be used with a separate lid (not part of the asserted claim) to function as a conventional tumbler (’873 Patent, col. 5:49-55).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a single, rigid, insulated product capable of adapting to multiple standard beverage can sizes, a feature not typically found in prior art travel mugs or simple koozies (’873 Patent, col. 1:41-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15 (Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A container that is vacuum-sealed, having a bottom wall, an inner cylindrical wall, and a threaded section.
- A gasket having a threaded element coupled to a curved element.
- The threaded element is made of a first material, has a specific flange structure, and is adapted to removably couple to the container's threaded section.
- The curved element is made of a second, different material, extends from a top to a side of the gasket, and is adapted to contact a beverage container.
- A size adapter removably received within the container, featuring a circumferential wall and a bottom planar surface, which is adapted to contact the container in such a way that its bottom planar surface does not.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Universal Buddy" and "Universal Buddy XL" products (collectively, the "Universal Buddy Products") (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are drinkware products sold throughout the United States (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). The accused functionality involves a system comprising a container, a gasket, and a size adapter, which allegedly allows the products to accommodate different beverage container sizes (Compl. ¶14). The complaint includes a visual depicting several versions of the accused "FrostBuddy" products, showing their application as a can cooler, a tumbler with a straw, and a travel mug with a handle (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶15). However, paragraph 14 of the complaint provides a narrative breakdown of the infringement allegations against Claim 1, which is summarized in the table below.
’873 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a container that is vacuum-sealed and having a bottom wall, an inner cylindrical wall extending away from the bottom wall, and a threaded section | The Universal Buddy Products contain a vacuum-sealed container. | ¶14(a) | col. 10:37-41 |
| a gasket having a threaded element coupled to a curved element, the threaded element comprising a first material and having a cylindrical wall that presents a flange... the first material being adapted to threadably engage the threaded section and removably couple the gasket to the vacuum-sealed container | The Universal Buddy Products contain a gasket with a threaded element comprising a first material and a cylindrical wall with a flange extending away from it. The first material is adapted to threadably engage the container. | ¶14(a), (b) | col. 10:44-53 |
| the curved element comprising a second material different from the first material and extending from a relative top of the gasket to a relative side of the gasket, the curved element being disposed around at least a portion of the threaded element, the second material being adapted to contact at least a portion of a beverage container... | The Universal Buddy Products' gasket includes a curved element made of a second material different from the first. This element extends from the top to the side of the gasket, is disposed around part of the threaded element, and is adapted to contact a beverage container. | ¶14(c), (d), (e) | col. 10:54-64 |
| a size adapter removably received within the container and having a circumferential wall and a bottom planar surface wherein the size adapter is adapted to contact the vacuum-sealed container such that the bottom planar surface does not | The Universal Buddy Products contain a size adapter. | ¶14 | col. 10:65-col. 11:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused gasket meets the detailed structural limitations of Claim 1. Key questions include: Does the gasket truly comprise two "different" materials (a "first material" for the threaded element and a "second material" for the curved element)? Does the threaded element have a "cylindrical wall that presents a flange" with the specific geometry claimed?
- Functional Questions: A central issue may be the negative limitation requiring the size adapter to be "adapted to contact the vacuum-sealed container such that the bottom planar surface does not." The complaint does not specify how the accused adapter achieves this. Evidence will be needed to show that the accused adapter is specifically designed or structured to prevent its bottom surface from contacting the container floor, as opposed to incidentally not touching in some use cases.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a second material different from the first material"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it requires the gasket to be a composite of at least two distinct materials. If the accused gasket is made of a single, uniform material, it would not infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if minor variations in polymer composition or hardness between two sections of the gasket satisfy the "different material" requirement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "different," which could allow for interpretations including different grades or durometers of the same base polymer.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes an embodiment where the "threaded element 2500" comprises plastic and the "curved element 2510" comprises rubber, suggesting chemically distinct materials were contemplated (’873 Patent, col. 9:8-10).
The Term: "adapted to contact the vacuum-sealed container such that the bottom planar surface does not"
Context and Importance: This negative limitation on the size adapter is highly specific and unconventional. The dispute will likely center on what it means for the adapter to be "adapted to" function this way. This could require a specific physical structure intended to achieve this non-contact outcome.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any design that results in the bottom surface not touching the container floor meets the "adapted to" limitation, regardless of intent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment of the adapter with "studs 1900 protruding from a relative bottom 1604," where the studs, rather than the bottom surface, would contact the inside of the container (’873 Patent, col. 8:35-42, FIG. 19). This suggests the patentee contemplated a specific structure for achieving the non-contact function, potentially narrowing the claim's scope to adapters with such features.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶34). This allegation is based on Defendant having had "knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, the existence of the Patent," citing the pre-suit demand letter sent on November 28, 2023, and Defendant’s subsequent refusal to cease its accused activities (Compl. ¶16, ¶17, ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural compliance: Does the accused "Universal Buddy" gasket, as a matter of fact, embody the specific two-part, two-material construction with the precise flange geometry required by Claim 1? The case may turn on material analysis and detailed comparison of the accused product's geometry to the claim language.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of negative functional limitation: Can Plaintiff prove that the accused size adapter is not merely capable of resting without its bottom surface touching the container, but is specifically "adapted to" do so? The interpretation of this phrase, in light of the patent’s disclosure of "studs" on the adapter, will be a central point of legal and factual dispute.