3:15-cv-00627
Shower Enclosures America Inc v. BBC Distribution Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shower Enclosures America, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: BBC Distribution Corp. (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ryan M. Fountain
- Case Identification: 3:15-cv-00627, N.D. Ind., 12/30/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Indiana because Defendant has a principal place of business, a warehouse, and employees in Elkhart County, Indiana; specifically targets the regional recreational vehicle (“RV”) industry; and the accused products are marketed, stored, and sold from its Elkhart location.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “BBC Door” triple-panel shower door infringes a patent related to a space-saving triple slide assembly for sliding doors.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-panel sliding door mechanisms designed to provide a wider access opening within a compact header, making it particularly suitable for space-constrained environments such as recreational vehicles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges pre-suit notification, stating that Plaintiff contacted Defendant to request cessation of the alleged infringement, but the effort was unsuccessful. More significantly, an inter partes review (IPR) was subsequently filed against the patent-in-suit (IPR2017-00573). The IPR resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims, including Claim 12, the only independent claim explicitly asserted in the original complaint. This cancellation presents a fundamental challenge to the infringement theory as originally pled.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-06-11 | '944 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-02-13 | '944 Patent Issue Date |
| After 2015-07-01 | Accused "BBC Door" Product Launch |
| 2015-12-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2017-01-03 | IPR2017-00573 Filed Against '944 Patent |
| 2020-11-09 | IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling Asserted Claim 12 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,174,944 - Triple Slide Assembly for Sliding Doors
- Issued: February 13, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional three-panel sliding doors as requiring a wide, expensive, and complex three-track header to accommodate the three separate doors. This design consumes valuable space and complicates the alignment of the doors, particularly in compact enclosures ('944 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more compact assembly using only a two-track header. It achieves a three-panel slide by having the middle rail member interlock with and be supported by the two outer rail members. The outer rails slide within the two header tracks, while the middle rail slides along dedicated tracks integrated into the inward-facing sides of the outer rails. This allows three panels to operate sequentially within a two-track system ('944 Patent, col. 6:28-54; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for a wider access opening—up to two-thirds of the total enclosure width—using a header that is narrower and less complex than conventional three-track systems, making it advantageous for applications where space is limited, such as in RVs ('944 Patent, col. 1:51-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "at least Claim 12" ('944 Patent, col. 11:23-41; Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 12 are:
- A header configured with first and second header tracks;
- First and second rail members adapted to slidingly couple to the first and second header tracks;
- First and second track members adapted to couple to the first and second rail members, respectively;
- A third rail member adapted to slidingly couple to the first and second track members;
- Wherein the third rail member is supported by the first and second track members;
- Wherein the first, second, and third rail members support a first, a second, and a third door panel, respectively; and
- Wherein the first and second track members are recessed in the first and second door panels, respectively.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is a shower door referred to as the “BBC Door” or “Tripass shower door” (Compl. ¶¶9, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the BBC Door is a triple slide shower door marketed and sold to the RV industry, including to manufacturers such as Jayco, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶5, 9). Plaintiff alleges that after July 2015, Defendant BBC, a competitor to Plaintiff SEA, began sourcing these doors from a third-party manufacturer and reselling them (Compl. ¶9). The complaint provides an end-view photograph of the accused product's header, which depicts a triple slide mechanism mounted within the header (Compl. p. 5, top image). This image shows three distinct sliding rail profiles arranged to operate within a single header unit.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart, instead making a general allegation that the BBC Door meets "each and every element" of Claim 12 (Compl. ¶11). The infringement theory appears to rely on the visual similarity between the accused product, as shown in complaint photographs, and the patented invention.
'944 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a header configured with first and second header tracks; | The BBC Door assembly includes a header unit that houses the sliding mechanism. | ¶10 | col. 6:28-32 |
| first and second rail members adapted to slidingly couple to said first and second header tracks; | The photographs of the BBC Door depict outer rail structures that appear to engage with tracks inside the header. | ¶10 | col. 6:33-40 |
| first and second track members adapted to couple to said first and second rail members respectively; | The outer rail structures in the photographs of the BBC Door appear to have integrated tracks on their inward-facing surfaces. | ¶10 | col. 6:33-37 |
| a third rail member adapted to slidingly couple to said first and said second track members; | The photographs show a central rail member positioned between the two outer rails, appearing to engage with their integrated tracks via rollers. | ¶10 | col. 6:33-40 |
| wherein said third rail member is supported by said first and second track members; | The central rail member in the photographs appears to be physically supported by the rollers that ride in the tracks of the outer rails. | ¶10 | col. 6:45-50 |
| wherein said first, said second and said third rails members support a first, a second and a third door panel respectively; | The complaint alleges the BBC Door is a three-panel shower door, implying each rail member supports a glass or plastic panel. | ¶7 | col. 11:33-36 |
| wherein said first and second track members are recessed in said first and said second door panels respectively. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 11:37-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Dispositive Post-Filing Event: The most significant issue is the cancellation of the asserted Claim 12 in IPR2017-00573. As the complaint's infringement count is predicated entirely on this now-invalidated claim, the case as pled could not have proceeded without amendment to assert one of the surviving patentable claims (e.g., claims 4, 6, 10, or 15).
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and lack a detailed element-by-element mapping. A central question for the court would be whether discovery could substantiate the claim that the accused product’s mechanism, particularly the specific interaction and support structure of its three rails, performs the functions required by each limitation of an asserted claim.
- Technical Question: It is unclear from the complaint's photographs whether the tracks on the outer rails are "recessed in said first and said second door panels" as required by Claim 12. The evidence provided does not show the relationship between the rail, the track, and the larger door panel.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"rail members"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "rail members" and their relationship to the "door panels" they support is fundamental to the claim's architecture. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the sliding extrusions of the BBC Door qualify as the claimed "rail members" that are distinct from, yet support, the "door panels."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification at times appears to use "rail" and "panel" interchangeably, stating, for example, that "Outer rails or panels each have an inward facing track" ('944 Patent, col. 2:18-19). This could support a reading where the "rail member" and "door panel" are part of a single, integrated unit.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 12 distinctly recites "rail members support a... door panel," suggesting two separate components. The drawings also depict the rails (e.g., 20, 22, 24 in Fig. 1) as the top structural extrusions to which a larger, separate panel (e.g., a sheet of glass) would be attached ('944 Patent, Fig. 3, slot 58). This suggests the "rail member" is only the channeled extrusion, not the entire door structure.
"track members are recessed in said first and said second door panels"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific spatial relationship that is a potential point of non-infringement. The case may turn on whether the accused product's tracks are "recessed in" its panels, or if they are merely part of a rail assembly attached to the panels.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "recessed in" does not strictly require being set into a groove, but could mean being located within the overall vertical and horizontal profile of the door panel assembly.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common meaning of "recessed" implies being set back into a surface. The specification provides an explicit example, stating that a track is "recessed into panel 302 near the top edge" ('944 Patent, col. 9:11-12; Fig. 6). This language provides strong support for a narrower construction requiring the track to be physically set into the body of the door panel itself.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that by selling the BBC Doors to customers like RV manufacturers, who then install them into RVs for end-users, BBC is contributing to and inducing infringement (Compl. ¶11). This allegation is supported by the claim that BBC provides installation instructions with the products (Compl. ¶9).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that "SEA contacted BBC... and attempted to bring about a cessation of this patent infringement," but that "effort was not successful" and BBC continued its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶12).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The Threshold IPR Issue: Given the post-filing cancellation of asserted Claim 12 in an inter partes review, the primary question is on what legal and factual basis the case could have continued. The analysis would depend entirely on whether Plaintiff was able to amend its infringement contentions to assert a surviving claim and prove infringement of that new claim.
A Question of Claim Scope: Assuming the case were to proceed on a surviving claim, a core issue would be one of definitional scope: How does one distinguish between the claimed "rail member," the "track member," and the "door panel"? The court’s construction of these terms, particularly the requirement that a "track member" be "recessed in" a "door panel," would likely be critical to the infringement outcome.
An Evidentiary Question of Operation: The complaint relies on photographs and conclusory statements. A key evidentiary question would be one of technical proof: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused BBC Door's mechanism functions in the specific manner required by the claims, particularly with respect to the interlocking arrangement where the third (middle) rail is explicitly "supported by" the track members on the first and second (outer) rails?