Vandor Group Inc v. Batesville Casket Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vandor Group, Inc. (Indiana)
  • Defendant: Batesville Casket Company, LLC and Batesville Services, LLC (Indiana)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maginot, Moore & Beck, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00013, S.D. Ind., 03/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's alleged commission of infringing acts within the Southern District of Indiana and its maintenance of a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s foldable casket insert product infringes three patents related to the design and use of lightweight, collapsible caskets.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the funeral industry's need for cremation containers that are cost-effective and minimize shipping and storage space by being collapsible.
• Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit are part of the same patent family and claim priority to a 2005 provisional application. Plaintiff alleges it sells and marks a competing product, the "Starmark Insert," which embodies the patented technology.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-08-10	Earliest Priority Date for ’732, ’240, and ’801 Patents
2015-02-24	U.S. Patent No. 8,959,732 Issues
2017-01-01	Alleged date of Defendant's awareness of infringing activities re: '732 Patent
2017-05-16	U.S. Patent No. 9,649,240 Issues
2017-06-01	Alleged date of Defendant's awareness of infringing activities re: '240 Patent
2018-10-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,098,801 Issues
2023-03-29	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,732 - "Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features"

• Issued: February 24, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the high costs associated with shipping and storing conventional, bulky cremation caskets, as well as the potential complexity of assembling them at the point of sale. (’732 Patent, col. 2:1-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a casket arrangement constructed from a pliable material, like corrugated paperboard, that can be shipped and stored in a low-profile, collapsed "second configuration" and then be easily assembled into a rigid, upright "first configuration" for use. The design relies on side and end panels formed intrinsically with a bottom panel, featuring distinct upper and lower sections that fold relative to one another to achieve the two configurations. (’732 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:16-25).
• Technical Importance: This design sought to provide a practical and economical alternative to traditional caskets, particularly for the cremation market, by reducing logistical costs without requiring complex assembly by the end-user. (’732 Patent, col. 1:26-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 4, and 9.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A casket arrangement with a first (upright) and second (collapsed) configuration.
  • A casket bottom made of a pliable material.
  • Side panels formed intrinsically with the casket bottom, each having a lower section extending upward and an upper section foldably attached.
  • End panels formed intrinsically with the casket bottom.
  • Flaps extending laterally from each end of each upper section.
  • The arrangement of these components forms a casket body, with the flaps of opposing upper sections extending toward each other in the first configuration.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 9,649,240 - "Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Sides"

• Issued: May 16, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’240 Patent addresses the same logistical problems of shipping and storage costs for caskets as its parent patent. (’240 Patent, col. 2:1-14).
• The Patented Solution: This patent also describes a casket arrangement with upright and collapsed configurations made from pliable material. The claims add further specificity to the structure, including requiring the side panels to have a "first length" and the end panels to have a "second length that is less than the first length," and defining the positioning of flaps relative to a "first vertical level" defined by the top of the lower side-panel section. (’240 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:12-42).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific geometric and structural arrangement for a collapsible casket, aiming to create a robust yet easily transformable product. (’240 Patent, col. 1:25-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, 13, and 18.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A casket arrangement with first and second configurations.
  • A casket bottom of pliable material.
  • Side panels of a "first length" with foldable upper and lower sections.
  • End panels of a "second length that is less than the first length."
  • Flaps extending from the upper sections, disposed "completely at or above a first vertical level" in the first configuration and extending downward from that level in the second configuration.
  • The components form a casket body with opposing flaps extending toward each other.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶78).

U.S. Patent No. 10,098,801 - "Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features"

• Issued: October 16, 2018

• Technology Synopsis: The ’801 Patent claims a method for using a foldable casket. The claimed method comprises the steps of: (a) moving the casket arrangement while it is in a collapsed second configuration; (b) changing the arrangement from the second to the first (upright) configuration; and (c) moving the remains of a deceased while the arrangement is in the first configuration. (’801 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:34 - col. 10:17). This patent covers the lifecycle of the product's use in a funeral home or similar setting.

• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted. (Compl. ¶118).

• Accused Features: The infringement allegation is based on instructions that Defendant Batesville allegedly provides to customers for its "B-Insert." The complaint alleges these instructions direct users to perform the steps of the patented method. (Compl. ¶¶118, 134-142).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "B-Insert," which is described as a rental insert product and a cremation container. (Compl. ¶¶19, 25).

Functionality and Market Context

• The "B-Insert" is alleged to be a foldable container made of corrugated paper designed for use as an insert within a more ornate rental casket. (Compl. ¶¶25, 27). The complaint alleges it is sold with at least two configurations: an "upright" or "first configuration" for use, and a "collapsed" or "second configuration" for shipping and storage. (Compl. ¶25). Exhibit D to the complaint depicts the accused B-Insert in its upright, assembled state with various panels identified. (Compl. ¶29, Ex. D). Exhibit E shows the B-Insert in what is alleged to be its collapsed, low-profile configuration. (Compl. ¶31, Ex. E). The complaint further alleges that the product is sold with user instructions, shown in Exhibit F, that detail how to convert the B-Insert from the collapsed to the upright configuration. (Compl. ¶¶20, 134, Ex. F).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’732 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a casket arrangement having a first configuration and a second configuration	The B-Insert allegedly has an upright "first configuration" (shown in Exhibit D) and a collapsed "second configuration" (shown in Exhibit E).	¶25	col. 4:50-54
a casket bottom formed of a pliable material	The B-Insert includes a casket bottom made of pliable corrugated paper.	¶27	col. 4:30-33
side panels formed intrinsically with the casket bottom..., each side panel including a lower section and an upper section foldably attached thereto	The B-Insert's side panels are allegedly formed from the same corrugated paper blank as the bottom and include a lower section (12a) and a foldably attached upper section (12b).	¶29	col. 4:35-40
end panels formed intrinsically with the casket bottom of the pliable material	The B-Insert includes end panels allegedly formed from the same corrugated paper blank as the casket bottom.	¶33	col. 6:28-30
flaps extending laterally from, and foldably attached to, each end of each upper section	The B-Insert includes flaps (14b) that allegedly extend laterally from and are foldably attached to the upper sections (12b) of the side panels (12).	¶35	col. 4:44-46
wherein the flaps of opposing upper sections extend from their respective upper sections toward each other in the first configuration	In its first configuration, the flaps (14b) of the B-Insert's opposing upper sections (12b) allegedly extend toward each other, as shown in Exhibit D.	¶41	col. 6:49-52

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute may be the term "intrinsically formed". The complaint alleges the B-Insert's panels are "formed from the same corrugated paper blank" (Compl. ¶29). The litigation may explore whether "intrinsically" requires formation from a single, unitary piece of material, as depicted in the patent's Figure 5, and whether the accused product meets that standard.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires flaps to extend upward from a "first vertical level defined by the top portion of the lower section." The complaint makes a corresponding allegation (Compl. ¶37), but the factual question of whether the accused product's flaps are positioned precisely as claimed may become a focus of expert testimony.

’240 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
each side panel having a first length... each end panel having a second length that is less than the first length	The complaint alleges the B-Insert's end panels (14a) are shorter than its side panels (12), as seen in Exhibit D.	¶90	col. 8:12-20
flaps extending laterally from... each end of each upper section, the flaps in the first configuration disposed completely at or above a first vertical level defined by the top portion of the lower section	The B-Insert's flaps (14b) are allegedly disposed completely at or above a vertical level defined by the top of the lower section (12a) in the first configuration, as shown in Exhibit D.	¶92	col. 8:28-36
the flaps... in the second configuration extending downward from the first vertical level	In the second configuration shown in Exhibit E, the flaps (14b) are alleged to extend downward from a vertical level defined by the top of the lower section (12a).	¶92	col. 8:34-36
wherein the flaps of opposing upper sections extend from their respective upper sections toward each other in the first configuration	As shown in Exhibit D, the flaps (14b) on opposing upper sections (12b) allegedly extend toward each other.	¶96	col. 8:40-42

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The phrase "disposed completely at or above a first vertical level" may be a critical point for construction. The parties could dispute how this "vertical level" is determined and whether the accused B-Insert's flaps meet the "completely at or above" requirement.
• Technical Questions: Infringement of the dimensional limitation ("second length that is less than the first length") relies on visual inspection of an exhibit. (Compl. ¶90). The defense may question whether this photographic evidence is sufficient to prove the dimensional relationship required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "intrinsically" (’732 Patent)

Context and Importance

• This term appears in claim 1 of the ’732 Patent to describe the connection between the bottom, side, and end panels. Its construction is critical because it defines how integrally these components must be connected. A narrow definition could exclude products assembled from separate pieces, whereas a broader one might encompass them, directly impacting the infringement analysis.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition for the term, which may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially allowing for constructions other than a single monolithic piece.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the panels "are preferably formed from a single piece of pliable material" and provides a corresponding diagram (Figure 5) showing a single blank used to form the casket body. (’732 Patent, col. 4:30-35; Fig. 5). This embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to structures formed from a single, unitary blank.

The Term: "operably coupled" (’732 Patent, Claim 4)

Context and Importance

• Claim 4 of the ’732 Patent requires that "each flap in the first configuration is operably coupled to one of the end panels." The meaning of "operably coupled" will determine what kind of connection is required to meet this limitation. The dispute will likely center on whether a simple physical interaction suffices or if a more specific mechanical connection is needed.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad, and the specification does not explicitly define it. A party could argue it encompasses any functional connection that allows the flaps and end panels to work together as intended.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment where "tabs 38 are received into the receptacles 39" to secure the structure. (’732 Patent, col. 5:58-64). A party may argue that "operably coupled" should be construed in light of this specific disclosure, limiting it to a tab-and-receptacle or similar interlocking mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. For the apparatus claims of the ’732 and ’240 Patents, this is based on allegations that Defendant sells the B-Insert knowing it will be used to infringe and that the product has no substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶¶72-73, 112-113). For the method claims of the ’801 Patent, inducement is the central theory, based on allegations that Defendant provides instructions (Exhibit F) that direct customers to perform the claimed method steps. (Compl. ¶¶118, 139, 157).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. It specifically alleges pre-suit knowledge of the ’732 Patent since at least January 1, 2017, and of the ’240 Patent since at least June 1, 2017, supporting the willfulness claim. (Compl. ¶¶71, 74, 111, 114, 159).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused "B-Insert," as it is actually constructed and used, embody the specific geometric and structural limitations of the apparatus claims, particularly concerning how panels are "intrinsically" formed and how flaps are positioned relative to a "vertical level"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of induced infringement: Do the instructions accompanying the "B-Insert" (per Exhibit F) actively encourage and direct a customer to perform every step recited in the asserted method claims of the ’801 patent, or do they allow for a non-infringing mode of use?
• The outcome may also hinge on claim construction: The scope of the patents will be heavily influenced by how the court defines foundational terms like "intrinsically" and "operably coupled", which will likely determine whether the accused product's design falls inside or outside the boundaries of the claims.