DCT
1:23-cv-00013
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, Inc. (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maginot, Moore & Beck, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00013, S.D. Ind., 01/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of Indiana.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "B-Insert" rental casket insert infringes three patents related to lightweight, foldable caskets that can be shipped in a collapsed state and assembled for use.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns collapsible containers, typically made of corrugated paperboard, used as inserts for rental caskets, primarily in the context of cremation, to reduce shipping and storage costs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has marked its own "Starmark Insert" product with the numbers of the patents-in-suit since shortly after each patent issued. It also alleges specific dates on which Defendant purportedly became aware of its infringing activities.
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 |
| 2015-07-01 | Plaintiff allegedly begins marking its product with ’732 Patent number |
| 2017-01-01 | Alleged date of Defendant’s awareness of infringement of ’732 Patent |
| 2017-05-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,649,240 Issues |
| 2017-06-01 | Alleged date of Defendant’s awareness of infringement of ’240 Patent |
| 2017-06-01 | Plaintiff allegedly begins marking its product with ’240 Patent number |
| 2018-10-16 | U.S. Patent No. 10,098,801 Issues |
| 2019-04-30 | Plaintiff allegedly begins marking its product with ’801 Patent number |
| 2023-01-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,959,732 - "Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features," Issued Feb. 24, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the high shipping and storage costs associated with bulky, pre-assembled cremation caskets. It also notes that simple cardboard containers can suffer from leakage of bodily or embalming fluids (ʼ732 Patent, col. 1:60-2:20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a casket arrangement, typically formed from a single blank of pliable material like corrugated paperboard, that can exist in two states. It is shipped and stored in a flat, collapsed "second configuration" to save space and can be folded into a rigid, upright "first configuration" at the point of use. The design features side and end panels with distinct upper and lower sections that fold relative to each other to enable this transformation ('732 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:24-41).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to provide funeral establishments with a low-cost, disposable cremation container that minimized logistical costs without requiring complex assembly at the point of sale ('732 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶22).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A casket arrangement with a first (upright) and second (collapsed) configuration.
- A casket bottom of pliable material.
- Side panels formed intrinsically with the casket bottom, having foldable upper and lower sections.
- End panels formed intrinsically with the casket bottom.
- Flaps extending from the upper sections that change orientation between the two configurations.
- The components form a casket body in the first configuration where flaps from opposing sides extend toward each other.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, and 13-15 (Compl. ¶22).
U.S. Patent No. 9,649,240 - "Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Sides," Issued May 16, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’732 patent, this patent addresses the need for a cremation casket that has reduced shipping costs and avoids complex assembly, while also considering issues like fluid leakage ('240 Patent, col. 1:63-2:21).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a foldable casket arrangement with a key distinction: its panels are "coupled to" the bottom rather than being "intrinsically with" it. The claims also introduce specific geometric constraints, such as side panels having a "first length" and end panels having a "second length that is less than the first length." The structure also contemplates a separate casket insert to be placed inside the main body ('240 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-11).
- Technical Importance: This patent appears to refine and potentially broaden the foldable casket concept by using different claim language for the connection of the panels and by adding more specific structural limitations and components like a casket insert ('240 Patent, col. 2:50-3:5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A casket arrangement with a first and second configuration.
- A casket bottom of pliable material.
- Side panels coupled to the casket bottom, each having a "first length" and foldable upper/lower sections.
- End panels coupled to the casket bottom, each having 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.
- The components form a casket body where opposing flaps extend toward each other.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 5-8, 13, and 15 (Compl. ¶77).
U.S. Patent No. 10,098,801 - "Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features," Issued Oct. 16, 2018
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of use for a casket arrangement, rather than the apparatus itself. The claimed method includes the steps of moving the casket while it is in a collapsed second configuration, changing it to the upright first configuration, and subsequently moving the remains of a deceased within the assembled casket arrangement ('801 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-17).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 12 and dependent claims 13-14 and 17 (Compl. ¶117).
- Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges indirect infringement, stating that Defendant provides instructions to its customers that, when followed, cause the customers to perform the steps of the patented method with the B-Insert (Compl. ¶¶133, 138, 156).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "B-Insert," a rental insert product (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The B-Insert is a cremation container made of corrugated paper and designed for use as an insert within a rental casket (Compl. ¶¶24, 26). The complaint alleges it has two primary configurations: an upright, assembled state (first configuration) and a collapsed state (second configuration) for shipping or storage (Compl. ¶24). A photograph provided in the complaint as Exhibit D shows the B-Insert in its upright configuration, with side panels, end panels, and flaps visible (Compl. ¶28, Ex. D). Another photograph, Exhibit E, depicts the product in its collapsed configuration (Compl. ¶30, Ex. E). The product is allegedly manufactured, used, and sold by Defendant for use in funerary activities (Compl. ¶¶18, 119).
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 has an upright or first configuration (shown in Exhibit D) and a collapsed or second configuration (shown in Exhibit E). | ¶24 | col. 3:49-56 |
| a casket bottom formed of a pliable material | The B-Insert includes a casket bottom formed of corrugated paper. | ¶26 | 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 lower section extending vertically upward from the casket bottom | The B-Insert includes side panels formed from the same corrugated paper blank as the bottom panel, with each having a lower section (12a) and a foldable upper section (12b). | ¶28 | col. 4:33-44 |
| the upper section in the first configuration extending upward from the lower section and in the second configuration extending in a direction downward from a top portion of the lower section | The upper section (12b) extends upward in the first configuration (Exhibit D) and extends downward in the second configuration (Exhibit E). | ¶30 | col. 8:1-10 |
| flaps extending laterally from, and foldably attached to, each end of each upper section | The B-Insert includes flaps (14b) that extend laterally from and are foldably attached to the upper sections (12b) of the side panels. | ¶34 | col. 4:55-65 |
| wherein the flaps of opposing upper sections extend from their respective upper sections toward each other in the first configuration | In the first configuration, the flaps (14b) of opposite upper sections (12b) extend toward each other, as shown in Exhibit D. | ¶40 | col. 6:49-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "formed intrinsically with." The complaint alleges this is met because the panels are formed from the "same corrugated paper blank" as the bottom (Compl. ¶28). The defense could argue this term requires a stricter, single-piece construction without any intervening seams, relying on the patent's drawings (e.g., '732 Patent, Fig. 5).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement "literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents" (Compl. ¶22), suggesting an anticipation that the B-Insert's structure may not be a one-to-one match for every claim limitation, potentially requiring arguments about functional equivalence.
’240 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| side panels coupled to the casket bottom..., each side panel having a first length and including a lower section and an upper section foldably attached thereto | The B-Insert includes side panels formed from the same corrugated paper blank as the bottom panel, each having the same length and a lower (12a) and upper (12b) section. | ¶¶83, 85 | col. 7:12-19 |
| the upper section in the first configuration extending upward...and in the second configuration extending in a direction other than vertically upward from the top portion of the lower section | In the first configuration (Exhibit D) the upper section extends upward; in the second (Exhibit E) it extends in a direction other than vertically upward. | ¶87 | col. 7:19-25 |
| end panels coupled to the casket bottom..., each end panel having a second length that is less than the first length | The B-Insert includes end panels (14a) integrally coupled to the casket bottom that are shorter than the side panels (12). | ¶89 | col. 7:26-29 |
| flaps extending laterally from...the flaps in the first configuration disposed completely at or above a first vertical level...and in the second configuration extending downward... | Flaps (14b) are disposed at or above a vertical level in the first configuration (Exhibit D) and extend downward in the second configuration (Exhibit E). | ¶91 | col. 7:30-38 |
| 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) of opposing upper sections (12b) extend toward each other. | ¶95 | col. 7:42-45 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "coupled to" is facially broader than the '732 Patent's "formed intrinsically with." The dispute may shift to other limitations, such as whether the flaps are "disposed completely at or above a first vertical level" in the accused B-Insert's upright configuration.
- Technical Questions: Dependent claim 7 introduces a "casket insert" (Compl. ¶103). A photograph in Exhibit F, showing instructions to "Place tabs back into slots in tray," is cited as evidence of this insert (Compl. ¶¶68, 104, Ex. F). The analysis will question whether the accused "tray" is a "casket insert" as defined by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "formed intrinsically with" (from '732 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the physical relationship between the side/end panels and the casket bottom. Its construction is critical because the '240 Patent, from the same family, replaces it with the broader term "coupled to." Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the change was intended to capture products, like the accused B-Insert, that might not meet the stricter "intrinsic" definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the components "are preferably formed from a single piece of pliable material, such as corrugated paperboard," which could support an argument that being cut from the same blank is sufficient ('732 Patent, col. 4:30-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 of the patent depicts a single, continuous, unfolded blank where the panels are connected to the bottom only by fold lines. A party could argue this drawing defines "intrinsically" as requiring a monolithic, one-piece construction without any seams.
The Term: "a direction other than vertically upward" (from '240 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase describes the orientation of the upper side panels in the collapsed "second configuration." The complaint alleges the B-Insert meets this, but the term's breadth is ambiguous. The patent's abstract distinguishes between a "second configuration" where the section extends "downward" and a "third configuration" where it extends in a "non-vertical direction," creating a potential ambiguity for the court to resolve.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language suggests any orientation that is not perfectly vertical would infringe, including the downward-folded state shown for the accused product.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and Figure 4 show the panels in the second configuration folded down to be substantially parallel with the bottom panel for compact shipping ('240 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 6:20-30). A party could argue the term requires this specific collapsed state, not just any non-vertical angle.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the '732 and '240 apparatus patents, asserting Defendant sells the B-Insert knowing it will be used to infringe and that the product has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶71-72, 111-112). For the '801 method patent, the primary theory is inducement, based on Defendant allegedly providing user instructions (Exhibit F) that direct customers to perform the patented method steps (Compl. ¶¶133, 156).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness for all three patents. It supports this by pleading specific dates of pre-suit knowledge: "since at least January 1, 2017" for the ’732 Patent and "since at least approximately June 1, 2017" for the ’240 Patent (Compl. ¶¶70, 73, 110, 113).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope progression: The court will likely need to determine if the accused B-Insert, allegedly made from a "single...blank" (Compl. ¶28), meets the '732 Patent's requirement that panels be "formed intrinsically with" the bottom. This will be contrasted with the '240 Patent's use of the broader term "coupled to," raising the question of whether this linguistic shift was intended to, and successfully did, capture a wider range of manufacturing methods.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proving inducement for the method patent: The case will likely turn on whether the instructional materials for the B-Insert (Compl. Ex. F) are sufficient to prove Batesville possessed the specific intent to encourage its customers to perform every step of the '801 patent's claimed method, establishing liability for indirect infringement.
- The dispute will also center on willfulness and the timeline of knowledge: Given the plaintiff's specific allegations of pre-suit awareness dates for two of the three patents, a central factual battle will likely concern the evidence supporting when Batesville knew or should have known about the patents and whether its continued conduct constitutes the "egregious" behavior necessary for enhanced damages.