A&J Mfg LLC v. Lad Global Enterprises Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: A&J Mfg, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Lad. Global Enterprisess, Inc. (Kansas) and Hangzhou Xiaoshan Zhengda Textile Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: GILBERT, HARRELL, SUMERFORD & MARTIN, PC
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-50, S.D. Ga., 04/27/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant L.A.D. Global being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and Defendant Zhengda being an alien corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ adjustable barbecue grill cover infringes a patent related to reconfigurable protective covers for cooking equipment.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns protective covers for outdoor cooking equipment, like barbecue grills, that can be adjusted to fit various equipment configurations, such as those with or without side shelves or fireboxes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent because Plaintiff’s own commercial product is marked as patented and sold in the same retail channels as the accused product.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,866,358 - "Adjustable Cooking Equipment Cover," issued January 11, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitation of conventional cooking equipment covers that are designed to fit only a single, specific configuration of a grill or smoker. If a user adds or removes components like a side shelf or firebox, the original cover no longer fits properly (’358 Patent, col. 1:38-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a cover made of flexible material that incorporates one or more connectors, such as hook-and-loop fasteners. These connectors allow sections of the cover to be joined or separated, reconfiguring its shape to "appropriately fit" the cooking equipment whether it is in a base configuration or an alternate configuration with added components (’358 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-19). Figures 2A, 2B, and 5 illustrate the cover in different expanded and collapsed states (’358 Patent, figs. 2A, 2B, 5).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a single product that can adapt to modular cooking equipment, eliminating the need for consumers to purchase a new cover each time they modify their grill or smoker (’358 Patent, col. 1:60-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A flexible material configurable in a plurality of configurations, with a first configuration to closely cover a food cooker and a second configuration to closely cover the food cooker plus a second piece of equipment (e.g., a shelf, bin, or firebox).
  • A first connector and a second connector attached to the flexible material.
  • The material is in the second configuration when the connectors are disconnected and in the first configuration when they are connected.
• Independent Claim 7 requires:
  • A collapsible grill cover comprising a first compartment sized and shaped to house a grill body, with a first fastener attached.
  • A second compartment extending from the first, with a second fastener releasably coupled to the first.
  • The second compartment is sized to house an attachment like a grill shelf, bin, or firebox.
  • The second compartment collapses when the second fastener is coupled to the first fastener.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "Grill Shop® Adjustable Barrel Grill Cover, Model No. 1705-0008" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is an adjustable cooking equipment cover made of a flexible material (Compl. ¶28). It is alleged to have a first configuration to cover a food cooker and a second configuration to cover the cooker and an attached piece of equipment, with the configuration being determined by the connection or disconnection of connectors (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes a depiction of the cover in an expanded configuration, covering a grill with side attachments. (Compl. ¶22, Figure 2A). The product is also alleged to be a collapsible cover with a first compartment for a grill body and a releasable second compartment for accessories, where the second compartment collapses when its fastener is coupled to a fastener on the first compartment (Compl. ¶29). The product is allegedly sold at Menards retail stores and online (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’358 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)

’358 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 7)

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused product’s structure and operation align with the specific claim language. For Claim 7, this includes whether the product has distinct "compartments" and "fasteners" that function to "collapse" the second compartment as required. The complaint’s allegations in paragraphs 28 and 29 directly map to the language of claims 1 and 7, respectively, suggesting the dispute may focus on the physical evidence of the accused product itself.
• Scope Questions: The term "closely cover" in Claim 1 raises a potential question of scope. The dispute may involve how snugly the cover must fit in both its expanded and collapsed configurations to meet this limitation, and what evidence is required to demonstrate such a fit. The complaint provides a visual of the cover in a single configuration, covering both a grill and its side attachments (Compl. ¶22, Figure 2A), but does not show it in its alternative, more "closely" fitted state.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "compartment" (Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the structure of Claim 7. Whether the accused product infringes will depend on whether portions of its flexible material can be defined as a "first compartment" and a "second compartment." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's validity and the infringement analysis hinge on whether this term implies a structurally distinct section or can refer to any reconfigurable area of a single piece of fabric.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific definition, which may support a broader construction consistent with its ordinary meaning as a partitioned-off section.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the cover as having a "first compartment 210 that covers the smoker and a second compartment 211 that covers a side shelf or side firebox" (’358 Patent, col. 4:51-54). Figure 2A, referenced in the complaint (Compl. ¶22), depicts these as visually distinct, box-like sections, which may support a narrower construction requiring a more defined, separate structure rather than a mere foldable flap.

The Term: "collapses" (Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: The functional mechanism of Claim 7 depends on the second compartment "collapsing" when fasteners are coupled. The meaning of this term is critical to determining if the accused product’s method of reconfiguration—gathering or folding material—meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "collapses," potentially allowing for any action that reduces the volume or footprint of the second compartment, such as folding, gathering, or tucking.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes reconfiguring the cover by connecting fasteners, which results in the material of one compartment being "neatly gathered up" (’358 Patent, col. 6:6-8). This specific description may support a narrower interpretation requiring a gathering or bunching action, rather than simply folding a section over. The transition from Figure 3 (two side sections) to Figure 5 (no side sections) illustrates this change (’358 Patent, figs. 3, 5). The complaint shows Figure 5, which depicts the cover in this collapsed state (Compl. ¶22).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement through making, selling, and importing (Compl. ¶31).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement from the inception of the infringing activity (Compl. ¶1). The factual basis alleged is that Defendants had at least constructive knowledge of the patent because Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of the patent is marked, and this marked product is sold alongside the accused product by retailers like Menards (Compl. ¶34).

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

• A central issue will be one of structural and functional correspondence: Does the physical construction of the accused "Grill Shop®" cover embody the specific architecture of the patent claims? Specifically, can its foldable sections be properly defined as "compartments" that "collapse" via "fasteners" as required by Claim 7, and do its "connectors" operate to switch between distinct configurations that "closely cover" the equipment as required by Claim 1?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of claim scope: How much structural definition is required for a section of fabric to be a "compartment," and what degree of fit constitutes "closely cover"? The resolution of these terms will likely determine whether the accused product, which appears functionally similar, is structurally equivalent under the language of the patent.
• The allegation of willfulness will turn on whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’358 Patent. The complaint's theory of notice via patent marking and co-location in retail channels presents a clear, albeit contestable, factual question for the court.