Blazer v. Chrisman Mill Farms LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Brian Robert Blazer d/b/a Carpenter Bee Solutions (Alabama)
  • Defendant: Chrisman Mill Farms LLC (Kentucky)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gleason Law LLC; Bachus & Brom LLC
• Case Identification: 5:17-cv-00430, N.D. Ala., 02/27/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Alabama based on Defendant’s regular sales of allegedly infringing products to Alabama customers, as well as Defendant’s representative traveling to, negotiating, and executing a patent license with the Plaintiff in Alabama.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Wood Bee Gone" and "Wood Be Gone II" carpenter bee traps infringe a patent related to mechanical insect trap design.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns traps for carpenter bees, which damage wooden structures by boring tunnels, leveraging the insects' natural behaviors to create a low-cost, disposable trapping system.
• Key Procedural History: The parties had a one-year, non-exclusive license agreement for the patent-in-suit, which expired in December 2016. The complaint notes that Defendant previously filed a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement and invalidity in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Plaintiff had also previously sued Amazon.com over the same patent, a suit that settled.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-04-27	'624 Patent Priority Date
2013-02-19	'624 Patent Issue Date
2013-05	Defendant Chrisman Mill Farms LLC formed
2015-06-24	Plaintiff files infringement suit against Amazon.com regarding '624 Patent
2015-12	Plaintiff's suit against Amazon.com settles
2015-12-29	Plaintiff and Defendant enter one-year license agreement for the '624 Patent
2016-12-29	License agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant expires
2017-02-27	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,375,624 - "Carpenter Bee Traps"

• Issued: February 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes carpenter bees as a nuisance that causes structural and cosmetic damage to wooden buildings by boring nests into timbers ('624 Patent, col. 1:37-41). It notes that prior art traps could be complex, expensive, difficult to monitor, or require proprietary and inconvenient replacement parts ('624 Patent, col. 2:3-16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a trap that exploits the natural behavior of carpenter bees. It consists of an entrance unit, typically made of wood, with a hole that mimics a natural nest entrance ('624 Patent, col. 2:35-40). This entrance hole leads into a darker interior chamber, or "plenum." Below the plenum is an opening connected to a clear or translucent receptacle, such as a standard plastic bottle. The patent explains that bees, which navigate using light, are drawn from the dark plenum down into the brightly lit receptacle and are then unable to find their way out ('624 Patent, col. 2:50-58, Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: This design provides a simple, low-cost method for trapping carpenter bees by using readily available materials and leveraging the insect's own navigational instincts rather than complex electronics or chemical baits ('624 Patent, col. 2:58-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 10 (Compl. ¶36).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’624 Patent recites the following essential elements:
  • A trap entrance unit made of wood or a wood substitute, which forms a plenum.
  • At least one hole drilled through the entrance unit, sized to mimic a natural carpenter bee nest tunnel.
  • The hole extends from the outside to the plenum interior, configured to be substantially horizontal or at an upward angle.
  • A "means to shelter" the entrance to the hole to reduce ambient light admittance.
  • A receptacle adapter at the bottom of the trap unit, configured to receive a clear or translucent receptacle.
  • A receptacle received by the adapter, situated to allow ambient light to enter the plenum from below, providing a "secondary attractant."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two accused products: the original "Wood Bee Gone Carpenter Bee Trap/Hornet Hotel" and a redesigned version, the "Wood Be Gone II" carpenter bee trap (Compl. ¶¶16, 34).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges both products are wooden carpenter bee traps (Compl. ¶¶16, 34). The complaint states the design of the original "Wood Bee Gone" trap is depicted in Exhibit B (Compl. ¶16). An illustration of the redesigned "Wood Be Gone II" trap, which Defendant allegedly began selling after its license expired, is provided in Exhibit D to the complaint (Compl. ¶34).
• Plaintiff alleges that the original "Wood Bee Gone" trap became a "number one seller on Amazon" and that Defendant's sales were higher in 2016 than in any previous year (Compl. ¶¶31-32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D, which were not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶¶38, 40). Therefore, a detailed claim chart analysis cannot be performed.

The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is one of direct structural correspondence. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has made, used, and sold wooden carpenter bee traps that include all the elements of at least claims 1-4, 7, and 10 of the ’624 Patent (Compl. ¶36). The complaint characterizes Defendant's post-license "Wood Be Gone II" model as an "unsuccessful attempt to avoid infringement," suggesting that Plaintiff's position is that the redesign did not remove the product from the scope of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶34). The infringement allegations cover two distinct periods: infringement by the original "Wood Bee Gone" trap from May 2013 to December 28, 2015 (before the license period), and infringement by the "Wood Be Gone II" trap from December 30, 2016, to the present (after the license expired) (Compl. ¶¶37, 39).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court may be whether the redesigned "Wood Be Gone II" trap avoids infringement. The dispute could center on whether any structural changes in the redesigned product are sufficient to place it outside the scope of key claim terms like "plenum" or "means to shelter an entrance".
  • Technical Questions: The factual dispute will likely concern the specific structure and operation of the "Wood Be Gone II" trap. What evidence does the complaint provide that the redesigned features still perform the specific functions required by the asserted claims, such as reducing the admittance of ambient light at the entrance while allowing it to enter from the receptacle below?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "plenum"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the central interior chamber of the trap. Its structure is critical to how the trap directs a bee from the entrance hole to the receptacle adapter. The Defendant’s alleged redesign may have altered this feature, making its construction a focal point of the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "The interior of the trap entrance unit forms a plenum" and also describes an embodiment made from a solid block of wood with a "tunnel type plenum," suggesting the term is not limited to a single hollow chamber but could encompass various internal passage configurations (ʼ624 Patent, col. 2:48-49; col. 3:36-37).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict specific arrangements, such as the open box-like interior (Fig. 1A, element 13) or a combination of horizontal and vertical bores (Fig. 3D, elements 33, 34). A party could argue the term should be construed more narrowly in line with these disclosed embodiments.

The Term: "means to shelter an entrance to said hole"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the format of a means-plus-function limitation, where the stated function is to shelter the entrance and "reduce the admittance of ambient light" (’624 Patent, col. 7:22-24). This function is critical to the invention's light-differential trapping mechanism. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products contain the structure disclosed in the patent that corresponds to this function, or an equivalent thereof.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "means," which under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) covers the corresponding structures in the specification and their equivalents.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific corresponding structures for performing this function: a "roof panel that overhangs" the sides of the trap and/or entrance holes that are "angled upward from horizontal" (’624 Patent, col. 2:40-43; col. 4:50-51). A court would likely limit the scope of this term to these disclosed structures and their equivalents.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful, particularly since December 30, 2016 (Compl. ¶41). The factual basis for this allegation is extensive and includes:

• Defendant’s entry into a one-year license agreement for the ’624 Patent, which allegedly demonstrates knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶21).
• Public statements attributed to Defendant’s manager, Mr. Robinson, on Facebook, allegedly admitting that his company's traps were infringing and that "There is no carpenter bee trap on the market today that would not fall under Brian's patent" (Compl. ¶¶24-25).
• Additional alleged admissions of infringement made by Mr. Robinson in an eBay message and in an interview with a blogger (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
• The allegation that the "Wood Be Gone II" was a deliberate, albeit "unsuccessful," attempt to design around the patent after the license expired (Compl. ¶34).

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

• A core issue will be one of infringement by redesign: does the Defendant's "Wood Be Gone II" trap, introduced after the patent license expired, incorporate structural changes sufficient to place it outside the construed scope of the asserted claims, particularly with respect to the "plenum" and "means to shelter" limitations?
• A second central question will concern willfulness and damages: given the extensive history between the parties, including a prior license and alleged public admissions of infringement, the court will likely need to determine whether Defendant’s post-license conduct was objectively reckless, which could expose Defendant to claims for enhanced damages.