DCT
2:17-cv-13557
Deep Wood Brew Products v. Go Keg
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Deep Wood Brew Products, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: Go Keg USA (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BrooksGroup
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-13557, E.D. Mich., 11/01/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant directs goods, services, and advertising to Michigan and offers for sale products that allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mini-keg growler products infringe two of its design patents and two of its utility patents covering the ornamental appearance and functional aspects of portable beverage growlers.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of portable beverage containers, specifically stainless steel "growlers" designed to preserve carbonation and temperature for craft beer and other beverages.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement of the '436, '839, and '720 patents via written communication on January 16, 2017, but Defendant was unresponsive and did not cease its allegedly infringing activity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-30 | '131 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-11-04 | '839 and '436 Patents Priority Date |
| 2013-11-08 | '720 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-07-28 | '436 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-08-18 | '131 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-03-29 | '839 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-08-30 | '720 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-01-16 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2017-11-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
This analysis addresses two design patents and two utility patents. A full analysis is provided for one design patent and one utility patent. A Multi-Patent Capsule is provided for the second design patent. A note is provided for the second utility patent due to a documentary discrepancy.
U.S. Design Patent No. D735,436 - "Mini-keg Growler" (Issued July 28, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, ornamental, and non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent implicitly addresses the need for a new and distinct aesthetic design for a portable mini-keg growler. (D'436 Patent, Figs. 1-5).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a mini-keg growler as depicted in its figures. The design features a generally cylindrical body, a conical shoulder portion, and a collar with two opposing handle cutouts, topped by a neck structure. (D'436 Patent, Fig. 1). The broken lines in the figures, such as those depicting the cap and the bottom surface details, indicate environmental structure and are not part of the claimed design. (D'436 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a particular visual impression for a growler, combining elements of a traditional beer keg with a more portable form factor. (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings. (D'436 Patent, Claim).
- The single claim covers: "The ornamental design for a mini-keg growler, as shown and described."
U.S. Patent No. 9,428,720 - “Mini-keg Growler” (Issued August 30, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background notes that traditional glass growlers often leak gas, leading to lost carbonation, and are typically rated for low internal pressures. (’720 Patent, col. 1:11-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mini-keg growler system, comprising a container and a cap, designed to form a high-pressure vessel. A key feature is the interface between the container's neck and the cap, which includes a "chamfered flange" on the neck that is "constructed and arranged to receive and engage" an o-ring on the cap to create a durable, pressure-resistant seal. (’720 Patent, col. 4:35-56, Figs. 2-3). This design allows for liquids to be held under pressure, and potentially for fermentation to occur within the sealed container. (’720 Patent, col. 3:25-33).
- Technical Importance: This technology purports to provide a portable growler that better maintains the quality of carbonated beverages compared to conventional glass growlers by creating a more robust, high-pressure seal. (’720 Patent, col. 5:50-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-6 and 8-24. (Compl. ¶46).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A first cap with an upper surface, a lower surface, a side surface, a cap nipple with a groove, an o-ring in the groove, and outer threading.
- A first container with a cylindrical body, a closed end, a conical portion, and a neck.
- The neck having an inner threading to engage the cap's outer threading.
- The neck also having a chamfered flange that extends outwardly and is arranged to engage the o-ring to seal the cavity when the cap is threaded on.
- The combination forming a high-pressure vessel.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶46).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D752,839 - "Mini-keg Growler Neck without Cap" (Issued March 29, 2016)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for the neck portion of a mini-keg growler, separate from the cap or the main body. The claimed design consists of the specific visual appearance of the growler's opening and threaded neck structure, as shown in solid lines in the patent's figures. (D'839 Patent, Figs. 1-3).
- Asserted Claims: The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a mini-keg growler neck without cap, as shown and described." (Compl. ¶36-37).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the design of the neck on Defendant's mini-keg growlers is "the same or substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '839 patent. (Compl. ¶16).
Note on U.S. Patent No. 9,111,131
The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,111,131, which it identifies as “Mini-Keg Growler Cap, Components, Accessories and Designs for the Same” (Compl. ¶1, 12, 51-58). However, the patent document provided as U.S. Patent No. 9,111,131 is titled “Human Head Detection in Depth Images” and relates to computer vision technology. Due to this discrepancy, an analysis of the technology and infringement allegations for the patent actually asserted in the complaint cannot be performed from the provided documents.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's 64oz and 128oz varieties of its "Mini-keg Growler" products, including those sold with and without caps and dispensing kits. (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are portable beverage containers, or growlers, designed to hold and transport liquids. The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale on Defendant's website. (Compl. ¶20). The visual evidence provided in the complaint shows growlers with a metallic finish, a cylindrical body, and a top structure with handle cutouts, consistent with products used for craft beer. A side-by-side comparison table showing Plaintiff's patent figures next to photographs of Defendant's accused mini-keg growlers is provided in the complaint. (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
D'436 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Single Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a mini-keg growler, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's growler is "the same or substantially the same" as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The visual comparison shows a growler with a similar cylindrical body, conical shoulder, and collar with handle cutouts. | ¶16, ¶28, p. 6 | D'436 Patent, Figs. 1-5 |
'720 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint references "Plaintiff's Claim Chart 1" in Exhibit G to support its infringement allegations for the '720 patent (Compl. ¶46). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant's products infringe claims 1-6 and 8-24 because they constitute a mini-keg growler that is made, used, sold, or offered for sale by Defendant. (Compl. ¶44-45).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Design Patent Scope: For the '436 and '839 patents, the central question will be factual: applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall visual appearance of the accused growlers substantially the same as the claimed designs? The analysis will focus on the similarities in shape, configuration, and proportion between the patent drawings and the accused products. (Compl. ¶16, ¶28).
- Technical Questions ('720 Patent): Based on the narrative allegations, a key question for the '720 patent will be whether the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims. For example, does the sealing mechanism in Defendant's product feature a "chamfered flange" that is "fully and directly engaged with the o-ring" in the specific manner required by claim 1? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Analysis is provided for the '720 patent. Claim construction for design patents is tied to the drawings and is less focused on textual interpretation.
- The Term: "a chamfered flange constructed and arranged to receive and engage the o-ring to sealingly close the cavity when the first cap is threaded with the neck" (’720 Patent, cl. 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the critical sealing interface between the cap and the container, which is central to the patent's solution for creating a "high pressure vessel." The precise structural relationship and interaction between the flange, o-ring, and cap threading will likely be a focal point of the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the flange in functional terms, stating it is "constructed and arranged to receive and engage the o-ring to sealingly close the cavity." (’720 Patent, col. 4:40-44). A party might argue this language covers any angled surface on the neck that contacts the o-ring to create a seal upon threading.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific angular ranges, noting the flange may extend outwardly at "about 45 degrees from parallel with the neck" or, more broadly, "30 to 60 degrees." (’720 Patent, col. 4:45-48). Embodiment drawings also show a distinct, angled surface. (e.g., ’720 Patent, Fig. 2, element 62). A party could argue the term is limited to a flange within these specific angular parameters and having the depicted structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant from "contributing to the infringement of, or actively inducing infringement of" the patents-in-suit. (Compl. p. 14). However, the body of the complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement and does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for indirect infringement claims.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the '436, '839, and '720 patents on January 16, 2017, and demanded that Defendant cease its infringing activities. (Compl. ¶19). It is alleged that Defendant continued its conduct despite this notice, which forms the basis for the willfulness claim. (Compl. ¶20, ¶22, ¶32, ¶41, ¶50).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Question of Visual Identity (Design Patents): Will a side-by-side comparison convince the fact-finder that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing Defendant's growler believing it to be the one shown in Plaintiff's '436 and '839 design patents? The case for design infringement will depend heavily on the perceived visual similarity of the products.
- A Question of Technical Equivalence (Utility Patent): Does the sealing mechanism of the accused Go Keg USA growler meet every structural and functional limitation of the '720 patent's asserted claims? The dispute may focus on whether the accused product's neck-to-cap interface contains the specific "chamfered flange" that engages an o-ring in the manner claimed.
- A Question of Pleading Sufficiency: The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,111,131 for a "Mini-Keg Growler Cap," yet the provided document for that patent number relates to an entirely different field of technology. A threshold issue will be resolving this significant discrepancy, which currently prevents any meaningful analysis of the infringement claims for that patent.