2:25-cv-04086
Zgrills Inc v. American Outdoor Brands Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zgrills, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: AMERICAN OUTDOOR BRANDS, INC. d/b/a GRILLA GRILLS (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lathrop Gage LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-4086, W.D. Mo., 04/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Missouri because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendant’s "Silverbac Alpha" pellet grill infringes its design patent and associated trade dress for a barbecue oven.
- Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental, non-functional appearance of products in the consumer market for pellet-style barbecue grills.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with written notice of the asserted patent and its alleged infringement on January 23, 2023, more than two years prior to filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-01-26 | '901 Patent Foreign Priority Date |
| c. 2016 | Plaintiff's 700-Series grills, allegedly embodying the patent, first sold |
| 2017-07-04 | U.S. Patent No. D790,901 Issued |
| 2023-01-23 | Plaintiff allegedly sent written notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2025-04-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D790,901 - "BARBECUE OVEN," issued July 4, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not address a technical or functional problem. Rather, it seeks to establish a unique and distinctive ornamental appearance for a barbecue oven in a commercial market (Compl. ¶8, ¶16).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a barbecue oven as depicted in its seven figures ('901 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The complaint characterizes the claimed design as a combination of several visual features: a barrel-shaped grill space, a symmetrical two-door cabinet base, a side-mounted pellet hopper with an angled top, and an elbow-joint chimney ('901 Patent, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶15). The patent specification explicitly disclaims elements shown in broken lines, such as the wheels and chimney cap, as not being part of the claimed design ('901 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides aesthetic differentiation in the consumer grill market, which the complaint alleges serves to distinguish the Plaintiff's products from those of competitors (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a barbecue oven, as shown and described" ('901 Patent, CLAIM).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's figures, limited to the elements depicted in solid lines ('901 Patent, DESCRIPTION, Figs. 1-7).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Silverbac Wood Pellet Grill Alpha," with and without Wi-Fi connectivity (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a pellet grill that competes directly with Plaintiff's products in the U.S. market, allegedly targeting the same consumers through similar marketing channels (Compl. ¶22, ¶29). The infringement allegation centers on the product's overall ornamental appearance, which Plaintiff alleges is "substantially similar to, if not an exact copy of, the design claimed in the '901 Patent" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused grill, sourced from Defendant's website (Compl. p. 6, ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶25).
'901 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Design Feature (from '901 Patent figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature of Silverbac Alpha | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A barrel-shaped grill space | The accused product incorporates a barrel-shaped grill space. | ¶26 | '901 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A symmetrical two-door cabinet base | The accused product is supported by a symmetrical two-door cabinet base. | ¶26 | '901 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A pellet box with a top portion angling outward on three sides | The accused product includes a side-mounted pellet box with a top portion that angles outward. | ¶26 | '901 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| An elbow joint chimney | The accused product features an elbow joint chimney on the side opposite the pellet box. | ¶26 | '901 Patent, Fig. 1 |
To support its allegations, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of a drawing from the '901 Patent and a photograph of the accused Silverbac Alpha grill (Compl. p. 7, ¶24).
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Similarity: The core factual dispute will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused Silverbac Alpha is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '901 Patent. A defense may focus on any perceived differences in proportion, curvature, handle design, or other details to argue that the designs create different overall appearances.
- Scope of Protection: A legal dispute may arise over the proper application of the "ordinary observer" test, particularly regarding the elements of the patented design shown in broken lines (e.g., the chimney cap). The analysis must properly filter out these unclaimed features and focus only on the claimed design elements (the solid lines) when comparing the patented design to the accused product.
- Functionality: A potential defense in design patent litigation is that the allegedly copied design is primarily functional rather than ornamental. The complaint asserts the design elements are non-functional and ornamental (Compl. ¶16), but this may become a point of contention requiring expert testimony on grill design and manufacturing.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, "claim construction" focuses on defining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than construing individual text-based terms.
The "Term"
The ornamental design for a barbecue oven, as shown and described.
Context and Importance
The central task is not to define words, but to determine the scope of the visual design protected by the patent. This involves identifying which features in the drawings are part of the claimed design (solid lines) and which are merely illustrative context or environment (broken lines). This determination is critical because it defines what the jury will compare against the accused product under the "ordinary observer" test.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the claim protects the overall visual impression created by the combination of the barrel-top, cabinet base, and side-mounted hopper and chimney, and that minor variations in the accused product do not alter this overall look ('901 Patent, Fig. 1, 5-7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue the claim is limited to the exact proportions and contours shown in the patent's figures. The patent's disclaimer—"Portions of the barbecue oven shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design"—explicitly limits the scope of protection and could be used to argue that only the specific shapes depicted in solid lines are protected ('901 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving written notice of the '901 Patent and the infringement allegations on January 23, 2023 (Compl. ¶31). This allegation forms the basis for a request for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 (Compl. ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case will centrally depend on a visual and factual comparison: would an ordinary purchaser, familiar with other grills on the market, be deceived by the similarity between the accused Silverbac Alpha and the specific ornamental design protected by the '901 Patent?
- The Functionality Doctrine: A key legal and factual question may be whether the design claimed in the '901 Patent is dictated by ornamental choices, as Plaintiff alleges, or whether Defendant can demonstrate that the shared design features (e.g., a barrel shape for heat circulation, a cabinet for storage) are primarily functional, which would render the design patent unenforceable.
- Impact of Pre-Suit Notice: A critical issue for damages will be the allegation of willfulness. The court will examine the facts surrounding the alleged January 2023 notice letter to determine if Defendant's subsequent conduct was "willful, and malicious," potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages (Compl. ¶31).