4:23-cv-00904
Thousand Oaks Barrel Co LLC v. Partnerships Companies Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC (Virginia)
- Defendant: The Partnerships, Companies, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Various domestic and foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WHITESTONE LAW PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00904, E.D. Va., 11/16/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants target and sell products to consumers in the Eastern District of Virginia through interactive e-commerce websites like Amazon.com, and for non-U.S. based Defendants, venue is proper in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various online retailers are selling cocktail smoker devices that infringe its patent related to a device and method for imparting smoked flavors to beverages and foodstuffs.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld devices that sit atop a drinking glass to infuse a beverage with smoke, a popular accessory in the enthusiast and professional cocktail market.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint is filed against a schedule of unidentified "Doe" defendants, a common strategy in cases involving numerous, often foreign, sellers on e-commerce platforms. The complaint also includes a count for federal trade dress infringement, which is separate from the patent infringement claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-11-20 | '256 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-09-05 | '256 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-11-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,744,256 - "Device and method for Imparting Smoked Flavors to Beverages and Foodstuffs"
- Issued: September 5, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for smoking cocktails as either cumbersome (e.g., using a large glass box that requires extensive cleaning) or limited (e.g., smoking an empty glass before pouring the beverage, which prevents infusion into the liquid itself) ( Compl., Ex. A, '256 Patent, col. 1:14-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a compact device designed to rest on the rim of a drinking glass that already contains a beverage. It comprises an upper "fuel chamber portion" to hold combustible material (like wood chips) and a lower "conduit portion" that extends down into the glass. The device's specific geometry is designed to facilitate smoke flowing downward from the ignited fuel, through apertures in the conduit, and into the glass to infuse the beverage (Compl., Ex. A, '256 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:56-62).
- Technical Importance: This approach simplifies the process of smoking a cocktail by allowing a user to directly infuse a finished drink in its serving glass, avoiding the need for separate, larger apparatus (Compl., Ex. A, '256 Patent, col. 1:42-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-19, with claims 1, 9, and 10 identified as independent (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 31).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a device comprising:
- A base with a fuel chamber portion at its upper end and a conduit portion at its lower end.
- The fuel chamber has an upper wall and a floor with an opening.
- The fuel chamber is oriented to hold fuel.
- The conduit portion is below the floor and has a channel.
- The channel is structured to facilitate the downward flow of smoke from the fuel chamber through at least one aperture in the wall of the conduit portion when fuel is ignited.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are various "smoker devices for imparting smoked flavors to cocktail beverages and foods," sold by the Doe Defendants on Amazon.com and other online platforms (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a specific example from "Defendant Doe#68," identified as "Cocktail Smoker Kit Including Torch & 4 Flavors Wood Chips" (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are sold as kits, typically including a smoker device (often made of wood), a screen or filter for holding wood chips, and sometimes a butane torch (Compl. ¶28, p. 8). The device is placed on top of a cocktail glass, fuel is placed in the device and ignited, and the resulting smoke is captured in the glass to flavor the drink (Compl. pp. 9-10). The complaint alleges these products are manufactured in China and sold by numerous online sellers, creating a "flood" in the market that damages the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 18). An annotated image from an accused product's online listing illustrates the alleged "How to Use" steps, including igniting wood chips and placing the device on a drink (Compl. p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'256 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device for imparting smoked flavors to beverages and foodstuffs, comprising: a base having a fuel chamber portion at its upper end and a conduit portion at its lower end... | The accused product is a device with a base, an upper fuel chamber, and a lower conduit portion. An annotated image shows these components on the accused device. | ¶28, p. 9 | col. 3:16-20 |
| the fuel chamber portion comprising an upper wall portion defining a perimeter edge of the fuel chamber portion and a floor defining a bottom end, the floor extending from the upper wall portion to an opening in the floor, | The accused device's fuel chamber is alleged to have an upper wall defining its perimeter and a floor with an opening. An annotated image points out these features. | ¶28, p. 9 | col. 3:20-23 |
| wherein the fuel chamber portion is oriented to hold fuel, | The accused device is shown in a "How To Use" diagram being loaded with wood chips, demonstrating its orientation to hold fuel. | ¶28, p. 10 | col. 3:23-25 |
| wherein the conduit portion is disposed below the floor and comprises a channel through the conduit portion | The accused device's conduit is located below the fuel chamber floor and contains a channel for smoke. | ¶28, p. 10 | col. 4:1-4 |
| so that, when the fuel in the fuel chamber portion is ignited, the channel facilitates flow of smoke down-ward from the fuel chamber portion through at least one aperture that extends from the channel space through a wall of the conduit portion. | An annotated image from the accused product's listing claims that when ignited, "the channel facilitates flow of smoke down-ward...through at least one aperture...through a wall of the conduit portion." | ¶28, p. 10 | col. 5:56-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Functional Questions: The complaint relies on marketing imagery to allege the function of "flow of smoke down-ward" (Compl. p. 10). A central question may be whether the accused devices, by their physical structure, actually perform this function as claimed, or if smoke merely diffuses from a high-pressure ignition point. The complaint does not provide empirical evidence or testing data to support this functional allegation.
- Scope Questions: The claim requires "at least one aperture that extends from the channel space through a wall of the conduit portion." The patent figures depict distinct holes drilled through the side of the conduit portion ('256 Patent, Fig. 3, element 114). The court may need to determine if this language reads on accused devices that might have a different configuration, such as a fully open bottom or a different type of perforation, which may not constitute an aperture "through a wall."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "flow of smoke down-ward"
Context and Importance: This functional limitation is a core aspect of the invention, distinguishing it from simple smokers where smoke would naturally rise. The infringement analysis for all asserted claims will likely depend on whether the accused devices are found to perform this specific function. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the device's structure to its novel result.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "the design of the smoker device will unexpectedly facilitate smoke to flow downward" but does not detail a specific physical mechanism, which may suggest that any device structure resulting in a net downward flow meets the limitation (Compl., Ex. A, '256 Patent, col. 5:56-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description consistently links this downward flow to the overall claimed structure, including the "conduit portion" (108), the "floor" (112), and the "apertures" (114). A party could argue that the term requires not just any downward flow, but a downward flow specifically caused by the interplay of these recited structural elements as described in the patent's embodiments.
The Term: "conduit portion"
Context and Importance: The definition and scope of this structural element are fundamental to the claim. The relationship between the "fuel chamber portion" and the "conduit portion" defines the device's two-part architecture.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the term functionally and by its location ("at its lower end," "disposed below the floor"). This may support a construction covering any structure that fulfills these broad locational and channeling roles, regardless of its specific shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the conduit portion as a distinct, hollow, cylindrical structure extending from the base ('256 Patent, Fig. 1, element 108; col. 3:18-20). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment, potentially excluding devices with differently shaped or integrated lower sections.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing the accused products with instructions for use, such as the "How To Use" diagrams on product listings, which allegedly direct customers to perform the infringing method of imparting smoked flavors (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 34).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness on the basis that "Defendants have been willfully infringing...since at least as early as they became aware of the Patents-in-Suit" and have "refused to cease selling products" (Compl. ¶39). The pleading does not specify whether this awareness is alleged to be pre- or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to be a targeted enforcement action against a wave of similar, allegedly infringing products on e-commerce platforms. The resolution will likely depend on two central questions:
A core issue will be one of functional operation: does the evidence show that the accused products' physical design actually "facilitates flow of smoke down-ward" as required by the claim, or does smoke simply diffuse in a manner distinct from the claimed invention? Plaintiff's current reliance on marketing materials may be challenged with technical or expert evidence.
A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "aperture that extends... through a wall of the conduit portion," as illustrated in the patent's specific embodiments, be construed broadly enough to cover the varied designs of the accused products, which may feature different types of openings or perforations?