Woodstream Corp v. Nature's Way Bird Products LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Woodstream Corporation (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Nature's Way Bird Products, LLC (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barley Snyder
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00294, N.D. Ohio, 06/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of business within the Northern District of Ohio.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of hummingbird feeders infringes two patents related to the design of feed port assemblies.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns improvements to hummingbird feeder feed ports, focusing on features designed for modularity and to selectively allow access for hummingbirds while deterring insects.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via letters on September 21, 2022, and October 3, 2022, the latter of which included claim charts. Both patents-in-suit recently underwent ex parte reexamination, resulting in amendments to the specific claims asserted in this litigation, which will likely focus the dispute on the interpretation of the newly added claim language.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-04-19	’246 Patent Priority Date
2018-12-21	’007 Patent Priority Date
2021-06-15	’007 Patent Issue Date
2021-10-19	’246 Patent Issue Date
2022-09-21	Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter
2022-10-03	Plaintiff sends letter with infringement claim charts
2023-06-12	Second Amended Complaint Filing Date
2024-08-22	’007 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued
2024-10-25	’246 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued

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

U.S. Patent 11,147,246: Hummingbird Feeder with Improved Flower Assembly Mounting Member (Issued Oct. 19, 2021)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to address difficulties with prior art hummingbird feeders, noting that some designs may prevent easy access for hummingbirds, fail to block unwanted insects like bees, and can be complicated to disassemble for cleaning (’246 Patent, col. 2:35-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a feeder with an improved mounting member (or plug) for the flower-shaped feed port. This member features an "elongated tapered nectar passageway" designed to be narrow enough to deter bees but shaped to allow hummingbirds to easily access nectar. The plug's exterior is also shaped to facilitate easy insertion and secure mounting into the feeder basin. (’246 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to create a more selective and user-friendly feeder by simultaneously improving nectar access for hummingbirds, impeding access for insects, and simplifying the cleaning process (’246 Patent, col. 2:10-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶16). This claim was amended during a subsequent ex parte reexamination.
• The essential elements of amended claim 11 include:
  • A hummingbird feeder comprising a nectar container and a feeding basin with at least one feed port opening.
  • A plug with a flower body, the plug having a "protruding flexible ring" fitted through and "directly secured against" the feed port.
  • No portion of the flower body enters the feed port opening.
  • The plug has an "elongated tapered passageway" with an inner surface having an angle of taper between about 3 and 7 degrees.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent 11,033,007: Hummingbird Feeder with Elastomeric Ornamental Feed Port Having an Accessory Mounting Rib (Issued Jun. 15, 2021)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in existing feeders where perches are often integrally molded and fixed components. This lacks adaptability for users who may or may not want to use perches or other accessories. (’007 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an elastomeric feed port plug with at least two longitudinally spaced "annular ribs" on its outer surface. This structure allows the plug to be installed in the feeder basin at two different depths: a "fully inserted position" without an accessory, and an "intermediate position." In the intermediate position, a space is created between the head of the port and the basin, which can hold an accessory like a perch. (’007 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-13; Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: The invention introduces modularity to hummingbird feeder design, allowing a user to customize the feeder by adding or removing optional accessories (’007 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16). This claim was amended during a subsequent ex parte reexamination.
• The essential elements of amended claim 1 include:
  • A hummingbird feeder comprising a nectar container and a feeding basin with at least one feed port opening.
  • An elastomeric feed port fitted within the opening.
  • The feed port has an ornamentally-shaped head larger than the opening and a plug.
  • The plug has an outer surface with at least two "annular ribs" that "directly engage with an edge of the feed port opening."
  • This engagement secures the feed port in at least two different positions within the opening.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Artisan Gravity Hummingbird Feeder Model No. WWAGF3" as a primary accused product ("NW Feeders") and lists several other models as "NW Additional Feeders" that allegedly share the same infringing qualities (Compl. ¶¶10, 11, 13).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are hummingbird feeders consisting of a nectar reservoir and a base with multiple feeding ports (Compl. p. 3). The complaint includes a side-by-side image comparing Figure 1 of the ’246 Patent with a photograph of the accused NW Feeder, intended to illustrate their similarities (Compl. p. 3). The core of the infringement allegation is that the design and functionality of the feed port assemblies in these products embody the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶24, 31). The complaint does not provide further detail on the market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that it provided detailed infringement claim charts to the Defendant pre-suit (referenced as Exhibit D), but this exhibit is not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶16). In the absence of these charts, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

The complaint asserts that Defendant’s manufacture, use, and sale of the NW Feeders and NW Additional Feeders constitute direct infringement of, at a minimum, claim 11 of the ’246 Patent and claim 1 of the ’007 Patent (Compl. ¶¶16, 24-26, 31-33). The infringement theory is one of literal infringement, alleging that the accused feeders contain all the elements described and claimed in the asserted patents (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • ’246 Patent: A primary technical question will be whether the accused feeders' port design meets the specific dimensional and structural requirements of amended claim 11. This includes whether they feature a "protruding flexible ring" that is "directly secured against" the feed port and, critically, whether the internal passageway has an "angle of taper between about 3 degrees and about 7 degrees."
  • ’007 Patent: The central dispute may turn on the interpretation and application of language added during reexamination. A key question will be whether the accused feeders' ports have "at least two annular ribs" that "directly engage with an edge of the feed port opening" in a manner that secures the port in "at least two different positions" of depth. Proving this multi-positional functionality in the accused product will be a key factual issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term (from ’007 Patent): "directly engage with an edge of the feed port opening"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase was added to claim 1 during reexamination and is therefore likely to be a focal point of the dispute. Its interpretation will be critical for determining whether the accused product's method of seating the feed port infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the precise physical interaction required between the port's ribs and the basin opening.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a functional outcome where the ribs "flex to pass through the port hole and then snap back out to secure the feed port... with a snap fit," which could support an interpretation covering any structure achieving that result (’007 Patent, col. 7:31-35).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 and the accompanying text show an embodiment where the ribs engage the basin cover to secure the port (’007 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 6:31-41). This could be used to argue for a more specific type of structural engagement with the edge of the opening.

• Term (from ’246 Patent): "protruding flexible ring"

  • Context and Importance: This term from amended claim 11 defines the mechanism that secures the plug in the feed port. The physical nature of the "ring"—whether it must be continuous, its material properties, and its shape—will be central to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "stop element" more broadly, stating it "may have various configurations" and can be a "flexible ridge or protruding ring" (’246 Patent, col. 4:13-18). This language may support a definition that is not limited to a geometrically perfect ring.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment depicted in the figures shows a single, continuous, circumferential ridge (44), which a party could argue limits the term to that specific structure (’246 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 4:17-18).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of contributory and inducing infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶¶27, 34). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support these allegations, such as references to advertising or user manuals that instruct on an infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "deliberate, knowing, and willful" (Compl. ¶¶28, 35). This allegation is supported by specific factual claims that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement, including a letter on September 21, 2022, and a subsequent letter with detailed claim charts on October 3, 2022, months before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).

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

• A central issue will be one of claim scope after reexamination: can Plaintiff prove that the accused feeders meet the specific limitations added to the asserted claims during reexamination? The case will likely turn on the court’s construction of terms like "directly engage with an edge" (’007 Patent) and "protruding flexible ring" (’246 Patent), and whether the accused structures fall within that narrowed scope.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional and dimensional proof: does the accused feeder's port possess an internal passageway with a taper angle between 3 and 7 degrees as required by the ’246 Patent? For the ’007 Patent, can the accused feed port be demonstrably secured in at least two functionally distinct positions of depth? These are factual questions that will require physical evidence and likely competing expert testimony.