DCT
5:22-cv-04451
Breeo LLC v. AMD Direct Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Breeo LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: AMD Direct Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barley Snyder LLP
- Case Identification: 5:22-cv-04451, E.D. Pa., 11/07/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including Defendant’s advertising and sale of accused products, occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smokeless wood fire pit infringes one utility patent and two design patents related to fire pit construction and appearance.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the consumer market for "smokeless" fire pits, which are designed to improve combustion efficiency and reduce smoke output through specific airflow designs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents and its infringement allegations via correspondence beginning in April 2022, several months prior to filing suit. This correspondence is cited as a basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-08-16 | Priority Date for ’153, ’172, and ’357 Patents |
| ~2019 | Plaintiff begins selling its X Series Products |
| ~2021 | Plaintiff stops selling X Series Products via distributors |
| 2021-03-23 | ’172 Design Patent Issued |
| 2021-05-04 | ’357 Design Patent Issued |
| 2022-03-22 | ’153 Utility Patent Issued |
| 2022-04-22 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2022-11-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,278,153 - Outdoor Fire Pit and Post Holder (Issued Mar. 22, 2022)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies smoke generated by backyard fires as a common drawback that can be a nuisance to homeowners and neighbors (’153 Patent, col. 1:33-39). It notes that while some fire pits use a double-wall construction to reduce smoke, there remains a need for general improvement (’153 Patent, col.1:45-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fire pit that introduces combustion air from the bottom through a specialized air inlet assembly. This assembly features a hollow "air inlet arm" connected to the fire box's bottom wall, positioned over an air opening (Compl. ¶11; ’153 Patent, Abstract). The arm has discrete air inlets that are raised above the bottom wall and may include overhangs, a design intended to evenly distribute air to the fire while preventing the inlets from being clogged by ash (’153 Patent, col. 6:58-63; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to provide a more effective and reliable way to feed oxygen to the base of the fire, enhancing combustion and reducing smoke, particularly by protecting the air inlets from ash blockage. (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 27 (Compl. ¶37).
- Independent Claim 1 includes these primary elements:
- A body with a bottom wall and a sidewall defining a fire box.
- The bottom wall defining an air opening.
- An elongated, hollow air inlet arm connected to the bottom wall and disposed over the air opening.
- A top portion of the air inlet arm defining a plurality of spaced-apart, discrete air inlets.
- Each air inlet being spaced above the bottom wall by a portion of the air inlet arm.
- Independent Claim 27 adds further limitations, including:
- The air inlet arm having first and second sides with discrete air inlets on both sides.
- An "overhang for each of the air inlets."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Design Patent No. D914,172 - Fire Pit (Issued Mar. 23, 2021)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not address a technical problem; as a design patent, it protects the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an object.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a fire pit as depicted in its figures (’172 Patent, Claim). The design's overall aesthetic is defined by the combination of a circular body, a prominent overhanging top flange, and several distinct, vertical, rectangular legs that run along the exterior of the body from the ground to the flange (’172 Patent, Fig. 1). The broken lines depicting a grilling accessory indicate it is for illustrative purposes only and not part of the claimed design (’172 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this aesthetic configuration is distinctive in the marketplace (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a fire pit, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶23; ’172 Patent, Claim).
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D918,357, "Fire Pit," issued May 4, 2021.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, a divisional of the application that led to the ’172 Patent, claims an ornamental design for a fire pit. The design is substantially identical to that of the ’172 Patent, featuring a cylindrical body, a top flange, and distinct vertical legs.
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim for the ornamental design as shown (’357 Patent, Claim).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the overall visual appearance of the Defendant’s Lume fire pit infringes this design patent, asserting it looks "strikingly similar" to Plaintiff's products embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶24, 27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Lume" smokeless fire pit, manufactured and sold by Defendant AMD Direct Inc. (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Lume fire pit features a "double wall design and holes around the rim," a "main body with a floating fire box that is supported from above by a top flange," and an "air inlet assembly carried by the bottom wall" (Compl. ¶17). These features are alleged to make the Lume product "function substantially similar" to Plaintiff's X Series products (Compl. ¶18). A provided image of the accused product shows a cylindrical fire pit with an interior structure for airflow. (Compl. p. 5, Photograph of the Infringing Product).
- The complaint alleges that AMD developed the Lume product to "fill a void" in the market after Plaintiff changed its sales model and stopped selling through distributors, who then sought an alternative product (Compl. ¶16-17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’153 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body having a bottom wall and a sidewall that define a fire box; the fire box adapted to receive items to be burned... | The Lume product includes a body with a bottom wall and a sidewall that form a fire box. An annotated image in the complaint identifies these components on the accused product. (Compl., p. 6, Fig. 1). | ¶21 | col. 8:37-40 |
| the bottom wall defining an air opening; | The Lume product's bottom wall includes an opening for an air inlet arm. An annotated diagram shows this opening from a bottom view. (Compl., p. 7, Fig. 2). | ¶21 | col. 8:41-42 |
| an elongated air inlet arm connected to the bottom wall; the air inlet arm being hollow and disposed over the air opening; | The Lume product includes an "annular ring" described as an elongated, hollow air inlet arm connected to the bottom wall. A photo shows this structure inside the fire box. (Compl., p. 7, Fig. 3). | ¶21 | col. 8:43-46 |
| the air inlet arm having a top portion that defines a plurality of spaced-apart, discrete air inlets for the fire box... | The top portion of the Lume product's air inlet arm is alleged to define multiple discrete air inlets. | ¶21 | col. 8:47-51 |
| each of the spaced-apart, discrete air inlets being spaced above the bottom wall by a portion of the air inlet arm. | The air inlets in the Lume product are alleged to be spaced above the bottom wall. | ¶21 | col. 8:52-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges an "annular ring" in the accused product meets the "elongated air inlet arm" limitation (Compl. ¶21). A court may need to determine if "elongated arm" can read on a circular ring, particularly when the patent specification and figures exclusively depict a cross-shaped assembly of linear, radiating arms (’153 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:50-52).
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the accused Lume product meets the limitations of claim 1 and 27, including having inlets "spaced above the bottom wall" and possessing an "overhang" (Compl. ¶21). It raises the question of what specific evidence Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that the physical structure of the accused "annular ring" satisfies these claimed functional and structural requirements.
’172 and ’357 Design Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Lume fire pit is "strikingly similar" to the designs claimed in the ’172 and ’357 Patents (Compl. ¶24). The infringement theory relies on the "ordinary observer" test, arguing that a consumer would be deceived into believing the Lume product is the Plaintiff's product. The complaint highlights alleged similarities in the "legs positioned along the body of the fire box, a floating fire box, and a flanged top plate that protrudes from the body" (Compl. ¶27). To bolster this claim, it presents images of what it characterizes as "non-infringing fire pits" to argue that the accused design is uniquely similar to the patented one (Compl. p. 9, Examples of non-infringing fire pits).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Comparison: The central dispute will be a direct visual comparison between the accused Lume product and the designs claimed in the patents. The analysis will focus on whether the overall visual impression is "substantially the same," considering the proportions, shapes, and arrangement of the cylindrical body, the top flange, and the vertical legs.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’153 Patent:
- The Term: "elongated air inlet arm" (from Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the infringement analysis. Defendant may argue its accused "annular ring" structure is not an "elongated air inlet arm" as contemplated by the patent, potentially avoiding infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s own figures show a starkly different configuration than what is accused.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a shape for the "elongated" arm, only that it is "elongated," or longer than it is wide. Plaintiff may argue that a circular ring has a length (its circumference) and thus falls within the plain meaning of the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes and depicts the invention as having "a plurality of open arms 42 that radially extend outwardly from a central joint" (’153 Patent, col. 5:50-52). All figures illustrating this element (e.g., Fig. 2, Fig. 3) show a cross-shaped structure made of linear arms, not a continuous ring. This consistent depiction of a specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such radiating arm structures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶38). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement, stemming from notice letters Plaintiff sent beginning on April 22, 2022 (Compl. ¶29, 36, 40). The complaint also alleges that Defendant acted despite an "objectively high likelihood that their actions constitute infringement" (Compl. ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "elongated air inlet arm" in the ’153 Patent, which is exclusively illustrated in the specification with linear, radiating arms, be construed broadly enough to encompass the accused product's circular "annular ring" air-delivery structure?
- A second key issue will be one of visual identity for the design patent claims: considering the prior art, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendant's Lume fire pit "substantially the same" as the patented designs, or are there sufficient visual differences in the body, legs, and flange to distinguish them in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
- An important factual question will concern intent: does the evidence support the complaint's narrative that Defendant designed the Lume product specifically to "fill a void" left by Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶17), a finding which could influence the analysis of willfulness and the related unfair competition claims?