5:23-cv-01801
Breeo LLC v. YardCraft LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Breeo LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: YardCraft LLC (Pennsylvania) and Urban Fire LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barley Snyder; Goodwin Procter LLP
- Case Identification: 5:23-cv-01801, E.D. Pa., 05/10/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and maintain their principal places of business within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smokeless fire pit products infringe three design patents and one utility patent related to the ornamental appearance and functional technology of smokeless fire pits.
- Technical Context: The technology involves smokeless fire pits, which employ specialized airflow designs to facilitate a secondary combustion that burns off smoke, providing a cleaner and more enjoyable user experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a history of pre-suit communications, including four letters from Plaintiff to Defendant YardCraft between August 2021 and July 2022, providing notice of the alleged infringement. Plaintiff alleges that despite Defendants’ representation that "changes have been made" to their products, the infringement has continued and expanded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-10-01 | Plaintiff allegedly designs world's first smokeless fire pit |
| 2014-01-01 | Plaintiff launches its Ablaze smokeless fire pit product |
| 2019-08-16 | Earliest priority date for all patents-in-suit |
| 2021-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. D919,777 issues |
| 2021-08-03 | U.S. Patent No. D926,950 issues |
| 2021-08-17 | Plaintiff's first notice of infringement letter to Defendant |
| 2022-03-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,278,153 issues |
| 2022-04-07 | Plaintiff provides notice of infringement of the '153 patent |
| 2022-04-08 | Plaintiff's second general notice of infringement letter |
| 2022-06-17 | Plaintiff's third notice of infringement letter |
| 2022-06-28 | U.S. Patent No. D956,193 issues |
| 2022-07-07 | Plaintiff's fourth notice of infringement letter |
| 2023-05-10 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D926,950 - "Fire Pit," issued August 3, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than function. The implicit problem is creating a novel, non-obvious, and distinctive ornamental design for a fire pit in a competitive market.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a fire pit. The design features a main cylindrical body with a smooth exterior wall, a flared top flange, and multiple distinct rectangular legs that protrude from the body and extend from the bottom to the top flange (Compl. ¶25; ’950 Patent, Figs. 1-5). The combination of these elements creates the overall ornamental impression protected by the patent.
- Technical Importance: Not applicable to a design patent, which protects non-functional aesthetics.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design.
- Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a fire pit, as shown and described." (’950 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual depiction in the patent's drawings.
U.S. Design Patent No. D919,777 - "Fire Pit," issued May 18, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’950 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a unique and non-obvious ornamental fire pit design.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a fire pit body. The design consists of a cylindrical exterior wall, a top flange, and rectangular legs that protrude from the wall (Compl. ¶26; ’777 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The drawings show this design in conjunction with a grill and post assembly, but that assembly is depicted in broken lines, indicating it is for illustrative purposes only and does not form part of the claimed design (’777 Patent, Description). The protected design is therefore the specific appearance of the fire pit body itself.
- Technical Importance: Not applicable to a design patent.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design.
- Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a fire pit, as shown and described." (’777 Patent, Claim). The claim's scope is dictated by the solid lines in the patent's figures.
U.S. Design Patent No. D956,193 - "Fire Pit," issued June 28, 2022
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D956193, "Fire Pit," issued June 28, 2022 (Compl. ¶22).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a fire pit, with the distinguishing feature being the appearance of the air inlets located at the bottom of the fire pit. The protected design consists of air inlets arranged in an "X-shape" that extend from the bottom of the unit (Compl. ¶27; ’193 Patent, Figs. 1-4).
- Asserted Claims: The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a fire pit, as shown and described" (’193 Patent, Claim).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses "The Forge™ Smokeless Fire Pit" of infringing by incorporating the patented X-shaped air inlet design, alleging the overall ornamental appearance is substantially the same (Compl. ¶¶75-76). The complaint provides a visual comparison of a patent figure and a photograph of the accused product's interior base (Compl. ¶76, p. 15).
U.S. Patent No. 11,278,153 - "Outdoor Fire Pit and Post Holder," issued March 22, 2022
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,278,153, "Outdoor Fire Pit and Post Holder," issued March 22, 2022 (Compl. ¶23).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of smoke from campfires by disclosing a fire pit with a double-wall construction that creates an air supply duct (’153 Patent, col. 2:6-16). This design heats air as it rises within the duct and introduces it to the top of the fire, facilitating a secondary combustion that reduces smoke (Compl. ¶29; ’153 Patent, col. 4:7-14). The invention also describes raised air inlet channels in the base, which are designed to distribute air evenly while limiting clogging from ash (Compl. ¶30; ’153 Patent, col. 2:36-42).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of claims 11-20, with claim 11 being the exemplary independent claim (Compl. ¶¶31, 93).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain the features of the asserted claims, including a body with a bottom wall and sidewall, and a plurality of "hollow air inlet arms" that define "spaced-apart, discrete air inlets" located above the bottom wall (Compl. ¶¶31, 93).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "The Forge™ Smokeless Fire Pit" and "The Hearth™ Smokeless Fire Pit" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are smokeless fire pits manufactured and sold by Defendant YardCraft, including through its "Urban Fire" brand (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Urban Fire website explicitly stating it is a "YardCraft brand" and directing visitors to "SHOP ON YARDCRAFT.COM" (Compl. ¶15, p. 4). Defendants are alleged to market and sell the Accused Products through their own websites and third-party retailers such as Lowe's (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint makes its allegations for the asserted design patents through narrative and side-by-side visual comparisons.
D'950 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products have an ornamental appearance that is "substantially the same" as the design protected by the ’950 Patent (Compl. ¶41). It supports this by presenting a table comparing a figure from the ’950 Patent to photographs of the "Forge" and "Hearth" products (Compl. ¶40, pp. 9-10). For example, a side-by-side comparison shows a drawing from the '950 patent next to a photograph of the accused "The Forge™ Smokeless Fire Pit" (Compl. ¶40, p. 9). This visual evidence is intended to demonstrate to the court that an ordinary observer would find the designs confusingly similar.
D'777 Patent Infringement Allegations
Similarly, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe the ’777 Patent because their ornamental appearance is "substantially the same" as the claimed design (Compl. ¶59). This allegation is also supported by visual evidence, which includes tables comparing FIG. 1 of the ’777 Patent to photographs of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶58, pp. 12-13). One visual juxtaposes the patent figure with two different photographs of the accused "The Forge™ Smokeless Fire Pit" to illustrate the alleged similarity in overall appearance (Compl. ¶58, p. 12).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the design patents will be whether the overall visual impression of the Accused Products is substantially the same as the claimed designs. The analysis will depend on how an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, perceives the combination of the cylindrical body, top flange, and leg structures.
- Factual Questions: The dispute may focus on specific visual differences between the patented designs and the Accused Products. A court will examine whether alleged distinctions in the proportions, angles, or specific shapes of the legs and body are significant enough to differentiate the designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer, or if they are minor variations that do not alter the overall similar appearance.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the asserted design patents (’950 Patent, ’777 Patent, and ’193 Patent), the single claim in each refers to the design "as shown and described." Unlike utility patents, design patent cases typically do not involve extensive claim construction disputes over specific terms. The analysis is a holistic comparison of the drawings to the accused product. Practitioners may therefore focus discovery and argument on the scope of the prior art and the visual comparisons rather than on construing claim language.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Defendants making and selling the Accused Products with knowledge of the patents and with the intent that end-users will infringe by using the products as intended. The complaint further alleges the products are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶35-36, 53-54, 89-90).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges Defendants’ infringement has been willful for all patents-in-suit. This allegation is primarily based on Defendants having received actual, pre-suit notice of infringement via a series of letters and emails beginning on August 17, 2021, and their subsequent continued sale of the Accused Products (e.g., Compl. ¶¶37-38, 55-56, 91-92). For the ’193 Patent, knowledge is also alleged based on the timing of its issuance amidst prior correspondence between the parties (Compl. ¶73).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to several central questions:
A core issue will be one of holistic design similarity: When viewed in the context of the prior art for smokeless fire pits, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' "Forge" and "Hearth" products substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '950, '777, and '193 patents, or are the visual differences legally significant?
For the utility patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: Do the internal structures of the Accused Products, particularly their bottom air-intake systems, meet the specific structural and functional limitations of the "hollow air inlet arms" and "discrete air inlets" as defined in claim 11 of the '153 patent?
A third major question will concern culpability: Given the alleged pre-suit notice dating back to August 2021, did Defendants act with the requisite state of mind to support a finding of willful infringement, potentially exposing them to enhanced damages?