Stache Products LLC v. TK Vienna Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stache Products, LLC (Maryland)
  • Defendant: TK Vienna Inc. DBA Tobacco King & Vape (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
• Case Identification: 5:23-cv-04267, E.D. Pa., 11/02/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s all-in-one dab rig products infringe three utility patents and one design patent related to integrated vaporization devices.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to portable vaporization devices, commonly known as "dab rigs," which are used to consume cannabinoid concentrates by heating them with a torch or other element.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the asserted patents are continuations of the lead '006 patent, which may indicate a shared specification and common claim construction issues across the patent family.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,786,006 - "Vaporization Device," Issued September 29, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional vaporization rigs as being "large, burdensome, hard to transport, indiscreet, and hard to use with one hand," as a user must typically hold the rig in one hand and a separate heating torch in the other ('006 Patent, col. 2:38-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single, integrated apparatus comprising a support structure that holds both a heating element (e.g., a torch) and a vaporization rig in a fixed alignment ('006 Patent, col. 2:50-55). The support structure features a hole to receive the heating element and a receptacle on its top surface for the rig, positioning the heat source directly beneath the rig's "heatable portion" (the nail) to enable one-handed operation ('006 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This integrated design aims to improve the portability, safety, and ease of use of vaporization rigs by combining the separate components into a single, handheld unit ('006 Patent, col. 4:45-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A support structure with a top receptacle and a front hole.
  • A heating element insertable into the hole.
  • A vaporization rig securable in the receptacle, which itself includes a main body, a nail with a nail receptacle, and a mouthpiece.
  • A functional requirement that securing the rig in the support structure "aligns a heatable portion of the vaporization rig with a heat generating portion of the heating element."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but such a reservation is common practice.

U.S. Patent No. 11,497,244 - "Vaporization Device," Issued November 15, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '006 patent, the '244 patent addresses the same problem of conventional rigs being cumbersome and requiring two-handed operation ('244 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
• The Patented Solution: This invention also describes an integrated vaporization apparatus. The claims refine the concept by defining the support structure as having a "first receptacle" for the vaporization rig and a "second receptacle" for the heating element ('244 Patent, col. 11:15-20). The invention specifies that the first receptacle is configured to "frictionally engage" the rig, and the two receptacles are spaced to achieve longitudinal alignment between the rig's heatable portion and the heating element ('244 Patent, col. 11:26-37).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides an integrated device that simplifies operation and enhances user safety, consistent with the parent patent ('244 Patent, col. 4:50-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least one claim (Compl. ¶28). Assuming this refers to the first independent claim, the analysis focuses on claim 1.
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A support structure defining a "first receptacle" and a "second receptacle."
  • A heating element insertable into the second receptacle.
  • A vaporization rig securable in the first receptacle.
  • A requirement that the first receptacle "frictionally engage" the rig.
  • A requirement that the spacing of the receptacles "longitudinally aligns" the heatable portion of the rig with the heating element.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,497,252

• Patent Identification: 11,497,252, "Vaporization Device," Issued November 15, 2022.
• Technology Synopsis: This continuation patent claims a vaporization apparatus with a body containing a first receptacle for a removable heating element and a second, separate receptacle on its top surface for the vaporization rig ('252 Patent, col. 15:52-62). The invention focuses on the structural arrangement that allows the heating element to be used either integrated within the body or removed and used separately, while ensuring proper alignment when installed ('252 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least one claim is asserted, with independent claims 1 and 11 being the primary candidates (Compl. ¶33).
• Accused Features: The integrated housing, removable torch, and separate vaporization rig of the "ZAZA DAB MASTER" product are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶13-14).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D872,933 S

• Patent Identification: D872,933 S, "Vaporization Rig," Issued January 14, 2020.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a vaporization rig, characterized by a generally rectangular body with rounded corners, a vertical mouthpiece, and openings on the top and side surfaces ('933 Patent, DESCRIPTION; FIG. 1).
• Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described is asserted (Compl. ¶38).
• Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of the accused "ZAZA DAB MASTER" product is alleged to be substantially similar to the patented design (Compl. ¶13-14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "ZAZA DAB MASTER" and "Cookies ALL IN ON DAB KIT" as the accused products (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is an "all-in-one rig device that flash heats cannabinoid concentrates to the point of vaporization, utilizing a torch" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further alleges that the accused product "operates identically to Plaintiff's product" and that Plaintiff is a "dab rig market leader," suggesting the products are direct competitors in the market for portable vaporization devices (Compl. ¶14; Compl. p. 2, ¶5). The complaint provides an image of the accused product, the "ZAZA DAB MASTER / Cookies ALL IN ON DAB KIT," in its retail packaging, showing the assembled device (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a general infringement theory in prose rather than a detailed claim chart. The following tables synthesize the allegations from the complaint's narrative description.

10,786,006 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the nail receptacle to be "positioned at a first predetermined distance beyond the front end or the back end of the support structure." The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of whether the accused product meets this specific spatial limitation.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused product's structure achieves the claimed "alignment" between the heat generating portion and the heatable portion. The complaint asserts this alignment but offers no specific evidence or measurements to support the allegation.

11,497,244 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Questions: Does the accused product's method of securing the vaporization rig constitute "frictional engagement" as required by the claim? Answering this will require inspection of the accused product to determine if the fit relies on friction, such as a press-fit or a specialized grip member.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term (from '006 Patent): "aligns a heatable portion... with a heat generating portion"

  • Context and Importance: This functional limitation is the central inventive concept of the '006 patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the term requires a precise, specific alignment or allows for any general functional alignment.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and summary broadly state that the components are positioned to "align" the parts, which could support a construction covering any arrangement that achieves the functional goal of one-handed heating ('006 Patent, Abstract).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific embodiment where the central axis of the heating element's flame guide is "collinear with" the central axis of the rig's nail receptacle ('006 Patent, col. 7:15-18; Fig. 3A). A party may argue that "aligns" should be limited to this more precise, collinear relationship.

• Term (from '244 Patent): "frictionally engage"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism for securing the vaporization rig. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused product's securing method—which is not detailed in the complaint—falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes sidewalls that are "configured to frictionally engage sidewalls of a main body of the vaporization rig," suggesting a standard friction or press fit ('244 Patent, col. 2:6-8).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses a specific "grip member" designed to "increase an amount of friction" ('244 Patent, col. 2:12-14; Fig. 7A). A party could argue that "frictionally engage" implies more than incidental contact and requires a structure specifically configured to generate a securing friction force, such as the disclosed grip member.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a formal count for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A). The factual basis for this allegation is a statement that "Defendant had knowledge of the patents" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge was pre-suit or post-suit.

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: what evidence, beyond the product's general appearance, will be presented to demonstrate that the accused "ZAZA DAB MASTER" device possesses the specific structural relationships—such as the "predetermined distance" of the nail ('006 Patent) and the "frictional engagement" of the receptacle ('244 Patent)—required by the asserted claims?
• The case may turn on a question of claim scope: will the term "aligns," central to the '006 patent, be construed broadly to mean any functional alignment that allows for one-handed heating, or will it be limited by the specification to the more precise, collinear alignment depicted in the patent's preferred embodiments?
• For the design patent, the key question will be one of visual similarity: in the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art designs, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product substantially the same as the claimed design in the '933 patent, or are the visual differences sufficient to distinguish the two?