DCT

1:25-cv-01389

Nash Innovations LLC v. Mopeka Products LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01389, W.D. Tex., 08/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant operates its principal place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Mopeka Tank Halo" propane tank stabilizer infringes a patent related to protective covers for propane cylinders.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns retrofittable protective bases for standard propane gas cylinders, designed to improve stability, prevent rust stains on surfaces, and enhance safety.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant on December 20, 2016, to propose a partnership, which Defendant declined before creating the accused product. The complaint further alleges that Defendant was informed of the patent's publication as early as September 7, 2018, and of its potential infringement of the issued patent on March 12, 2025, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-05-07 ’664 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-12 Plaintiff began selling its patented product, "Tank Tire"
2016-12-20 Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding a potential partnership
2018-09-07 Defendant allegedly informed of the ’664 Patent's publication
2021-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,882,664 Issued
2025-03-12 Defendant allegedly informed of infringement of the issued ’664 Patent
2025-08-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,882,664 - Method and Apparatus for Covering a Portion of a Propane Cylinder

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,882,664, titled “Method and Apparatus for Covering a Portion of a Propane Cylinder,” issued January 5, 2021 (the "’664 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes issues with conventional propane cylinders, which are prone to tipping over due to a small base, leaving rust stains on surfaces, and being awkward and uncomfortable to carry (’664 Patent, col. 1:22-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a flexible, hardened cover that fits onto the metal foot ring at the base of a propane cylinder. As illustrated in Figure 6, the cover (10) attaches to the foot ring (32) of the cylinder (112), providing a wider, non-rusting, and non-conductive platform that contacts the ground instead of the tank's metal base, thereby increasing stability and preventing rust transfer (’664 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-51).
  • Technical Importance: The invention offers a simple, retrofittable device that addresses common safety and maintenance problems associated with the widespread use of standard propane tanks in consumer and commercial settings (’664 Patent, col. 1:43-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A cover for a tank that has a foot ring.
    • The cover prevents the foot ring from contacting a surface.
    • A "slit" in the top portion of the cover that has an open top and two opposing concentric sides.
    • The slit "sandwiching" at least a portion of the foot ring between its first and second sides.
    • The top portion of the cover extends from an inside wall to an outside wall.
    • The "entirety of the upwardly facing top surface" defines a first plane that is parallel with a second plane defined by the bottom surface of the cover.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is the "Mopeka Tank Halo" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Mopeka Tank Halo is an "Apparatus for Covering a Portion of Propane Cylinder" that functions as a tank stabilizer (Compl. ¶4, 15). The complaint states that the accused "Mopeka Tank Halo" is depicted in its Exhibit B (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that after being approached for a partnership regarding Plaintiff's "Tank Tire" product, which is often used with Defendant's "Tank Check Sensor," Defendant created its own "infringing Mopeka Tank Halo" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Mopeka Tank Halo" directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’664 Patent (Compl. ¶20). For its element-by-element infringement analysis, the complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart attached as Exhibit C (Compl. ¶21). As Exhibit C was not provided with the filed complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of asserted Claim 1, the infringement analysis will likely raise several technical and legal questions:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused product's mechanism for attaching to a propane tank's foot ring constitutes a "slit" that "sandwich[es]" the ring between "first and second opposing concentric sides," as required by the claim. The interpretation of "slit" will be critical to determining the scope of the claim.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites a specific geometric constraint: "the entirety of the upwardly facing top surface defining a first plane parallel with a second plane of a bottom surface of the cover." A key factual question will be whether the accused product's physical structure meets this precise planarity requirement, or if it incorporates any textures, ridges, or contours that would place it outside the literal scope of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "slit"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core structural element defining how the patented cover attaches to the tank. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's attachment feature falls within the construed meaning of a "slit" that "sandwich[es]" the tank's foot ring.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the slit functionally, stating it "may be designed to receive a base portion of the propane tank" and can provide a "frictionally fit" (’664 Patent, col. 3:2-6). This language could support a construction that covers any channel or groove that serves this receiving and fitting function.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides significant structural limitations, defining the slit as having "an open top and first and second opposing concentric sides" (’664 Patent, col. 4:29-32). Figure 3 provides a cross-sectional view showing a distinct U-shaped channel. This evidence may support a narrower construction limited to a specific channel-like structure rather than any attachment mechanism.

  • The Term: "the entirety of the upwardly facing top surface defining a first plane"

    • Context and Importance: This term imposes a strict geometric requirement on the cover's top surface. Practitioners may focus on this term because any deviation from perfect planarity in the accused product could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "planar" in the context of a molded, flexible polymer product implies "generally flat" and does not exclude microscopic or insignificant variations inherent in the manufacturing process.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the absolute term "entirety" suggests that the entire surface, without exception, must lie on a single plane (’664 Patent, col. 4:47-49). The drawings, such as the cross-section in Figure 3, depict a geometrically flat top surface, which could support a strict interpretation of this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on communications in 2016 regarding a potential partnership, followed by alleged notice of the patent's publication in 2018 and notice of infringement of the issued patent in March 2025 (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint also asserts that any continued infringement after service of the complaint will be willful (Compl. ¶18, 22).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "slit," which is described with specific structural details like "opposing concentric sides," be construed broadly enough to read on the accused product's attachment mechanism, or is it limited to the precise channel-like structure depicted in the patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual compliance: does the accused "Mopeka Tank Halo" meet the strict geometric limitation of Claim 1 requiring "the entirety" of its top surface to be planar and parallel to its bottom surface, or does its physical design include any features that deviate from this requirement?
  • The viability of the willfulness claim will depend on the factual record developed in discovery concerning the content of the alleged pre-suit communications and what knowledge Defendant possessed regarding the patent application and issued patent prior to the lawsuit's filing.