DCT
6:20-cv-00276
Brian Blazer v. Lowe's Companies Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Brian Robert Blazer d/b/a Carpenter Bee Solutions (Alabama)
- Defendant: Lowe's Companies, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00276, W.D. Tex., 04/07/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business, including multiple Lowe's Home Improvement stores, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of the "BeesNThings Carpenter Bee Natural Bee Trap" infringes a patent related to the design and function of carpenter bee traps.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns passive mechanical traps for capturing carpenter bees, which are known to cause damage to wooden structures.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,624. The complaint notes that the manufacturer of the accused product, Bees N Things, is the subject of a separate, pending patent infringement lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff in the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the alleged infringement via a letter in May 2019, approximately one year before filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-04-27 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. RE46,421 |
| 2013-02-19 | Issue Date for original U.S. Patent No. 8,375,624 |
| 2017-06-06 | Issue Date for U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421 |
| 2019-05-09 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2020-04-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421 - "Carpenter Bee Traps"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421, "Carpenter Bee Traps", issued June 6, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art carpenter bee traps as having deficiencies such as limited capacity, requiring proprietary replacement parts, being difficult to monitor, and lacking a mechanism to prevent trapped bees from escaping during disposal (RE46,421 E, col. 2:3-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trap that uses a multi-stage attraction method. It features a trap entrance unit, typically made of wood, with at least one angled entrance hole designed to mimic a natural bee nest, which serves as a "primary attractant" (RE46,421 E, col. 8:42-45). Once inside the dark interior plenum, bees are drawn to a "secondary attractant": ambient light shining through a clear or translucent receptacle (e.g., a standard plastic bottle) attached at the bottom of the unit. The bees enter the receptacle believing it is an exit but are then unable to find their way out (RE46,421 E, col. 2:59-67; Fig. 1A).
- Technical Importance: The design purports to increase trap effectiveness by leveraging a bee's natural instinct to fly towards light to escape, while also creating a low-cost, high-capacity, and easily monitored system that can use readily available items like disposable beverage bottles as the collection vessel (RE46,421 E, col. 3:7-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 13 and dependent claims 14, 15, and 17 (Compl. ¶21).
- Independent Claim 13 recites the core elements of the trap:
- A trap entrance unit made of wood or a wood substitute.
- At least one entrance hole extending from the outside to the interior, configured as a primary attractant.
- An exit opening providing a path from the interior.
- A receptacle adapter at the exit opening, adapted to receive a receptacle.
- The receptacle adapter is further adapted to allow ambient light to enter the interior, providing a secondary attractant.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "BeesNThings 1-Count Bee Trap" and "BeesNThings Carpenter Bee Natural Bee Trap" (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality is a carpenter bee trap sold by Defendant on its website and in its retail stores (Compl. ¶11-12).
- Based on photographs provided in the complaint, the trap consists of a wooden block (the trap entrance unit) with a hole drilled into its side (Compl. ¶24-25, Fig. 3A). Below this block, there is an opening to which a clear container is attached (Compl. ¶27-28, Fig. 3B). The complaint’s annotated Figure 3B identifies a wooden trap entrance unit (C, G), an entrance hole (B), an exit opening (D), a receptacle adapter (E), and a receptacle (F). This visual depicts the key structural components of the accused device (Compl. ¶24-28, Fig. 3A, 3B).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE46,421 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trap entrance unit formed of wood or a wood substitute, | The Accused Instrumentality includes a trap entrance unit that is formed of wood. | ¶24 | col. 8:25-27 |
| wherein at least one side of the trap entrance unit has at least one entrance hole that extends from outside the trap entrance unit to an interior of the trap entrance unit, | The accused trap has at least one hole extending from its outside to its interior. | ¶25 | col. 2:45-48 |
| wherein the at least one entrance hole extends substantially horizontally or at an upward angle with a size and shape configured to provide a primary attractant for carpenter bees, | The entrance hole allegedly extends at an upward angle and is sized and shaped to be a primary attractant for carpenter bees. | ¶26 | col. 8:42-45 |
| and wherein the trap entrance unit further comprises an exit opening for providing an exit path from the interior of the trap entrance unit; | The Accused Instrumentality is alleged to include an exit opening providing an exit path from the trap's interior. | ¶27 | col. 8:31-33 |
| and a receptacle adapter located at the exit opening of the trap entrance unit, wherein the receptacle adapter is adapted to receive at least one receptacle | The Accused Instrumentality allegedly includes a receptacle adapter located at the exit opening that is adapted to receive a receptacle. | ¶28 | col. 8:34-37 |
| and is adapted so as to allow at least some ambient light to enter the interior of the trap entrance unit via the exit opening, thereby providing a secondary attractant for carpenter bees. | The receptacle adapter is alleged to allow ambient light to enter the trap's interior via the exit opening because it does not obstruct the opening. | ¶28 | col. 8:37-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A key question will concern the dual-attractant mechanism. What evidence will establish that the accused trap's entrance hole functions as a "primary attractant" by mimicking a nest, and that the light entering through the bottom functions as a distinct "secondary attractant" as required by the claim?
- Scope Questions: The complaint's photographs show a structure for connecting the receptacle to the wooden block (Compl. Fig. 3B, Arrow E). The infringement analysis may turn on whether this structure meets the definition of a "receptacle adapter" as that term is used and described in the patent specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "receptacle adapter"
Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 13 and is central to how the trap's two main components—the entrance unit and the collection vessel—are connected. The specification describes embodiments where this "adapter" is a screw-type bottle cap or a specially molded feature (RE46,421 E, col. 5:6-14). Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product's specific connection mechanism (Compl. ¶28, Arrow E) must fall within the scope of this term for a finding of literal infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the adapter be "located at the exit opening" and be "adapted to receive at least one receptacle" (RE46,421 E, col. 8:34-37). This functional language may support a construction that covers any structure performing that role.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific examples, such as a "screw type bottle cap with a hole bored through it" or a "friction fit" bore (RE46,421 E, col. 5:8-9, col. 6:11-13). A defendant might argue these examples limit the term to more distinct, separate or specially-formed components rather than a simple opening.
The Term: "primary attractant" / "secondary attractant"
Context and Importance: Claim 13 functionally distinguishes between the entrance hole as a "primary attractant" and the ambient light as a "secondary attractant." This distinction is critical to the patent's narrative of how the trap works. Infringement requires proving the accused product operates using this specific two-part mechanism.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide explicit definitions. A party could argue the terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, where "primary" means first or main, and "secondary" means subsequent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification ties the "primary attractant" to the hole's mimicry of a "natural carpenter bee nest tunnel" and the "secondary attractant" to the bee's instinct to fly toward light as an "exit route" (RE46,421 E, col. 8:42-45, col. 2:62-65). This context suggests the terms may carry specific functional limitations beyond just the order in which a bee encounters them.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement based on Defendant's sale of the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶22). The factual support appears to be that the product, by its nature, is designed to be used in an infringing manner and has no substantial non-infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s alleged continued sale of the accused product after receiving a notice letter from Plaintiff's counsel on or about May 9, 2019 (Compl. ¶13, ¶20, ¶22). The complaint includes as an exhibit a letter from Defendant, dated May 15, 2019, acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff's assertions (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the court's determination of several key questions:
A central issue will be one of claim scope: Does the accused product’s mechanism for attaching the collection bottle (identified as Arrow E in the complaint's Figure 3B) constitute a "receptacle adapter" as that term is construed in light of the patent's specification and claims?
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Can the plaintiff prove that the accused trap operates according to the specific two-stage method required by Claim 13, where the entrance hole acts as a "primary attractant" by mimicking a nest, and the light from the receptacle acts as a functionally distinct "secondary attractant" that lures bees to an exit?
The willfulness claim will turn on a question of conduct: Did the Defendant's continued sale of the accused product after receiving Plaintiff's May 2019 notice letter constitute objectively reckless behavior sufficient to support enhanced damages?