DCT

6:20-cv-00285

Brian Blazer v. Hom

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00285, W.D. Tex., 06/05/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant operating regular and established places of business, specifically The Home Depot retail stores, within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of certain carpenter bee traps, manufactured by third parties, infringes a reissue patent related to mechanical insect trap design.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves non-chemical traps that exploit the natural behavior of carpenter bees—specifically their instinct to fly towards light—to capture them.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue of an earlier patent. The complaint details an extensive history between the Plaintiff and the manufacturers of the accused products, including a prior terminated license agreement, alleged unauthorized sales, and separate pending litigation against those manufacturers. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter one year before filing this complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-04-27 '421 Patent Priority Date (filing of original '624 Patent)
2013-02-19 Original U.S. Patent No. 8,375,624 ('624 Patent) Issued
2013-03-01 Alleged infringement by Bees N Things begins (approx.)
2015-10-01 Temporary License agreement with RSP/Best Bee Brothers
2017-06-06 U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421 ('421 Patent) Issued
2017-10-01 Alleged infringement by Best Bee Brothers begins (approx.)
2019-05-09 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant Home Depot
2020-06-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,421, "Carpenter Bee Traps," issued June 6, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background identifies a need for an effective carpenter bee trap that overcomes the limitations of prior art, which included traps with limited capacity, proprietary replacement parts, and designs that did not effectively contain the captured insects or leverage their natural behavior. ('421 Patent, col. 2:1-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical trap, typically constructed of wood, that mimics a natural carpenter bee nest to attract the insects. It features an entrance hole leading into a dimly lit inner chamber (a "plenum"). The key principle is that the bottom of this chamber opens into a removable, clear or translucent receptacle (e.g., a standard plastic bottle). Bees entering the dark plenum are naturally drawn to the ambient light coming from the receptacle below, fly into it, and are unable to find their way out. ('421 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-67).
  • Technical Importance: This design offers a low-cost, passive trapping method that exploits the phototactic behavior of insects, using readily available items like beverage bottles as collection vessels and avoiding chemicals or complex electronics. ('421 Patent, col. 3:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13, among others (Compl. ¶54).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes these primary elements:
    • A trap entrance unit made of wood or a wood substitute, forming a plenum.
    • At least one hole sized to mimic a natural carpenter bee nest tunnel as a primary attractant.
    • A means to shelter the entrance hole to reduce ambient light.
    • A receptacle adapter at the bottom of the trap unit.
    • A clear or translucent receptacle received by the adapter, which allows ambient light to enter the plenum from below, acting as a secondary attractant.
  • Independent Claim 13 includes these primary elements:
    • A trap entrance unit (wood or wood substitute) with at least one entrance hole (primary attractant).
    • An exit opening to provide an exit path from the interior.
    • A receptacle adapter located at the exit opening.
    • The adapter is configured to receive a receptacle and allow ambient light to enter the trap's interior through the exit opening (secondary attractant).
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Best Bee Brothers Best Carpenter Bee Trap," "Best Bee Brothers Pinewood Carpenter Bee Trap," and the "Bees N Things Hanging Carpenter Bee Trap" (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentalities") sold by Defendant The Home Depot (Compl. ¶51).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused products are carpenter bee traps made of wood that feature angled entrance holes leading into an interior chamber (Compl. ¶¶57-59, 67-68). A clear or translucent receptacle (e.g., a plastic jar) is attached to the bottom of the wooden body to collect bees (Compl. ¶¶60-61, 70). The complaint alleges that the manufacturers of these products have a significant market presence and that one manufacturer, Best Bee Brothers, produced marketing materials that explicitly stated its product design was patented, referencing the number of the original patent that was reissued as the ’421 Patent (Compl. ¶¶31, 63). Figure 5 from the complaint shows a brochure for the "Best Bee Trap" which states it has a "Patented Design (Patent #8375624)" (Compl. ¶31, Fig. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,421 Infringement Allegations (Based on Claim 1)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a trap entrance unit forming a plenum being made of wood or a wood substitute The "Best Bee Brothers" trap includes a trap entrance unit that forms a plenum composed of wood. An annotated product photo identifies this component. ¶57 col. 7:41-43
said trap entrance unit having at least one hole drilled there-through and sized to mimic a natural carpenter bee nest tunnel so as to provide a primary attractant The trap has at least one hole drilled through it, sized to mimic a natural nest tunnel. The complaint alleges this hole extends at an upward angle to serve as a primary attractant. ¶58-59 col. 7:44-47
a means to shelter an entrance to said hole is provided to reduce the admittance of ambient light The trap includes a top panel that overhangs the side wall, which allegedly functions as a means to shelter the entrance hole. ¶59 col. 7:49-51
a receptacle adapter being substantially located at the bottom of said trap unit and being configured to receive a clear or translucent receptacle The trap contains a receptacle adapter at the bottom of the trap entrance unit, configured to receive the collection receptacle. An annotated product photo identifies this component. ¶60 col. 7:52-55
a receptacle received by said adapter situated to allow ambient light to enter through said bottom into said plenum interior, thereby providing a secondary attractant A clear or translucent receptacle is attached to the adapter at the bottom of the trap. The complaint alleges ambient light passes through this receptacle into the plenum, serving as a secondary attractant to lure and receive trapped bees. ¶61 col. 7:56-61
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' method of attaching the collection jar—which appears to be a threaded opening in the wooden base—meets the definition of a "receptacle adapter" as required by the claim. The complaint alleges it does, while a defendant might argue the claim requires a separate or more distinct component. The complaint includes Figure 11B, a side-by-side comparison of the accused product and a patent figure, to suggest the designs are nearly identical (Compl. ¶64).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the manufacturer's own marketing brochure for the "Best Bee Trap" explicitly references the original patent number ('624) that was reissued as the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶63). A key factual question will be what weight the court gives this evidence in assessing infringement and knowledge.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "receptacle adapter"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in both asserted independent claims (1 and 13) and defines the interface between the main trap body and the collection vessel. The construction of this term is critical because the accused products appear to integrate the "adapter" into the wooden base of the trap itself, rather than using a distinct component as illustrated in some patent embodiments. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if such an integrated feature falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 19, which depends from claim 13, states "the exit opening is shaped so as to function as the receptacle adapter," suggesting the "adapter" can be an integral feature rather than a separate part ('421 Patent, col. 8:58-60). The term itself is functional, and a defendant may argue any structure that "adapts" the trap for a "receptacle" meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments, such as using "a screw type bottle cap with a hole bored through it" or a specially molded part made from a "standard 12-24 ounce PET ... beverage bottle" ('421 Patent, col. 5:6-12). A defendant could argue these examples limit the term to a more complex or separate component than a simple threaded hole.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant induces and contributes to infringement by selling the Accused Instrumentalities to end-users (Compl. ¶55). The basis for knowledge is the Plaintiff's May 9, 2019 notice letter, which allegedly informed Defendant that the products appeared to infringe the ’421 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 53).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of infringement as of the May 2019 letter and its continued sales thereafter (Compl. ¶53, ¶ C p. 23). The complaint further supports this by detailing the extensive pre-suit history of disputes between the Plaintiff and the manufacturers of the accused products, including allegations of bad-faith dealings and blatant copying, which it suggests puts Defendant on heightened notice of the risk of infringement (Compl. ¶¶21-49, 62-64).

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

  1. Impact of Alleged Copying: The complaint presents an unusually strong narrative of direct copying by the manufacturer, including marketing materials that allegedly reference the original patent. A core issue will be one of evidentiary weight: how will this evidence, if proven, impact the infringement and willfulness analysis against the downstream retailer, Home Depot?

  2. Definitional Scope: The case may turn on a question of claim construction: does the term "receptacle adapter," which the patent illustrates with specific examples like modified bottle caps, read on the integrated threaded opening in the wooden base of the accused traps? The answer will likely determine the outcome of the literal infringement analysis.

  3. Retailer Willfulness: A central question for damages will be one of culpability: can Plaintiff establish that Defendant's continued sale of the accused traps after receiving a detailed notice letter in May 2019, combined with the contentious history involving its suppliers, rises to the level of objective recklessness required for willful infringement?