Cambria Co LLC v. Surface Warehouse LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cambria Company LLC (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Surface Warehouse, L.P. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Winston & Strawn LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00584, W.D. Tex., 12/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant has its principal place of business within the district and has committed acts of alleged patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s engineered quartz slabs infringe three patents related to the composition of such slabs and the methods for manufacturing them to create specific veined appearances.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the manufacturing of engineered stone surfaces, such as quartz countertops, designed to emulate the complex veining patterns of natural quarried stone like marble.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff’s own "Coastal Collection" products, first introduced in 2014, embody the technology of the Asserted Patents and have been marked accordingly.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014	Plaintiff Cambria introduces its "Coastal Collection"
2015-01-30	Earliest Priority Date for ’762, ’440, and ’718 Patents
2016	Plaintiff Cambria introduces additional designs to its "Coastal Collection"
2017-03	Plaintiff Cambria adds further designs to its "Coastal Collection"
2019-02-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,195,762 Issues
2019-04-09	U.S. Patent No. 10,252,440 Issues
2025-07-29	U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718 Issues
2025-12-19	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,195,762 - "Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto," Issued Feb. 5, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while quarried stone slabs (e.g., granite, marble) are aesthetically appealing, they are expensive and limited in color schemes. It further notes that existing engineered stones often "fall noticeably short of the complicated look and texture of quarried stone." (’762 Patent, col. 1:21-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a synthetic molded slab and a process for making it that creates repeatable, predefined veining patterns emulating natural stone. The solution involves sequentially dispensing two or more differently pigmented particulate mineral mixes (predominantly quartz) into a mold through a series of complementary stencils. This creates distinct regions of color and pattern that extend through the entire thickness of the slab, which is then compacted and cured. (’762 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-56; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the mass production of engineered slabs with consistent, complex, and natural-looking veining that, unlike quarried stone, can be predefined and reproduced across multiple slabs. (’762 Patent, col. 4:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 22 (Compl. ¶22).
• Essential elements of claim 22 include:
  • A processed slab.
  • A major surface defined by a set of particulate mineral mixes and having a rectangular shape that is at least 2 feet wide by at least 6 feet long and having a slab thickness.
  • The major surface comprising a first particulate mineral mix and a second particulate mineral mix.
  • The first particulate mineral mix occupies the entire slab thickness at a set of first regions, the set of first regions including a first vein in a generally widthwise direction and a second vein in a generally lengthwise direction.
  • The second particulate mineral mix occupies the entire slab thickness at a set of second regions.
  • The first and second particulate mineral mixes are different.
  • The first particulate mineral mix is absent from the set of second regions and the second particulate mineral mix is absent from the set of first regions.

U.S. Patent No. 10,252,440 - "Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto," Issued Apr. 9, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The technical problem is identical to that described for the ’762 Patent: the difficulty in creating engineered stone that cost-effectively and repeatably mimics the complex aesthetics of natural quarried stone. (’440 Patent, col. 1:25-38).
• The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on the process for creating the veined slabs. The claimed solution is a method of sequentially dispensing different pigmented, quartz-based mineral mixes through separate, complementary stencils into a slab mold. After the different mixes are placed in their designated regions, they are vibrated and compacted together to form a single, cohesive slab with integrated veining. (’440 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-56).
• Technical Importance: The claimed process provides a systematic and repeatable manufacturing method for producing engineered stone with intricate, through-body veining, overcoming the randomness and non-repeatability of natural stone. (’440 Patent, col. 4:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶30).
• Essential elements of claim 14 include:
  • A process of forming a processed slab.
  • Sequentially dispensing at least first and second pigmented particulate mineral mixes into a slab mold that has first and second sets of regions.
  • The first mix is different than the second mix.
  • The first mix is dispensed into the first set of regions.
  • The second mix is dispensed into the second set of regions, which is different than the first set.
  • Vibrating and compacting the mixes to form a processed slab that is rectangular, at least 3 feet wide, at least 6 feet long, and has a slab thickness.

U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718 - "Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto," Issued Jul. 29, 2025

Technology Synopsis

• This patent claims a slab product with a specific structural arrangement of materials. The claims define a "main interconnected material" forming an irregular branching channel (the vein) and a "plurality of interstitial material portions" (the background), where the two materials are distinct and create a noticeable contrast. (’718 Patent, claim 9).

Asserted Claims

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶38).

Accused Features

• The accused features are the processed quartz slabs that allegedly embody this claimed structure, having a background material interspersed with a distinct, branching vein material (Compl. ¶17-18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "processed slabs sold at least under the "Vadara Quartz Surfaces" brand name" (Compl. ¶17). A non-limiting example provided is the "Calacatta marble-inspired processed slab marketed as the "Safari Delta" design" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are engineered quartz slabs intended for use as countertops and other surfaces in residential and commercial settings (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes an image of the "Safari Delta" design, which shows a light-colored slab with prominent, darker, branching veins (Compl. p. 6, ¶18). The complaint alleges that Defendant's activities are the result of competitors copying Plaintiff's commercially successful patented products (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references non-limiting claim charts in Exhibits D, E, and F, which were not available for this analysis. The infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

• ’762 Patent (Product Claim) Infringement Theory: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, such as the "Safari Delta" slab, infringe claim 22 (Compl. ¶22). The core of this allegation is structural. Plaintiff alleges that the accused slabs are composed of at least two different particulate mineral mixes—one forming the background and the other forming the veins—and that these distinct materials extend through the entire thickness of the slab in complementary regions, as shown in the product image (Compl. p. 6, ¶18) and as required by the claim.

• ’440 Patent (Process Claim) Infringement Theory: The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes method claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) by importing, selling, or using products in the U.S. that are made by the patented process (Compl. ¶30). The theory rests on the inference that the specific veined appearance of the Accused Products could only be achieved by using the claimed method of sequentially dispensing different mineral mixes through complementary stencils into a mold before compaction.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the visual patterns in the accused slab constitute distinct "regions" occupied by different "particulate mineral mixes" as construed from the patent. The defense may argue for a narrower construction of these terms, potentially requiring sharp boundaries indicative of a physical stencil, and then argue that the accused product features do not meet that construction.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’440 process patent, the key question will be evidentiary. What proof can Plaintiff offer that Defendant’s slabs are made by the claimed multi-stencil process, rather than an alternative method for creating veined engineered stone (e.g., a single pour with pigment injection, or manual manipulation)? The complaint does not detail the evidence for this infringement theory.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "occupies the entire slab thickness" (from Claim 22 of the ’762 Patent).
• Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from products with surface-level patterns or laminated layers. The infringement analysis for the product claims will depend on whether the veins in the accused slabs are merely aesthetic surface features or are integral structures extending through the full depth of the material. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the "through-body" nature of the invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not require a specific method of formation, only the resulting structure. The specification's focus on pouring materials vertically into a mold to create the slab supports a reading that any resulting structure where the patterns extend from the top to the bottom surface would meet this limitation (’762 Patent, col. 4:20-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term, read in light of the specification, implies a continuous and uniform composition of the vein material from top to bottom, as would result from the described stencil-and-pour process. The patent's detailed description of the stencil system (e.g., Fig. 2A-3B) could be used to argue that the "entire slab thickness" limitation is tied to the structure created by that specific manufacturing context.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by actively promoting the sale, use, and importation of the Accused Products through marketing materials, web pages, and its sales and distribution channels (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶31-32, ¶39-40).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after having "actual knowledge of the... Patent and its infringement thereof" from "at least the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶27, ¶35, ¶43). This is a post-filing willfulness allegation.

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

1. A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the accused "Vadara Quartz Surfaces" slabs possess the specific physical architecture required by the claims, namely, distinct mineral mixes constituting both vein and background that extend through the "entire slab thickness" in complementary "regions"?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of process inference: For the method patents, what evidence will Plaintiff be able to obtain and present to prove that Defendant's products were manufactured using the claimed multi-stencil process, as opposed to an alternative, non-infringing method for creating veined engineered stone?
3. A central question of claim construction will likely focus on the meaning of terms like "region" and "particulate mineral mix." The outcome may turn on whether these terms are given a broad, visually-based definition or a narrower, process-based definition tied to the stencil-based embodiments described in the specification.