Thousand Oaks Barrel Co LLC v. Partnerships Companies Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC (Virginia)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships, Companies, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (jurisdictions unknown, believed to be domestic and foreign)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: WHITESTONE LAW PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01563, E.D. Va., 11/16/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ business activities targeting consumers in Virginia and the commission of infringing acts within the district, including sales and shipments to residents. For non-U.S. based defendants, Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper in any district where personal jurisdiction exists.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an exclusive licensee, alleges that numerous online retailers are selling cocktail smoker devices that infringe its patent related to a device and method for imparting smoked flavors to beverages and foods.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns compact, top-of-glass devices that burn wood chips and channel the resulting smoke downwards into a beverage, a popular method for enhancing cocktails like the Old Fashioned.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The defendants are a large number of currently unidentified online sellers operating through platforms like Amazon, and Plaintiff alleges many are based in China. The complaint also includes a count for federal trade dress infringement related to Plaintiff's "Foghat" branded products.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-11-20	’256 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date)
2020-11-01	Approx. date of Plaintiff's first use of Foghat trade dress
2023-09-05	’256 Patent Issued
2023-11-16	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,744,256, "Device and method for Imparting Smoked Flavors to Beverages and Foodstuffs," issued September 5, 2023. (Compl. ¶19).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for smoking beverages as cumbersome or limited. For instance, "bartop" smokers using a large glass box are difficult to clean and can deposit residue on the outside of the drinking glass, while other methods using a burning wood stave cannot infuse smoke into a beverage that is already in a glass. (’256 Patent, col. 1:14-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a compact device designed to sit atop a drinking glass. It comprises a base with an upper fuel chamber to hold combustible material (like wood chips) and a lower conduit portion that extends down into the glass. When the fuel is ignited, the device's structure "unexpectedly facilitate[s] smoke to flow downward" from the fuel chamber, through the conduit, and out of one or more apertures into the beverage container, thereby infusing the contents with smoke. (’256 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:57-65).
• Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a method for directly and individually smoking a beverage in its serving glass, simplifying the process and overcoming the limitations of larger, external smoking apparatuses. (’256 Patent, col. 1:35-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-19, with claims 1, 9, and 10 identified as independent. (Compl. ¶¶21, 52).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a device with the following essential elements:
  • A base with a "fuel chamber portion" at its upper end and a "conduit portion" at its lower end.
  • The fuel chamber has an upper wall and a "floor" with an opening.
  • The fuel chamber is oriented to "hold fuel".
  • The conduit portion is "disposed below the floor" and has a "channel" through it.
  • When fuel is ignited, the channel "facilitates flow of smoke down-ward" from the fuel chamber, through at least one "aperture" that extends through a wall of the conduit portion.
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of all claims 1-19, reserving the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are various "smoker devices for imparting smoked flavors to cocktail beverages and foods," sold by the Doe Defendants on Amazon.com and other online platforms. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a specific example, the "Cocktail Smoker Kit Including Torch & 4 Flavors Wood Chips" (ASIN B0BQRG43B6). (Compl. ¶28).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused devices are described as operating by being placed on top of a cocktail glass. Users add wood chips to the device's top section and use a torch to ignite them. The resulting smoke is then directed down into the glass to flavor the drink. (Compl. p. 10). The complaint alleges that these products have "flooded the online market" and are often manufactured in China and sold through numerous "Infringing Webstores" on e-commerce platforms. (Compl. ¶¶15, 18). An annotated image in the complaint shows an accused product sitting atop a glass, with callouts identifying its key components. (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’256 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A device for imparting smoked flavors to beverages and foodstuffs, comprising: a base having a fuel chamber portion at its upper end and a conduit portion at its lower end...	The accused product is a cocktail smoker kit, and an annotated image identifies a "base" with a "fuel chamber portion" and a "conduit portion."	¶28; p. 9	col. 3:15-24
the fuel chamber portion comprising an upper wall portion defining a perimeter edge of the fuel chamber portion and a floor defining a bottom end, the floor extending from the upper wall portion to an opening in the floor,	An annotated image of the accused product identifies "an upper wall portion" and "a floor defining a bottom end, the floor extending from the upper wall portion to an opening in the floor."	p. 9	col. 3:20-23
wherein the fuel chamber portion is oriented to hold fuel,	Marketing materials for the accused product show it being used to hold wood chips for ignition.	p. 10	col. 3:23-25
and wherein the conduit portion is disposed below the floor and comprises a channel through the conduit portion so that, when the fuel in the fuel chamber portion is ignited, the channel facilitates flow of smoke down-ward...	Marketing graphics depict smoke flowing downward from the ignited wood chips, through the device, and into the glass. The complaint annotates the structure responsible for this function.	p. 10	col. 4:1-9
...from the fuel chamber portion through at least one aperture that extends from the channel space through a wall of the conduit portion.	The complaint alleges the accused product's channel facilitates smoke flow through at least one aperture in the wall of the conduit portion. A marketing image depicts this downward flow.	p. 10	col. 5:57-65

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by a large number of different products from unidentified sellers. A primary question will be whether the specific internal architecture of each accused product meets the structural limitations of the claims, such as the relationship between the "floor," the "opening in the floor," and the "conduit portion."
  • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question may be how the accused products actually function. The complaint relies on marketing imagery to show a "down-ward" flow of smoke. (Compl. p. 10). The defense may raise the question of whether this flow is "facilitate[d]" by the claimed channel structure or occurs for other reasons (e.g., simple pressure dynamics or gravity). The specific location and function of the "aperture" in the accused products will be a critical factual issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "conduit portion"

• Context and Importance: This term defines a core structural element of the invention that distinguishes it from prior art. The infringement analysis for every accused product will depend on whether it contains a structure that meets the definition of a "conduit portion" as disposed "below the floor" and containing a "channel."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular shape, only its position ("at its lower end," "disposed below the floor") and function (containing a channel for smoke). This may support an argument that any structure performing this role, regardless of its specific geometry, falls within the claim scope. (’256 Patent, col. 6:20-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the conduit portion as a "hollow, cylindrical" structure that is "centrally disposed." (’256 Patent, col. 3:18-19, 6:64-65; Figs. 1, 3, 5A). A party may argue that the term should be limited to the embodiments shown and described, particularly the single, central, cylindrical structure.

• The Term: "facilitates flow of smoke down-ward"

• Context and Importance: This functional language is at the heart of the patent's claimed solution. Proving infringement requires showing not just that smoke flows downward, but that the accused device's "channel" is what causes or "facilitates" this action. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the device's structure to a specific result.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not specify the physical principle by which facilitation occurs (e.g., venturi effect, pressure differential). An argument could be made that any design where the channel's presence makes downward flow more likely or efficient than it would be otherwise meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the design of the smoker device will unexpectedly facilitate smoke to flow downward." (’256 Patent, col. 5:57-59). This language suggests a specific, non-obvious mechanism tied to the overall architecture (including the cover, fuel chamber, and apertures). A defendant could argue that this phrase limits the claim to a specific type of facilitation and that their product, which may rely on a more basic principle, does not infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The basis for this allegation is that Defendants provide the accused products along with instructions on how to use them in an infringing manner (i.e., to impart smoke to beverages). (Compl. ¶¶24, 34). The "How To Use" diagrams included in the complaint are presented as evidence of these instructions. (Compl. p. 10).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants continued their infringing activities after they "became aware of the Patents-in-Suit." (Compl. ¶39). The complaint does not specify the date or method of this alleged notification.

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: given that the defendants are numerous online sellers likely sourcing from different manufacturers, a primary factual question will be whether the internal construction of each accused device precisely meets the structural limitations of Claim 1, particularly the claimed relationship between the "fuel chamber", "floor", and "conduit portion".
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused devices' structures are what "facilitate" the downward flow of smoke, as required by the claim's functional language? The case may turn on whether the Plaintiff can move beyond marketing materials to provide technical evidence that the accused devices operate via the specific mechanism protected by the patent.
• A third question relates to enforcement practicality: with over 160 "Doe" defendants identified only by online storefront names, the case raises significant procedural questions about identifying the true parties in interest, establishing jurisdiction over potentially foreign entities, and managing discovery across a disparate and elusive group of infringers.