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 Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A (Domestic and Foreign Jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL ZITO CASTELLANO PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00958, E.D. Va., 06/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ targeting of business activities toward consumers in Virginia, including offering for sale and selling the Accused Products to residents of the Eastern District of Virginia through interactive e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com and Etsy.com.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an exclusive licensee, alleges that numerous online sellers on Amazon and Etsy are making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing cocktail smoker devices that infringe its patent.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns devices used to impart smoke flavor into beverages and foodstuffs, a product category popular among professional bartenders and home mixology enthusiasts.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint is filed against a schedule of largely unidentified online sellers, a common strategy in actions targeting mass online infringement, alleging that many are based in China and use fictitious names to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-11-20	’256 Patent Priority Date
2023-09-05	’256 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-04	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,744,256 - "Device and method for Imparting Smoked Flavors to Beverages and Foodstuffs"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,744,256, “Device and method for Imparting Smoked Flavors to Beverages and Foodstuffs,” issued September 5, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art beverage smokers as cumbersome or limited. For example, methods using enclosed boxes can leave unwanted smoke residue on the outside of a drinking glass, while other methods can only smoke an empty glass rather than infusing a beverage directly (’256 Patent, col. 1:14-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a compact, self-contained device designed to sit atop a drinking glass or other container. It comprises an upper fuel chamber for holding combustible material (like wood chips) and a lower conduit portion that extends downward. When the fuel is ignited, the device's structure is designed to channel smoke downward through the conduit and out of apertures into the container, allowing for direct infusion of smoke into a beverage or foodstuff (’256 Patent, col. 5:57-64; Fig. 7). This design aims to contain the process and direct the smoke flow efficiently.
• Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a portable and direct method for smoking beverages, intended to overcome the messiness and indirect nature of prior systems (’256 Patent, col. 1:36-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-19, with claims 1, 9, and 10 being independent (Compl. ¶20, ¶30).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
  • a base having a fuel chamber portion at its upper end and a conduit portion at its lower end
  • the fuel chamber portion comprising an upper wall portion and a floor with an opening
  • the fuel chamber portion being oriented to hold fuel
  • the conduit portion disposed below the floor and comprising a channel
  • a functional requirement that when fuel is ignited, the channel facilitates a downward flow of smoke from the fuel chamber, through at least one aperture that extends from the channel space through a wall of the conduit portion
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are various cocktail and food smoker devices sold by the Defendants on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.com and Etsy.com (Compl. ¶3, ¶4, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are available in three primary structural configurations, all of which are alleged to embody the patented technology (Compl. ¶24). These devices are described as including a base with a fuel chamber and a conduit portion with a channel and an aperture, which allegedly functions to direct smoke downward from the fuel chamber into a container (Compl. ¶24, ¶31). One such configuration is depicted in a complaint diagram showing a cross-section of a device with holes in the side wall of the conduit (Compl. ¶25, p. 8). Another diagram illustrates a second configuration with an aperture in the bottom wall of the conduit portion (Compl. ¶26, p. 8). The complaint alleges these products have "flooded the online market" and are often manufactured in China for wholesale distribution (Compl. ¶14, ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’256 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a base having a fuel chamber portion at its upper end and a conduit portion at its lower end...	The Accused Products are alleged to include a base with a fuel chamber and a conduit portion.	¶24	col. 6:17-20
the fuel chamber portion comprising 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,	The Accused Products are alleged to have an upper wall and a floor.	¶24	col. 6:20-23
wherein the fuel chamber portion is oriented to hold fuel,	The complaint alleges the Accused Products are smoker devices used for imparting smoked flavors, which implies a structure for holding fuel.	¶21, ¶31	col. 6:24-25
wherein the conduit portion is disposed below the floor and comprises a channel through the conduit portion	The Accused Products allegedly possess a conduit portion with a channel. The complaint includes a diagram illustrating a channel within the conduit portion.	¶24, ¶26	col. 6:26-33
so that, when the fuel...is ignited, the channel facilitates flow of smoke down-ward from the fuel chamber portion through at least one aperture that extends from the channel space through a wall of the conduit portion.	The Accused Products allegedly operate by facilitating a downward flow of smoke from the fuel chamber, through an aperture in the conduit wall, into a container. The complaint depicts configurations with apertures in both the side wall and bottom wall of the conduit.	¶24, ¶25-27, ¶31	col. 6:28-33

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by products with apertures in the "side wall of the conduit" (Compl. ¶25) as well as the "bottom wall of the conduit" (Compl. ¶26). This raises the question of whether the claim term "a wall of the conduit portion" is broad enough to read on the bottom surface of the conduit, or if it is limited to the vertical side surfaces.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise as to whether the accused devices, when operated as intended, necessarily facilitate a "flow of smoke down-ward" as required by the claim. While the structure appears to promote this, the actual fluid dynamics could be a point of dispute requiring expert evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a wall of the conduit portion"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the Defendants are alleged to sell at least three configurations of the accused device, which differ in the placement of the smoke aperture (Compl. ¶24-27). Specifically, some versions allegedly have holes in the side, while others have them in the bottom. The construction of "a wall" will determine whether products with apertures only in the bottom surface of the conduit literally infringe Claim 1.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the general term "conduit portion" without specifying that "wall" is exclusive of the bottom surface. The specification states that the conduit portion includes "at least one aperture that extends from the channel through an outer wall of the conduit portion" (’256 Patent, col. 2:13-15), which could be read to mean any exterior surface bounding the channel.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 3, depict apertures (114) only on the vertical, cylindrical surfaces of the conduit portion (108). A defendant may argue that the term "wall" should be interpreted in light of these embodiments. The specification also refers to a "bottom terminal end" of the conduit (’256 Patent, col. 4:64-65), which could be argued to be a distinct structure from "a wall."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants actively induce infringement by providing the Accused Products along with instructions for use, thereby encouraging their customers to use the devices in a manner that infringes the ’256 Patent (Compl. ¶23, ¶34, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants became aware of the ’256 Patent but "refused to cease selling products" and "intentionally continued their knowing infringement" (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also states that Plaintiff marks its own products with notice of the patent, which could support a finding of pre-suit knowledge if Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶36).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a wall of the conduit portion," which is illustrated in patent figures as a side surface, be construed to also cover the bottom surface of the conduit? The answer will be dispositive for the infringement analysis of accused products that feature bottom-exit smoke apertures.
• A key procedural and evidentiary challenge will be managing a case against numerous, potentially foreign, and pseudonymous online sellers. Establishing personal jurisdiction, effecting service, and linking each specific product sold by each distinct defendant to the asserted claim limitations will likely be central to the litigation.
• An evidentiary question may arise regarding inducement and willfulness: what proof can Plaintiff offer that Defendants provided specific instructions that teach an infringing use, and what evidence exists of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or willful blindness for each of the many named Defendants?