DCT
2:22-cv-00632
Solofill LLC v. John F Kruger JR
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Solofill LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Laura J. Sommers and John F. Kruger, Jr. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mike Wilson Law, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00632, W.D. Wash., 05/10/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendants’ residence within the Western District of Washington and the allegation that a substantial part of the infringing activities, including business operations and manufacturing, occurred in King County, Washington.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ reusable single-serve coffee filters infringe two patents related to improved water distribution within the filter during brewing.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable cartridges for single-serve beverage brewers, a market largely defined by the Keurig K-Cup system.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the corporate entities directed by the Defendants, Espresso Supply, Inc. and Eko Brands, LLC, have entered receivership. Plaintiff alleges pre-suit knowledge of the patents, citing a specific meeting on April 8, 2019, where Defendant Sommers allegedly acknowledged infringement of the first patent, and was made aware of the second patent shortly after its issuance.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-07-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '851 and '854 Patents |
| 2018-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 10,071,851 ('851 Patent) Issues |
| 2018-09-11 | Alleged Infringement of '851 Patent Begins |
| 2019-04-08 | Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sommers acknowledged infringement of '851 Patent |
| 2019-04-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,252,854 ('854 Patent) Issues |
| 2019-04-09 | Alleged Infringement of '854 Patent Begins |
| 2020-08-06 | Plaintiff alleges Defendant Kruger gained knowledge of patents |
| 2022-05-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,071,851 - "Apparatus and products for producing beverages, and methods for making and using same," issued September 11, 2018
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art single-serve coffee cups where brewing water is introduced in a "generally downward direction," creating "dead zones within the coffee grinds" and resulting in "weak or under-brewed coffee." (’851 Patent, col. 8:52-63)
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a reusable beverage cartridge with a specialized lid. This lid includes a "distribution outlet" or "port nozzle" designed to receive the brewer's hot water injector and disperse the water in multiple directions, specifically "away from the vertical axis," to ensure more even saturation of the coffee grounds. (’851 Patent, col. 10:4-14, Fig. 7) This design purports to create a "favorable distribution pattern throughout the coffee grinds." (’851 Patent, col. 9:18-20)
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to improve the quality and consistency of beverages from single-serve brewers by addressing a perceived design flaw in water delivery. (’851 Patent, col. 8:52-63)
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted.
- Essential elements include: a reusable cartridge with a housing; a liquid exit formed by a filter in an opening in the side wall; a space to protect the cartridge from the brewer's discharge needle; a hinged lid with a "port nozzle" that extends into the coffee grounds; and liquid outlet orifices on the port nozzle that inject water "in a plurality of directions about the periphery" of the nozzle.
- The complaint asserts dependent Claim 2. (Compl. ¶29)
U.S. Patent No. 10,252,854 - "Apparatus and products for producing beverages, and methods for making and using same," issued April 9, 2019
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’851 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of uneven water distribution in prior art beverage pods. (’854 Patent, col. 8:52-63)
- The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as in the ’851 Patent: a reusable cartridge featuring a water distribution system that disperses liquid in multiple non-vertical directions to improve steeping. (’854 Patent, col. 10:4-14)
- Technical Importance: The invention provides an alternative design for improving beverage extraction in the single-serve brewing market. (’854 Patent, col. 8:52-63)
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted.
- Essential elements include: a reusable cartridge with a housing; a liquid exit formed by a filter spanning an opening; a discharge needle space; a hinged lid with a "port nozzle" extending into the material holding space; and the port nozzle "injecting liquid from the liquid injector into the material holding space during a brewing cycle."
- The complaint asserts dependent Claims 2 and 3. (Compl. ¶¶47, 48)
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "ekobrew 'Classic Series' reusable filter" and identically functioning filters sold under the "Brew & Save" and "Brew Your Way" trademarks. (Compl. ¶¶14, 15)
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are reusable filters designed for use in Keurig-brand and compatible single-serve coffee brewers. (Compl. ¶¶15, 38) The complaint alleges that the structure of the accused filter includes a cylindrical body, a lid with a "dispersion cone," and openings in the sidewall. (Compl. ¶¶18, 19, 23) The complaint uniquely supports its description of the accused product's features by referencing the figures and element numbers from U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855, a patent the complaint alleges is owned by the Defendants' company, Eko Brands. (Compl. ¶16) The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparing the accused ekobrew product packaging with a figure from this '855 patent. (Compl. p. 6)
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’851 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing having a liquid impermeable frame defining a bottom and a side wall extending upward from the bottom... | The accused filter has a cylindrical body (26) with a bottom end (34) and an upward-extending sidewall (28). | ¶18 | col. 11:18-21 |
| with at least one opening defined in said side wall, with a filter material spanning said opening to form a liquid exit out of the side wall. | The accused filter has openings in its sidewall (28) with a filter (38) that allows liquid coffee to exit. | ¶19 | col. 11:21-24 |
| said housing further defining a discharge needle space configured to receive the discharge needle without the discharge needle piercing the reusable cartridge... | The accused filter has receptacles on its bottom surface to isolate the brewer's discharge needle and prevent piercing. | ¶21 | col. 11:27-31 |
| a lid operable to seal the entrance is hingely affixed to the housing... | The accused filter has a lid (84) that is hingedly secured to the body (26) by a flexible hinge (120). | ¶22 | col. 11:32-34 |
| said lid defining a liquid entry port...comprising a port nozzle extending into said material holding space. | The accused filter's lid (84) has a "dispersion cone" (124), described as a port nozzle, which extends down into the brew chamber (36). | ¶23 | col. 11:35-38 |
| said port nozzle having liquid outlet orifices distributed on a periphery of a sidewall of said port nozzle... | The accused filter's dispersion cone (124) has openings (136) distributed on its periphery. | ¶25 | col. 11:41-44 |
| said liquid outlet orifices injecting liquid from the liquid injector in a plurality of directions about the periphery of the sidewall of the port nozzle... | The openings (136) in the dispersion cone allegedly direct water in a substantially even and uniform manner throughout the coffee. | ¶26 | col. 11:46-50 |
- ’854 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing having a liquid impermeable frame defining at least one opening, with a filter material spanning said opening to form a liquid exit. | The accused filter has a cylindrical body (26) with a sidewall (28) that is a liquid impermeable frame, and has openings with a filter (38) for liquid exit. | ¶40 | col. 12:18-21 |
| said liquid impermeable frame and said filter material defining a material holding space having an entrance thereto. | The frame and filter of the accused product define a brew chamber (36) with an open top end (30) that serves as an entrance. | ¶41 | col. 12:21-23 |
| said housing further defining a discharge needle space configured to receive the discharge needle without the discharge needle piercing the reusable cartridge... | The accused filter has receptacles on its bottom surface that isolate the brewer's discharge needle from the brew chamber. | ¶42 | col. 12:24-29 |
| a lid operable to seal the entrance is hingely attached to the housing... | The accused filter has a lid (84) that is hingedly secured to the body (26) by a flexible hinge (120). | ¶43 | col. 12:29-31 |
| said lid defining a liquid entry port...comprising a port nozzle extending into said material holding space. | The accused filter's lid (84) has a "dispersion cone" (124), alleged to be a port nozzle, that extends down into the brew chamber (36). | ¶44 | col. 12:32-35 |
| said port nozzle injecting liquid from the liquid injector into the material holding space during a brewing cycle. | The dispersion cone (124) of the accused filter receives heated water from the brewer's inlet probe and passes it into the brew chamber. | ¶46 | col. 12:44-47 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the "dispersion cone" of the accused product, as described in the complaint by reference to the '855 patent, falls within the scope of the term "port nozzle" as claimed in the patents-in-suit. The analysis will question if the structure and function are equivalent.
- Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that the accused product's "dispersion cone" performs the specific function of "injecting liquid...in a plurality of directions about the periphery" as required by Claim 1 of the ’851 patent? The complaint makes this assertion based on the product’s structure but does not provide empirical evidence such as flow analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "port nozzle" (’851 Claim 1; ’854 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive component responsible for improved water distribution. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused product's "dispersion cone" is properly characterized as a "port nozzle" that performs the functions recited in the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition, which may support an interpretation based on its plain and ordinary meaning as a device that directs fluid flow.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly ties this structure to the solution of overcoming "dead zones" by creating multi-directional flow. The figures depict a specific structure (325) with multiple, distinct, side-facing outlets (309) designed to disperse water "away from the vertical axis." (’851 Patent, Fig. 2, Fig. 7, col. 10:48-55) This may support a narrower construction requiring a structure that actively and intentionally redirects flow sideways.
The Term: "injecting liquid...in a plurality of directions about the periphery" (’851 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This functional language specifies how the "port nozzle" must operate. The dispute will likely focus on the degree and nature of directional spray required to meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "plurality" requires only two or more directions, which could arguably be met by any conical structure that produces a spray pattern that is not a single, perfectly vertical stream.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts this function with prior art that is "generally downward." (’851 Patent, col. 8:57-59) Figure 7 illustrates a distinct distribution pattern (315) with significant lateral and angled flow. This context suggests the term requires a deliberate, engineered distribution pattern designed to evenly saturate the grounds, not merely incidental spray from a simple opening.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It claims Defendants had knowledge of the patents and thereafter "actively induced" and "controlled and directed their business to make, use, sell, and offer for sale" the accused filters. (Compl. ¶¶30, 31, 51, 52)
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, stating that Defendants' infringement was carried out with "full knowledge" of the patents-in-suit and "knowledge that their actions infringed." (Compl. ¶¶37, 57) The allegations are supported by specific events, including an alleged 2019 meeting where infringement of the '851 patent was purportedly acknowledged by Defendant Sommers. (Compl. ¶30)
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural and functional equivalence: The complaint's infringement theory is built on characterizing the accused product using a patent allegedly owned by the Defendants' own company. The court will need to determine if the accused product's "dispersion cone" is, in fact and law, the "port nozzle" claimed in the patents-in-suit, particularly whether it performs the specific function of "injecting liquid in a plurality of directions about the periphery" required to overcome the prior art's "dead zone" problem.
- The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: The construction of the term "port nozzle" will be critical. The court will have to decide whether the term encompasses any structure that disperses water, or if it is limited by the specification's teachings to a more complex component with distinct, side-facing orifices designed to create a specific, non-vertical flow pattern.
- A key factual question for damages and willfulness will be the probative value of the alleged pre-suit notice: The complaint alleges a meeting where infringement was acknowledged. The veracity and context of this alleged admission will be a focal point in determining whether Defendants' conduct was willful, potentially leading to enhanced damages.