DCT
3:14-cv-00902
Vent Matic Co LLC v. Draught Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Vent-Matic Company, LLC (Nevada) and Ameramid, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Draught Technologies, LLC (Delaware); Beverage Services, LLC (Massachusetts); Beverage Equipment International, LLC (Connecticut); and Steven Salcedo (Connecticut)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ryan Kromholz & Manion, S.C.
- Case Identification: 3:14-cv-00902, W.D. Wis., 04/01/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' offers to sell and sale of the infringing faucets within the judicial district, including through a website and shipments into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who are former licensees of the patents-in-suit, continued to make and sell infringing beverage dispensing faucets after their licenses were terminated for non-payment.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns sanitary, forward-sealing faucets for dispensing pressurized beverages like beer, designed to prevent contamination and, in later versions, to reduce foaming in carbonated liquids.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a complex commercial history. Defendant Draught Technologies entered a license for the patents-in-suit in January 2012, which was terminated for alleged non-payment in October 2012. Defendant Beverage Services entered a separate license in December 2012, which was terminated in October 2013, also for alleged non-payment. Plaintiffs allege that after these terminations, Defendants continued to sell products covered by the patents. This history of licensing provides a basis for the allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-01 | Earliest alleged use of VENT-MATIC trademark in commerce |
| 2001-12-13 | Priority Date for '614, '420, and '299 Patents |
| 2002-10-01 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,457,614 |
| 2003-09-30 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,626,420 |
| 2006-07-18 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,077,299 |
| 2012-01-31 | Draught Technologies enters license agreement with Ameramid |
| 2012-07-01 | Draught Technologies allegedly orders components for 2,500 faucets |
| 2012-10-03 | Draught Technologies' license is terminated |
| 2012-12-08 | Beverage Services enters license agreement with Ameramid |
| 2013-05-31 | Trademark application filed for VENT-MATIC |
| 2013-09-19 | Ameramid provides notice of default to Beverage Services |
| 2013-10-25 | Ameramid provides notice of license termination to Beverage Services |
| 2013-12-13 | Beverage Services allegedly enters Asset Purchase Agreement with BEI |
| 2014-01-28 | U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,474,409 issues |
| 2014-09-17 | Patents-in-suit assigned from Ameramid to Vent-Matic |
| 2014-11-25 | Date of packing slip for alleged sale of an Accused Faucet |
| 2014-12-24 | Accused Faucet allegedly offered for sale on Defendant's website |
| 2015-03-26 | Rights to recover past damages assigned to Vent-Matic |
| 2015-04-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,457,614 - "Dispensing faucet for a pressurized source," Issued Oct. 1, 2002
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Conventional dispensing faucets expose wet internal components to air when not in use, which can lead to bacterial growth and fluid contamination. Additionally, cleaning these faucets often requires complete disassembly. (’614 Patent, col. 1:26-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention repositions the valve seal to the outlet end of the faucet. This design ensures that all internal valve elements remain immersed in the dispensed fluid at all times, eliminating air exposure within the valve body. The plunger is also designed with channels to allow fluid to wash over it during use, further promoting cleanliness. (’614 Patent, col. 2:1-8; col. 4:21-35).
- Technical Importance: This "forward seal" design represented a significant step in improving the sanitation of draught beverage systems, a critical concern in the food and beverage industry. (’614 Patent, col. 1:32-38).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶102).
- Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- A valve body with a bore, axially aligned inlet and outlet ports, and a seat adjacent to the outlet port.
- A plunger disposed in the valve body, moveable axially between an open and closed position.
- A valve seal adjacent to the downstream end of the plunger that seals against the seat in the closed position.
- A configuration wherein at least a majority of the plunger is immersed in fluid when the plunger is in the closed position.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 6,626,420 - "Dispensing faucet for a pressurized source," Issued Sep. 30, 2003
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: When dispensing carbonated beverages, a pressure drop between the faucet's internal bore and the spigot can cause dissolved CO2 to separate from the liquid, resulting in excessive and undesirable foaming. (’420 Patent, col. 8:1-9).
- The Patented Solution: This patent, a continuation-in-part of the ’614 patent, adds a "flow modifying tip" to the downstream end of the plunger. This tip extends past the valve seat into the outlet port, managing the pressure transition and fluid dynamics to prevent the premature release of CO2 from the beverage. (’420 Patent, col. 8:9-18; Figs. 9-12).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to improve the pour quality of carbonated beverages by controlling foam, which is a key factor in beverage presentation and waste reduction in commercial settings. (’420 Patent, col. 8:5-9).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶108).
- Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- A valve body with a bore, an inlet port, an outlet port, and a seat adjacent to the outlet port.
- A plunger with a flow modifying tip on its downstream end that extends at least partially into the outlet port when in the valve-open position.
- A valve seal adjacent to the downstream end of the plunger that seals against the seat in the closed position.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,077,299 - "Dispensing faucet for a pressurized source," Issued Jul. 18, 2006
- Technology Synopsis: This continuation-in-part further refines the faucet design, focusing on specific structural configurations of the plunger, valve body, and a "flow modifying tip" to optimize performance. The claims detail a specific geometry for a plunger with an extension that tapers to progressively decrease in diameter, a feature designed to precisely control fluid flow and pressure to prevent foaming in carbonated beverages. (’299 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:41-48).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 12. (Compl. ¶114).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Faucet's plunger, valve seal, and particularly its "flow-modifying tip" with an allegedly larger upstream diameter and smaller downstream diameter, infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 95-98).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused product is the "Vent-Matic S/S Faucet with 10mm Spout," identified with item code DTF550C and sold on the website www.draughtech.com. (Compl. ¶84).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges the Accused Faucet incorporates a "patented vent-free forward seal design." (Compl. ¶86). The complaint provides a detailed technical breakdown of the faucet's components, referencing a series of exhibits that allegedly depict its operation. (Compl. ¶¶ 88-98). The core alleged functionality includes a valve body with a bore, a moveable plunger within the bore, and a valve seal at the downstream end of the plunger that seals against a seat near the outlet port. (Compl. ¶¶ 89-91). The complaint also describes a "flow modifying tip" on the plunger's downstream end. (Compl. ¶93). An annotated diagram provided as Exhibit 13 shows the valve disassembled, identifying its core components. (Compl. ¶88).
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Faucet was sold and offered for sale throughout the United States, with at least one sale occurring in the Western District of Wisconsin. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 87).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'614 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) a valve body having a bore that has axially aligned inlet and outlet ports and having a seat disposed adjacent said outlet port; | The Accused Faucet has a valve body (A) with a bore (B), axially aligned inlet (C) and outlet (D) ports, and a seat (E) next to the outlet port. Exhibits 11-18 are cited as showing this structure. | ¶89 | col. 3:32-43 |
| (B) a plunger disposed in said valve body between said inlet port and said outlet port... wherein said plunger is moveable axially within said bore... from a valve-open position to a valve-closed position; | The Accused Faucet has a plunger (F) in the valve body that moves axially between open and closed positions. Exhibit 12 is cited as showing the open position and Exhibit 11 is cited as showing the closed position. | ¶90 | col. 3:11-15 |
| (C) a valve seal disposed adjacent to said downstream end of said plunger, wherein said seal seals against said seat when said plunger is in said valve-closed position... | The Accused Faucet has a valve seal (I) on the downstream end of the plunger that seals against the seat (E) when the plunger is in the closed position. Exhibit 15 is cited as showing this sealed state. | ¶91 | col. 4:35-44 |
| ...and wherein at least a majority of said plunger is configured to be immersed in fluid in said bore when said plunger is in said valve closed position. | The complaint alleges the configuration of the seal and plunger results in the majority of the plunger being immersed in fluid in the bore when closed. | ¶91 | col. 4:15-20 |
'420 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) a valve body having a bore, an inlet port, an outlet port, and a seat disposed adjacent said outlet port; | The Accused Faucet has a valve body (A) with a bore (B), inlet port (C), outlet port (D), and seat (E) adjacent to the outlet port. Exhibits 14 and 16 are cited as showing this structure. | ¶92 | col. 3:49-59 |
| (B) a plunger disposed in said valve body... wherein said plunger has a flow modifying tip on its downstream end that extends at least partially into said outlet port when the plunger is in said valve-open position; | The Accused Faucet has a plunger (F) with a flow modifying tip (J) on its downstream end. The complaint alleges the tip extends at least partially into the outlet port in the open position, citing Exhibit 18 which shows the open position with the plunger superimposed on the valve body. | ¶93 | col. 8:9-18 |
| (C) a valve seal disposed adjacent to said downstream end of said plunger, wherein said seal seals against said seat when said plunger is in said valve-closed position. | The Accused Faucet has a valve seal (I) adjacent to the plunger's downstream end that seals against the seat (E) in the closed position. Exhibit 15 is cited as showing this sealed state. | ¶94 | col. 6:21-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the precise meaning of the structural limitations in the claims. A potential question is whether the Accused Faucet's components, as depicted in Exhibits 11-18, meet the specific structural requirements of a "valve seal disposed adjacent to said downstream end" and a "flow modifying tip" as those terms are defined by the patents and their prosecution histories.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the "flow modifying tip" of the Accused Faucet actually performs the claimed function of preventing CO2 separation from carbonated beverages. While the complaint alleges the presence of the structure, evidence of its functional effect may become a point of contention.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: "valve seal disposed adjacent to said downstream end of said plunger" ('614 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core "forward seal" concept of the invention, which distinguishes it from prior art where seals were often at the inlet. The location of the seal is fundamental to the patent's claim of improved sanitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement of the '614 patent hinges on the accused seal's location meeting this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "adjacent," which may be argued to mean near or next to, rather than requiring direct contact with the absolute end. The specification describes the seal being on the "downstream end portion of the plunger" (’614 Patent, col. 4:35-36), which could support a construction that is not limited to the very extremity of the plunger.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently show the seal (66) located in a groove (70) at the very front of the plunger body, just before the fluid exits. (’614 Patent, Fig. 1). The specification describes this specific embodiment in detail, which could be used to argue that "adjacent to said downstream end" implies this specific terminal location. (’614 Patent, col. 4:39-44).
Term 2: "flow modifying tip" ('420 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the novel feature added in the '420 patent to address foaming. The entire infringement theory for this patent depends on the accused faucet having a structure that meets the definition of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple embodiments of the tip, describing it as potentially "conical," "bulbous," or having a "cylindrical upstream end portion and a conical downstream end." (’420 Patent, col. 8:40-65). This variety suggests the term is meant to encompass different shapes that achieve the stated function of managing pressure to prevent foaming.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself requires that the tip "extends at least partially into said outlet port when the plunger is in said valve-open position." This structural and positional limitation constrains the term's scope. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the specific geometries and dimensions shown in the patent's figures (e.g., Figs. 9-12), which are necessary to achieve the claimed functional result.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement against Defendant Salcedo, asserting he controlled the sales functions of the corporate defendants and acted with knowledge of the patents and the license terminations. (Compl. ¶¶ 118-123). It also alleges contributory infringement against Defendant Beverage Services for allegedly supplying the Accused Faucets to Defendant BEI after its license was terminated, knowing they were a material part of the patented inventions with no substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶ 125-130).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged against the "Direct Patent Infringers" (Draught Technologies and BEI) based on their pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 103, 109, 115). The complaint establishes this knowledge through the Defendants' prior status as licensees of the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 28, 51-53). Knowledge of the license terminations is also explicitly alleged. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of contract and conduct: given that Defendants were former licensees, the case will likely turn on the factual circumstances surrounding the license terminations and Defendants' subsequent actions. The question is not just whether the product infringes, but whether Defendants continued to sell a product they knew was covered by patents they no longer had a right to use.
- A key legal and factual question will be one of claim construction and infringement: assuming the license terminations are upheld, the case will depend on whether the Accused Faucet falls within the scope of the asserted claims. The primary battleground will likely be the construction of terms like "valve seal disposed adjacent to said downstream end" and "flow modifying tip," and whether the specific structures of the accused product, as shown in the complaint's exhibits, meet those definitions.
- An important evidentiary question will concern willfulness: Plaintiffs have alleged a strong basis for willfulness based on the prior license agreements. A critical question for damages will be whether Defendants' post-termination conduct constitutes the kind of "egregious" behavior that warrants enhancement, should infringement be found.