Bee Warehouse LLC v. Blazer
682 F.Supp.3d 1009
N.D. Ala.2023Background
- Bee Warehouse, LLC and David Product Creation and Consulting, LLC (DPCC) sell a carpenter-bee trap (the Bee Warehouse Trap); Blazer (Carpenter Bee Solutions) owns reissue U.S. Patent No. RE46,421 (the ’421 Patent).
- Blazer reported Bee Warehouse’s trap to Amazon, which removed the product; Plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; Blazer counterclaimed for infringement of Claims 13–17 and 21 of the ’421 Patent (Count I).
- The court previously denied Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request but found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits (i.e., likely noninfringement).
- Claim 13 (independent) claims a trap with a ‘‘receptacle adapter’’ at the exit opening that (inter alia) receives/helps retain a receptacle and permits ambient light to enter; the Federal Circuit has construed Claim 13 and that construction is binding here.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment that the Bee Warehouse Trap does not infringe Claim 13; the court found the motion ripe and granted summary judgment, dismissing Count I with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of summary judgment before close of discovery | Motion is ripe; no additional factual discovery is needed; court has the accused trap | Motion premature; entitled to another Markman on "means to shelter" | Motion was ripe: prior claim construction exists and the term is irrelevant to the asserted claims |
| Relevance of "means to shelter" claim construction | Not relevant because Blazer limits suit to Claim 13 (which lacks that limitation) | Seeks new construction/hearing to challenge prior construction | Court declined a second hearing: prior construction binding and term not in asserted claims |
| Literal infringement of Claim 13 (presence of a receptacle adapter) | Bee Warehouse Trap lacks a receptacle adapter as construed; adapter elements must all be present at exit opening | Blazer: (1) friction fit between wooden housing and plastic lip, and (2) Philips-head screws, or their combination, function as the receptacle adapter | No reasonable juror could find literal infringement: alleged structures are not located at the exit opening and do not meet all required adapter elements |
| Doctrine of equivalents | Not infringed under equivalents because differences are substantial in way and placement | Blazer: combination of lip, friction fit, and screws perform substantially same function/result | Court held equivalents fail: combination does not perform in substantially the same way or location as the claimed receptacle adapter |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s burden at summary judgment)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (claim construction is a question of law)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (doctrine of equivalents framework)
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605 (equivalents analysis principles)
- PC Connector Sols., LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359 (two-step infringement analysis)
- Eagle Comtronics v. Arrow Commc'n Lab'ys, Inc., 305 F.3d 1303 (insubstantial differences test)
- Exigent Tech., Inc. v. Atrana Sols., Inc., 442 F.3d 1301 (patentee must produce evidence of infringement at summary judgment)
- SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 859 F.2d 878 (patentee’s burden to prove infringement)