PUBLIC VERSION
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of CERTAIN CLOUD-CONNECTED WOOD-PELLET GRILLS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF |
Inv. No. 337-TA-1237 |
ORDER NO. 28: INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING-IN-PART RESPONDENTâS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND TERMINATING THE INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO U.S. PATENT NO.10,218,833
(September 3, 2021)
On July 21, 2021, Respondent GMG Products LLC (âGMGâ) filed a motion (1237-019) for summary determination of non-infringement, attaching a memorandum in support (the âGMG Memo.â). Pursuant to Order No. 23 (July 28, 2021), GMG filed a supplemental brief to the motion on August 2, 2021 (the âGMG Supp.â).1 Complainant Traeger Pellet Grills LLC (âTraegerâ) filed a response in opposition to the motion on August 9, 2021 (the âTraeger Opp.â).
GMGâs motion seeks summary determination of non-infringement with respect to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,218,833 (the ââ833 patentâ) and U.S. Patent No. 10,158,720 (the ââ720 patentâ). With respect to the â833 patent, for the reasons discussed herein, the motion is GRANTED. With respect to the â720 patent, there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary determination, and the motion is DENIED.
1 GMG attached updated claim charts and expert reports to its supplemental brief as exhibits 13a, 14a, and 15a. These exhibits were not considered for this order because the supplements were not authorized by Order No. 23 and circumvent the page limit set forth therein.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
I. BACKGROUND
The â833 patent is one of the two patents asserted by Traeger in this investigation. See GMG Exhibit 1 (the â833 patent). Traeger accuses GMGâs wireless pellet grills of infringing claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 18, and 22-24 of the â833 patent. See Notice of Investigation at 1-2 (Dec. 28, 2020); Complaint ¶ 36 (Nov. 24, 2020). A Markman order issued on July 28, 2021, construing certain terms of the asserted patent claims. Order No. 22.
A. The â833 Patent
The asserted independent claims of the â833 patent are claims 1, 11, and 18. Claim 1 is a method claim reciting:
1. A method for controlling an electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill using a software application on a mobile device, the electronicallycontrolled wood-pellet grill having at least one hardware controller, the method comprising:
receiving an indication from one or more remote computing systems indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is communicably connected to the one or more remote computing systems, wherein the one or more remote computing systems comprise a cloud service;
providing a notification in the software application indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is available to receive instructions;
receiving a user input at the software application indicating that a particular temperature is to be maintained by the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill;
generating one or more instructions configured to cause a hopper to feed wood pellets into the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill at a particular rate in order to maintain the particular temperature;
and sending the generated instructions to the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill to activate the hopper, the generated instructions being interpreted and carried out on the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill via the hardware controller.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
Claims 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claim 3 depends from claim 2.
Claim 11 is directed to ânon-transitory computer-readable media,â reciting:
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store computerexecutable instructions that, when executed, implement a method for controlling an electronically-ontrolled wood-pellet grill using a software application on a mobile device, the method comprising:
receiving an indication at the software application indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is attempting to communicate with one or more remote computing systems, wherein the one or more remote computing systems comprise a cloud service;
receiving a first user input at the software application indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is permitted to communicate with the one or more remote computing systems;
receiving an indication from at least one of the one or more remote computing systems indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is communicably connected to the one or more remote computing systems;
providing a notification in the software application indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is available to receive instructions;
receiving a second user input at the software application indicating that a particular temperature is to be maintained by the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill;
generating one or more instructions configured to cause a hopper to feed wood pellets into the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill at a particular rate in order to maintain the particular temperature;
and
sending one or more instructions to the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill to activate the hopper, the one or more instructions being interpreted and carried out by a hardware controller on the electronically-controlled
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11, and claim 14 depends from claim 13.
Claim 18 is directed to a âcomputer program product,â reciting:
18. A computer program product comprising one or more non-transitory computer storage media having thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the computing system, cause the computing system to instantiate a user interface comprising the following:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
a first input field configured to receive input indicating whether an electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is permitted to communicate with one or more remote computing systems, wherein the one or more remote computing systems comprise a cloud service;
a notification field configured to indicate whether the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is communicably connected to the one or more remote computing systems, and to further provide notifications indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is available to receive instructions;
a second input field configured to receive input indicating that a particular temperature is to be maintained by the wood-pellet grill;
an instruction generating indicator configured to indicate that one or more instructions configured to cause a hopper to feed wood pellets into the wood-pellet grill at a particular rate in order to maintain the particular temperature are being generated based on the received user input;
and a transmission indicator configured to indicate that the one or more instructions are being sent to the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill to activate the hopper, the one or more instructions being interpreted and carried out by a hardware controller on the electronically-controlled woodpellet grill.
Claim 22 depends from claim 18, and claims 23 and 24 depend from claim 22.
The parties agreed on the construction of âcloud serviceâ to mean a service for enabling on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources. Order No. 22 at 11. The limitation in claims 1 and 11 requiring an âindication . . . that the . . . grill is communicably connectedâ was construed to mean an indication that the grill is connected for communication. Id. at 11-15. The limitation in claim 18 describing a ânotification field configured to indicate whether the . . . grill is communicably connectedâ was construed to mean a field that indicates whether the grill is connected for communication. Id. The term âinput . . . indicating whether/thatâ a grill âis permitted to communicateâ in claims 11 and 18 was construed to mean an input indicating whether the grill is permitted to communicate. Id. at 15-16. The term ânotification[s] . . . indicating that the . . . grill is available to receive instructionsâ in claims 5 1, 11, and 18 was construed to mean a notification indicating that the grill is available to receive instructions. Id. at 16-17. The term âinstruction generating indicatorâ in claim 18 was construed to mean an indication that instructions are being generated. Id. at 18. The term âtransmission indicatorâ in claim 18 was construed to mean an indication that instructions are being transmitted. Id. at 19. The term âgenerating one or more instructionsâ in claims 1 and 11 and the term âinstructions . . . are being generatedâ in claim 18 were construed to mean generating one or more instructions. Id. at 19-20.
B. Accused Products
The accused GMG wireless pellet grills are part of a system (the âGMG Systemâ) that includes (1) a mobile app (Android or iOS), (2) an API server (sometimes also referred to as the âParse serverâ), (3) a database, (4) a grill server, and (5) a grill having a grill controller. GMG Memo. at 15-18. The GMG System was analyzed for infringement by Dr. Matthew B. Shoemake, an expert witness retained by Traeger for this investigation. See GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report). GMG relies on the opinions of David H. Williams with respect to non-infringement. See GMG Exhibit 14 (Williams Expert Report). With respect to the infringement allegations at issue in the present motion, there are no relevant differences between different models of pellet grills and software versions. See GMG Exhibit 16 at ¶ 4. A representative GMG wireless pellet grill is the GMG Daniel Boone Prime Grill, which was analyzed for infringement by Dr. Shoemake.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
GMG Exhibit 16 at ¶ 3. A GMG mobile app is used to control the operation of GMG wireless
pellet grills.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
Id. at ¶ 24. The GMG wireless pellet grills can be operated in a âServer modeâ where communications between the grill and the mobile app are conducted via a GMG server.
Id. at ¶ 24.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Summary determination
Commission Rule 210.18 governing summary determination states, in pertinent part:
The determination sought by the moving party shall be rendered if pleadings and any depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a summary determination as a matter of law.
19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b). By analogy to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a), in deciding whether to grant summary determination the evidence âmust be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion . . . with doubts resolved in favor of the nonmovant.â Crown Operations 8 Intâl, Ltd. v. Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see also Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 267 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (âWhen ruling on a motion for summary judgment, all of the nonmovantâs evidence is to be credited, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the nonmovantâs favor.â). The court should âassure itself that there is no reasonable version of the facts, on the summary judgment record, whereby the nonmovant could prevail, recognizing that the purpose of summary judgment is not to deprive a litigant of a fair hearing, but to avoid an unnecessary trial.â EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157 F.3d 887, 891 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). âIn other words, â[s]ummary judgment is authorized when it is quite clear what the truth isâ . . . and the law requires judgment in favor of the movant based upon facts not in genuine dispute.â Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
The moving party bears the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 251-52, 256 (1986). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show a genuine issue for trialâwhich means that the disputed fact is material under the correct view of the law and the evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party). Id. See UM Corp. v. Tsuburaya Prods., No. CV 15-03764-AB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203303, at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2017) (citing Owens v. Local No. 169, Assoc. of W. Pulp and Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347, 355 (9th Cir. 1987)).
B. Infringement
Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i) prohibits âthe importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that â (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent or a valid and enforceable United States copyright registered under title 17.â 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(1)(B)(i). The Commission has held that the word âinfringeâ in Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i) âderives its legal meaning from 35 U.S.C. § 271, the section of the Patent Act that defines patent infringement.â Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724, Commân Op. at 13-14 (December 21, 2011).
âAn infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing.â Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), affâd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (citation omitted). Literal infringement requires the patentee to prove that the accused device meets each and every limitation of the asserted claim(s). Frankâs Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Intâl, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004). âIf even one limitation is missing or not met as claimed, there is no literal infringement.â Elkay Mfg. Co. v. EBCO Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
III. DISCUSSION
GMG moves for summary determination of non-infringement with respect to each of the asserted claims of the â833 patent. GMG contends that the GMG System does not infringe certain limitations of each independent claim of this patent.
A. â833 Patent Claim 1
GMG contends that the GMG System does not infringe three limitations of claim 1 of the â833 patent: (1) an indication that the grill is âcommunicably connected;â (2) a notification that the grill is âavailable to receive instructions;â and (3) âgenerating one or more instructions.â With respect to the âcommunicably connectedâ and âavailable to receive instructionsâ limitations, the undersigned finds that there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
summary determination. The partiesâ arguments with respect to the âgenerating one or more instructionsâ limitation are addressed in detail below:
The fourth step in the method of claim 1 requires âgenerating one or more instructions configured to cause a hopper to feed wood pellets into the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill at a particular rate in order to maintain the particular temperature.â â833 patent, claim 1. The final step in claim 1 requires âsending the generated instructions to the electronicallycontrolled wood-pellet grill.â Id. The claim language âgenerating one or more instructionsâ was construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Order No. 22 at 19-20.
Traegerâs infringement contentions identify functionality in the GMG mobile app that allows the user to set a temperature. GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) at ¶¶ 91, 192.
GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) ¶ 27. ______________________________________________________________________ Id.at ¶¶ 92,192.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Id. at ¶¶ 108-109, 193. Traeger submits that the temperature setting from the GMG mobile app thus infringes this limitation because it causes a hopper to feed wood pellets into the grill at a particular rate. Traeger Opp. at 13-15. Traeger does not make any arguments for infringement of this limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.
GMG argues that this limitation is not infringed because the temperature command sent to the GMG grill via the GMG server is not an âinstruction[] configured to cause a hopper to feed wood pellets into the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill at a particular rate.â GMG Memo. at 28-29; GMG Supp. at 9-10. GMG submits that the command only consists of a temperature, which is not an âinstruction,â and that any âparticular rateâ for feeding wood pellets is generated by the controller in the GMG grill, not the GMG mobile app. Id. Mr. Williams explains that the GMG grillâs controller ____________________ ________________ __________ ________________________ GMG Exhibit 14 (Williams Expert Report) ¶ 117.
Traeger argues in opposition that the temperature commands generated by the GMG mobile app qualify as infringing âinstructions.â Traeger Opp. at 14-15. Traeger submits that these temperature commands cause the GMG grill to feed wood pellets at a particular rate. Id.; GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) at ¶ 192.
Based on this record, the undersigned agrees with GMG that the accused instructions2 are not configured to cause a âparticular rateâ of wood pellet feeding, and accordingly, the GMG Grills do not infringe this limitation. The alleged instructions identified by Traeger are commands that only include the set temperature. Traeger argues that these temperature commands cause a hopper in the GMG grill to feed wood pellets into the grill at a particular rate to maintain a particular temperature, Traeger Opp. at 14, but Traegerâs contentions fail to identify any âparticular rate.â Dr. Shoemake identifies commands in the controller for the GMG grill âthat run a control (PID) that causes pellets to be sent from the pellet hopper to the tinder box,â GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) at ¶ 193, but he does not explain how the rate of the pellet supply is configured in the temperature commands. There is no dispute that the temperature commands only specify a temperature and do not include any âparticular rateâ for supplying pellets. Mr. Williamsâs unrebutted testimony explains that the controller determines a pellet feed rate based ____________________ ________________ __________ ________________________, which are not part of the âgenerated instructionâ that is sent to the grill. See GMG Exhibit 14 (Williams Expert Report) ¶ 117.
2 The parties dispute whether the temperature command is an âinstruction,â but this issue does not need to be resolved on this motion. See Traeger Opp. at 14-15; compare Motion Exhibit 14 (Williams Expert Report) ¶ 116 to GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) at ¶¶ 91, 192. For the purposes of this order, the temperature command is considered to be an âinstruction.â
There is no factual dispute regarding the operation of the GMG System, but the parties disagree on the requirements of the claim language âconfigured to cause a hopper to feed wood pellets into the . . . grill at a particular rate.â This claim construction dispute is amenable to summary determination. The undersigned agrees with GMGâs reading of the claim language, which requires that the generated instruction be âconfiguredâ to cause âa particular rateâ of wood pellet feeding. See GMG Memo. at 29. The specification of the â833 patent treats âtemperature monitoring and controlâ and âhopper control for feeding pellets into the combustion areaâ as distinct functions that can be controlled by the user. See â833 patent at 12:53-60 (âThe user interface 630 may also include a second input field 610 configured to receive input indicating that one or more specification functions . . . . The functions may include temperature monitoring
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
and control, gas burn rate, hopper control for feeding pellets into the combustion area . . . .â). The undisputed evidence shows that the GMG System ____________________ ________________ __________ ________________________ The pellet feed rate for the hopper in a GMG grill ___________________ _____ _________ ________________ __________ ________________________ In the GMG System, a ____________________ ________________ __________ ________________________ The temperature-only âinstructionâ that is generated and sent to the GMG grill thus cannot be âconfigured to cause a hopper to feed wood pellets into the . . . grill at a particular rate.â
Accordingly, the GMG System does not infringe the âgenerating one or more instructionsâ limitation of claim 1, and GMG is entitled to summary determination with respect to this claim and the claims that depend therefrom.
B. â833 Patent Claim 11
GMG contends that the GMG System does not infringe four limitations of claim 11 of the â833 patent: (1) an indication that the grill is âattempting to communicate;â (2) an indication that the grill is âcommunicably connected;â (3) a notification that the grill is âavailable to receive instructions;â and (4) âgenerating one or more instructions.â Based on the partiesâ briefs, the undersigned finds that there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary determination with respect to the âcommunicably connectedâ and âavailable to receive instructionsâ limitations. With respect to the âgenerating one or more instructionsâ limitation, summary determination of non-infringement is appropriate for the same reasons discussed above in the context of claim 1. The partiesâ arguments with respect to the âattempting to communicateâ limitation are discussed in detail below:
The first step in the claimed method of claim 11 requires âreceiving an indication at the software application indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is attempting to communicate with one or more remote computing systems.â â833 patent, claim 11.
Traeger identifies a step in the setup process for the GMG mobile app where the GMG grill connects to the userâs Wi-Fi network. Traeger Opp. at 15-18. Dr. Shoemake explains that the GMG mobile app âindicates that the GMG Grill is attempting to connect to the GMG serverover the Internet using the local Wi-Fi connection.â
GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) at ¶¶ 20-21. Traeger further identifies evidence that the GMG mobile app ____________________ ________________ __________ ________________________ Id. at ¶ 85. Traeger does not make any arguments for infringement of this limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.
GMG argues that the displayed message is not based on any indication received by the GMG mobile appâMr. Williams explains that during this step of the setup process, ____________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
____________________ ________________ GMG Memo. at 30-31; GMG Exhibit 14 (Williams Expert Report) at ¶ 120. The GMG server communicates with the GMG mobile app but the status information that is provided ____________________ ________________ GMG Exhibit 14 (Williams Expert Report) at ¶ 121. GMG thus submits that this limitation is not infringed because there is no indication received by the GMG mobile app indicating that the grill is attempting to communicate with the GMG server. GMG Memo. at 30-31.
In opposition, Traeger argues that the âAttempting to connectâ message displayed in the GMG mobile app, when considered in conjunction with ____________________ ________________ __________ ________________ , is sufficient evidence to at least create a dispute of material fact regarding this limitation. Traeger Opp. at 17-18.
Based on this record, the undersigned agrees with GMG that this limitation is not infringed. Traeger argues that Dr. Shoemakeâs opinions regarding the message displayed in the GMG mobile app are sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact, but there is no evidence for the indication that is required by the claim language at issue. Dr. Shoemake fails to identify any communication received by the GMG mobile app indicating that the GMG grill is attempting to communicate with the GMG server. A displayed message regarding the grillâs connection is insufficient to make a prima facie case for infringement of this limitation, and Traeger fails to identify any genuine dispute of material fact. There is no evidence that the GMG mobile app receives an indication meeting this claim limitation.
Accordingly, because the GMG System does not infringe the âattempting to communicateâ and the âgenerating one or more instructionsâ limitations of claim 11 of the â833
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
patent, GMG is entitled to summary determination with respect to this claim and the claims that depend therefrom.
C. â833 Patent Claim 18
GMG contends that the GMG System does not infringe three limitations of claim 18 of the â833 patent: (1) a notification field indicating whether the grill is âcommunicably connectedâ and that the grill is âavailable to receive instructions;â (2) an âinstruction generating indicator;â and (3) a âtransmission indicator.â Summary determination of non-infringement is appropriate with respect to the âinstruction generating indicator,â for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the âgenerating one or more instructionsâ limitation of claim 1. The undersigned finds that there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary determination with respect to the âtransmission indicator.â The partiesâ arguments with respect to the ânotification fieldâ limitation are discussed in detail below:
The second limitation of the claimed user interface of claim 18 is âa notification field configured to indicate whether the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is communicably connected to the one or more remote computing systems, and to further provide notifications indicating that the electronically-controlled wood-pellet grill is available to receive instructions.â â833 patent, claim 18.
Traegerâs infringement contentions identify a button in the GMG mobile app that displays the word âRefreshâ in green when a grill is connected to the GMG server.
See GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) at ¶ 169. If the âRefreshâ button is pushed, the GMG mobile app ____________________ ________________ Id. at ¶ 170. When in
Server mode, the GMG mobile app ____________________ ________ ________ ________________ Id. at ¶¶ 171-77. The connectivity data ____________________ ________ ________ ________________ ______________ ______________ Id. at ¶ 178.
Id. at ¶ 178. Traeger submits that the data obtained from the GMG server, which includes ____________________ ________ ________ ________________ is an âindicationâ that the
grill âis communicably connectedâ to the GMG server. Traeger Opp. at 7-10. Traeger furthersubmits that the same âRefreshâ button indicates that the grill is âavailable to receive instructions.â GMG Exhibit 16 (Shoemake Expert Report) at ¶ 253. Traeger does not make any arguments for infringement of this limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.
GMG argues that the language of claim 18 requires two distinct notifications to meet this limitation. GMG Memo. at 32; GMG Supp. at 11. Because Traeger fails to identify two different notifications, GMG submits that the GMG mobile app does not infringe this limitation. Id.; see GMG Exhibit 15 (Williams Rebuttal Report) at ¶ 115.
The primary dispute between the parties is one of claim construction, which is amenable to summary determination. The undersigned agrees with GMG that the language of claim 18 requires two distinct notifications for indicating whether the grill is âcommunicably connectedâ and âavailable to receive instructions.â As discussed in the Markman order, claim 18 recites a ânotification fieldâ that is configured to indicate a communicable connection and âto further provide notifications indicating that the . . . grill is available to receive instructions.â Order No. 22 at 17. Unlike claims 1 and 11, which describe the âcommunicably connectedâ indication as something received from the cloud service and the âavailable to receive instructionsâ notification as something provided in the software application, the plain language of claim 18 requires that two different notifications are displayed in the user interface. Id.
Traeger cites case law where the Federal Circuit has held that âa single element, feature, or mechanism can ordinarily satisfy multiple claim limitations, including by performing multiple claimed functions.â Google LLC v. Personal Audio, LLC, 743 Fed. Appâx. 978, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2018). But the Federal Circuit has required separate structures where this is consistent with the claim language. See HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 701 F. App’x 978, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (âThe separate naming of two structures in the claim strongly implies that the named entities are not one and the same structure.â); see also Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (âWhere a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.â (internal quotations omitted)). Here, claim 18 describes âa notification field configured to indicate whether the . . . grill is communicably connected . . . , and to further provide notifications indicating that the . . . grill is available to receive instructions.â â833 patent, claim 18. The use of the term âfurtherâ and the plural ânotificationsâ must be read to require two separate notifications in the user interface.
Traeger has only identified one notification in the GMG mobile app, the âRefreshâ icon, to indicate whether the grill is communicably connected or available to receive instructions. There is no dispute that this is a single notification. Because the claim language requires two notifications in the notification field, the GMG mobile app does not infringe this limitation and GMG is thus entitled to summary determination of non-infringement for this claim.
Accordingly, because the GMG System does not infringe the ânotification fieldâ and the âinstruction generating indicatorâ limitations of claim 18 of the â833 patent, GMG is entitled to summary determination with respect to this claim and the claims that depend therefrom.
Because the GMG System does not infringe any of the independent claims of the â833 patent, GMG is entitled to summary determination of non-infringement with respect to each asserted claim of the â833 patent.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the motion (1237-018) is hereby GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. GMGâs motion for summary determination is GRANTED with respect to claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 18, and 22-24 of the â833 patent. It is the initial determination of the undersigned that the accused GMG System does not infringe any asserted claim of the â833 patent. The â833 patent shall be terminated from the investigation, and accordingly, the parties shall not present any evidence at the hearing that relates solely to the â833 patent.3 The motion is DENIED with respect to the â720 patent.
3 The parties shall revise their witness statements and exhibit lists to remove any testimony and evidence that relates solely to the â833 patent. Revised exhibits shall be submitted to the Chief Administrative Law Judge no later than Friday, September 10, 2021.
Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.42(h), this initial determination shall become the determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial determination pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the initial determination or certain issues contained herein. 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(d).
This order has been issued with a confidential designation. Within seven days of the date of this document, the parties must jointly submit a statement to the attorney advisors for this investigation, Ted Jou ([email protected]) and Michael Maas ([email protected]), stating whether or not each party seeks to have any portion of this document redacted from the public version. Should any party seek to have any portion of this document redacted from the public version thereof, the parties shall attach to the statement a copy of a joint proposed public version of this document indicated with red brackets any portion asserted to contain confidential business.4 To the extent possible, the proposed redacting should be made electronically, in a PDF of the issued order, using the âRedact Toolâ within Adobe Acrobat, wherein the proposed redactions are submitted as âmarkedâ but not yet âapplied.â The partiesâ submission concerning the public version of this document should not be filed with the Commission Secretary.
4 If the parties submit excessive redactions, they may be required to provide an additional written statement, supported by declarations from individuals with personal knowledge, justifying each proposed redaction and specifically explaining why the information sought to be redacted meets the definition for confidential business information set forth in Commission Rule 201.6(a). 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a).
SO ORDERED.
Charles E. Bullock
Chief Administrative Law Judge
__________________________________________
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached INITIAL DETERMINATION has been served upon the following parties as indicated, on September 3, 2021.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Traeger Pellet Grills LLC: Jay H. Reiziss, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP 500 North Capitol Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Email: [email protected] |
|
On Behalf of Respondent GMG Products LLC: Andrew F. Pratt, Esq. DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 1526 Gilpin Avenue Wilmington, DE 19806 Email: [email protected] |
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the following parties in the manner indicated below on September 9, 2021:
The Honorable Lisa Barton, Secretary U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, SW, Room 112 Washington, D.C. 20436 |
|
The Honorable Charles E. Bullock Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20436 [email protected] (Ted Jou) [email protected] (Michael Maas) |
|
Jay H. Reiziss McDermott Will & Emery LLP 500 North Capitol Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 T: 202.756.8000 [email protected] Counsel for Complainant Traeger Pellet Grills LLC |
|
s/ Lauren Mostrom
September 9, 2021
The Honorable Lisa Barton
Acting Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Room 112A
Washington, D.C. 20436
Re: In the Matter of Certain Cloud-Connected Wood-Pellet Grills and
Components Thereof; Investigation No. 337-TA-1237
Dear Secretary Barton:
Enclosed please find the Public Version of Order No. 28 (Granting in Part GMG’s Motion for
Summary Determination).
Please donât hesitate to contact us if you need any additional information regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Andrew F. Pratt
Andrew F. Pratt