Direct Metals Co LLC v. Tatsciore

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Direct Metals Company, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Christopher Tatasciore (California) and Slate Bryer (California)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.; Waddey Acheson LLC
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00545, M.D. Tenn., 04/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have established sufficient minimum contacts with the district by sending correspondence and a draft patent infringement complaint into the district, threatening to sue Plaintiff's Tennessee-based customer.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its gutter guard filter media products do not infringe Defendants' patent related to water-diverting and filtering devices for rain gutters.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to gutter protection systems, which are designed to allow rainwater to enter a gutter while filtering out leaves and other debris to prevent clogging.
• Key Procedural History: The action arises from a letter and draft infringement complaint sent by Defendants' counsel to Plaintiff's customer, Flowshield Gutter Protection LLC, on March 24, 2026. This correspondence accused Flowshield of infringing the patent-in-suit by selling products that incorporate the filter media supplied by Plaintiff, creating the "actual case and controversy" necessary for this declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-03-14	U.S. Patent No. 10,711,464 Priority Date
2020-07-14	U.S. Patent No. 10,711,464 Issued
2026-03-24	Defendants' counsel sends correspondence and draft complaint to Plaintiff's customer
2026-04-28	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,711,464 - WATER DIVERTING AND FILTERING DEVICE FOR RAIN GUTTERS

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,711,464, issued July 14, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art gutter guards, noting that some fail to adequately slow down and divert water, causing it to sheet over the gutter, while others have structures that create pockets where debris can accumulate, defeating the purpose of the guard '464 Patent, col. 2:2-12 '464 Patent, col. 5:20-27
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a gutter guard system using a filter media (e.g., a wire mesh screen) with a specific surface geometry. The surface features "a plurality of elevated horizontal rows" of shapes that are "staggered" relative to the rows above and below them '464 Patent, abstract '464 Patent, col. 2:46-49 This staggered pattern is designed to act as an obstacle, breaking up the flow of water, slowing it down, and creating a siphoning effect that diverts water into the gutter while allowing debris to pass over the top '464 Patent, abstract '464 Patent, col. 8:5-15
• Technical Importance: This design purports to create a self-supporting, "frameless" gutter guard that more effectively manages water flow and avoids debris collection points common in previous designs '464 Patent, col. 7:1-15

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 9 ('464 Patent, Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
  • A filter media for keeping debris out of a gutter while allowing water to pass.
  • The filter media comprises a plurality of "elevated horizontal rows" with leading edges configured with high points declining to low points.
  • A key limitation requires that "any selected elevated horizontal row is staggered relative to adjacent elevated horizontal rows located above or below the selected elevated horizontal row."
  • The leading edges must provide "water-diverting obstacles."
• Independent Claim 9 recites a similar filter media with the "staggered" row limitation and further adds structural components:
  • "a front connection plane" for connecting to the lower edge of the filter media.
  • "a rear connection plane" for connecting to the upper edge of the filter media.
  • "an upper wing" for positioning beneath roof shingles.
• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims of the patent, which includes any dependent claims ('464 Patent, Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "certain Direct Metals products" that are incorporated into gutter guards sold and installed by Plaintiff's customer, Flowshield Gutter Protection LLC Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶21

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentality is the filter media component supplied by Direct Metals Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶7 The complaint provides a photograph showing the surface pattern of the product, which consists of a wire mesh with a repeating pattern of embossed shapes Compl. ¶21 The complaint asserts that Direct Metals is a "leader in the industrial metal and fiberglass products industry" Compl. ¶2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, arguing that its product does not meet the limitations of the '464 Patent. The core of its argument is a factual dispute over the geometry of its product compared to the claim language. A photograph displays the surface pattern of the accused Direct Metals gutter guard product, showing a mesh with embossed, repeating chevron-like shapes Compl. ¶21

'464 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a filter media, the filter media for keeping leaves and debris from passing into a gutter to which the system is attached, the filter media further allowing water to pass into the gutter;	The accused product is a filter media for a gutter guard system.	¶2	col. 5:1-11
the filter media further comprising a plurality of elevated horizontal rows having a plurality of leading edges, the leading edges being configured with high points declining to low points...	The draft complaint from Defendants alleges the accused product incorporates "elevated horizontal rows" with "leading edges configured with high points declining to low points."	¶6	col. 7:41-47
wherein any selected elevated horizontal row is staggered relative to adjacent elevated horizontal rows located above or below the selected elevated horizontal row;	This is the central point of dispute. Defendants' draft complaint alleges the product has "staggered rows." Plaintiff denies this, stating that visual inspection confirms its product "does not, and cannot, meet" this requirement.	¶6; ¶21	col. 7:26-31
wherein the leading edges provide water-diverting obstacles, the leading edges being oriented to stand against a flow of water over the filter media...	The draft complaint from Defendants alleges the accused product incorporates "water diverting structures oriented against the direction of water flow."	¶6	col. 8:1-15

'464 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 9)

The complaint's non-infringement arguments focus on the "staggered" filter media limitation common to both independent claims. It does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the additional structural elements unique to Claim 9, such as the "front connection plane," "rear connection plane," or "upper wing."

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: The primary dispute centers on the proper interpretation of the phrase "staggered relative to adjacent elevated horizontal rows." The complaint's non-infringement theory depends entirely on a construction of this term that excludes the pattern on its product Compl. ¶21
  • Technical Question: Does the pattern on the accused Direct Metals product, as shown in the complaint's photograph Compl. ¶21, meet the "staggered" limitation as defined by the patent? The patent figures show patterns where the peaks of one row align with the valleys of the next, whereas the photograph in the complaint appears to show a more uniform, repeating pattern where elements may not be offset in the same manner.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "staggered relative to adjacent elevated horizontal rows"
• Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the declaratory judgment action. Plaintiff Direct Metals explicitly bases its non-infringement argument on the assertion that its product's design does not meet this specific geometric limitation Compl. ¶¶20-21 The resolution of the case may therefore depend almost entirely on how this term is construed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader definition might argue that the patent describes the function of "staggered" rows as breaking up water flow '464 Patent, col. 2:38-45 They could argue that any arrangement of rows that is not perfectly aligned and serves this purpose falls within the scope of "staggered."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower definition, such as the Plaintiff here, will likely point to the specific embodiments and figures. The patent repeatedly shows and describes a specific configuration where the shapes in one row are explicitly offset from the rows above and below it '464 Patent, Fig. 1 '464 Patent, Fig. 2 '464 Patent, col. 7:26-34 This suggests "staggered" may be limited to a specific out-of-phase geometric relationship, which the Plaintiff argues its product lacks Compl. ¶21

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration that it does not induce or contributorily infringe the '464 Patent. The primary basis for this is the argument that there is no underlying direct infringement Compl. ¶22 The complaint also makes a conclusory denial of the specific intent required for inducement and the knowledge required for contributory infringement Compl. ¶22
• Willful Infringement: The complaint notes that the Defendants' draft complaint alleges willful infringement Compl. ¶6 The pre-suit correspondence that triggered this declaratory judgment action would be a key fact in any future willfulness analysis.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The case appears to turn on the construction of the term "staggered." The central question for the court will be whether this term requires a specific, out-of-phase geometric relationship as depicted in the patent's embodiments, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other non-aligned patterns that serve a similar water-breaking function.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual comparison: Once the term "staggered" is construed, the dispositive issue will be whether the specific repeating pattern on the accused Direct Metals product, as shown in the complaint's photograph, falls within that definition. The outcome of the case may hinge on this direct comparison of the product's geometry to the claim language.