DCT

7:26-cv-00099

Cambria Co LLC v. Cosentino Industrial Sau

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:26-cv-00099, W.D. Tex., 03/23/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district, C & C North America has a regular and established place of business in the district, and Cosentino Industrial is a foreign corporation that may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s quartz surface products, sold under brands including Silestone, infringe three patents related to the composition of and methods for manufacturing engineered stone slabs with veined appearances.
  • Technical Context: The case concerns the market for engineered quartz slabs, a popular alternative to natural quarried stone for applications like countertops, which relies on technology to create aesthetically complex and reproducible surface patterns.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the parties previously litigated infringement of the ’762 and ’440 patents, which resulted in a settlement covering products released at that time. Plaintiff alleges that this new suit concerns new products released by Defendant since the settlement. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the ’718 patent via letter.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-01-01 Cambria introduces its Coastal Collection, which allegedly embodies the patented technology
2015-01-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’762, ’440, and ’718 Patents
2019-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,195,762 issues
2019-04-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,252,440 issues
2020-09-30 Alleged date of Defendant's awareness of the ’762 and ’440 Patents from prior litigation
2025-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718 issues
2026-02-11 Alleged date of Defendant's awareness of the ’718 Patent from a notice letter
2026-03-23 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,195,762 - Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto (Issued Feb. 5, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of manufacturing engineered stone slabs that emulate the complex, veined appearance of natural quarried stone (e.g., marble or granite) in a consistent and repeatable manner, a limitation of prior engineered stone products (’762 Patent, col. 1:21-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a synthetic molded slab and a system for its creation. The process involves sequentially dispensing two or more differently pigmented particulate mineral mixes (primarily quartz and a resin binder) into a single slab mold (’762 Patent, col. 2:63-66). This is achieved using a series of complementary stencils, where a first stencil directs the placement of a first mix, and a second "negative" stencil directs a second mix into the remaining empty regions (’762 Patent, col. 2:27-50; '762 Patent, FIG. 7). The combined mixes are then compacted and cured to form a single slab with distinct, full-thickness veining patterns (’762 Patent, abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This stencil-based method allows for the mass production of engineered slabs with complex, pre-defined veining patterns that are highly similar from one slab to the next, overcoming the randomness of natural stone and the simplicity of prior engineered products (’762 Patent, col. 4:11-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 22-25 (Compl. ¶30). Independent claim 22 is representative.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 22:
    • A processed slab with a rectangular shape of at least 2 feet by 6 feet.
    • A major surface comprising a first particulate mineral mix and a second particulate mineral mix.
    • The first mix occupies the entire slab thickness at a set of first regions, which include a "first vein in a generally width-wise direction" and a "second vein in a generally lengthwise direction."
    • The second mix occupies the entire slab thickness at a set of second regions.
    • The first and second mixes are different, each comprising quartz and one or more binders.
    • The first mix is absent from the second regions, and the second mix is absent from the first regions.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,252,440 - Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto (Issued Apr. 9, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’762 Patent, the ’440 patent addresses the challenge of creating reproducible, aesthetically complex veining in engineered stone slabs (’440 Patent, col. 1:25-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a process for forming a synthetic molded slab. The method involves using a first stencil to dispense a first pigmented quartz mix into a first set of regions in a slab mold, followed by using a second stencil to dispense a second pigmented quartz mix into a different, second set of regions (’440 Patent, col. 2:25-50). The deposited mixes are then vibrated and compacted to form a processed slab with a major surface of at least 3 feet by 6 feet (’440 Patent, abstract; '440 Patent, col. 2:50-57).
  • Technical Importance: By claiming the specific manufacturing method, the patent protects the stencil-based technique for creating repeatable, complex designs, which is a key process for achieving the desired product appearance (’440 Patent, col. 4:11-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 14-20 (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 14 is representative.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 14:
    • A process of forming a processed slab.
    • Sequentially dispensing at least a first and a second pigmented particulate mineral mix into a slab mold having a first and second set of regions.
    • The first mix is different from the second mix.
    • The first mix is dispensed into the first set of regions, and the second mix is dispensed into the second set of regions.
    • Vibrating and compacting the mixes to form a slab that is rectangular with a major surface of at least 3 feet by 6 feet.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718 - Processed Slabs, and Systems and Methods Related Thereto (Issued July 29, 2025)

Technology Synopsis

The ’718 Patent, a member of the same family as the ’762 and ’440 patents, is directed at the final processed slab product. It claims a slab with a "background" defined by a first particulate mineral mix and a "plurality of veins" defined by a second, different mix, where the second pattern is a negative of the first (’718 Patent, col. 13:30-44). The patent focuses on the structural and visual relationship between the background and veining materials that make up the slab.

Asserted Claims

Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are asserted (Compl. ¶46).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, including the Silestone brand slabs, embody the claimed slab structure having a distinct background and a plurality of veins (Compl. ¶25; Compl. ¶46).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Products are processed quartz slabs sold by Cosentino, at least under the Silestone brand name (Compl. ¶25). Specific non-limiting examples cited include "Calacatta Themis," "Calacatta Tova," "Bronze Rivers," "Blanc Elysee," "Chateau Brown," and "Eclectic Pearl" (Compl. ¶25; Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are engineered stone slabs used for applications such as countertops, floor tiles, and vanities (Compl. ¶14). Functionally, they are designed to provide a durable, nonabsorbent, and scratch-resistant surface (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides an image showing several of the Accused Products, which feature prominent, high-contrast veining patterns designed to emulate natural stone (Compl. ¶26).
  • The complaint alleges that Cosentino markets, imports, distributes, and sells these products throughout the United States, including within the Western District of Texas (Compl. ¶8; Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that claim charts detailing the infringement are attached as Exhibits D, E, and F; however, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶30; Compl. ¶38; Compl. ¶46). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • ’762 Patent and ’718 Patent (Product Claims): The complaint alleges that Cosentino’s Accused Products directly infringe the product claims of the ’762 and ’718 patents (Compl. ¶30; Compl. ¶46). The core of this allegation is that the physical construction of products like "Calacatta Themis" meets the limitations of the asserted claims. This includes having the specified dimensions, being composed of different particulate mineral mixes (e.g., a background mix and a vein mix), and having those mixes arranged to form the claimed vein structures, such as the "width-wise" and "lengthwise" veins of the ’762 Patent or the "background" and "plurality of veins" of the ’718 Patent (Compl. ¶25; Compl. ¶30; Compl. ¶46). An image provided in the complaint shows exemplary accused products with distinct, multi-directional veining patterns (Compl. ¶26).
  • ’440 Patent (Method Claims): The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are made using a process that infringes the method claims of the ’440 Patent (Compl. ¶24; Compl. ¶38). Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), importation, sale, or use of a product made by a patented process can constitute infringement. The allegation is that Cosentino’s manufacturing process involves the claimed steps of sequentially dispensing different quartz mixes into a mold according to a pattern, followed by compaction, to create the final slabs (Compl. ¶38).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the physical composition and structure of the Accused Products map onto the specific vein configurations and material distributions required by the product claims in the ’762 and ’718 patents. For the ’440 patent, a key question will be evidentiary: what proof can Cambria adduce that the process used by Cosentino to manufacture the slabs, prior to importation, includes the specific steps recited in the method claims?
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on how the court construes terms defining the slab's appearance. For instance, does the visual pattern on a product like "Calacatta Themis" satisfy the claim requirement for both a "width-wise" and a "lengthwise" vein as defined in the ’762 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’762 Patent (Claim 22)

  • The Term: "a first vein in a generally width-wise direction... and a second vein in a generally lengthwise direction"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the fundamental visual structure of the claimed slab. The dispute may center on whether the patterns in the Accused Products contain distinct elements that can be fairly characterized as running in these two different general directions, or if the patterns are more random or omnidirectional.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "generally" suggests the directions do not need to be perfectly linear or strictly perpendicular. The specification describes creating patterns that "emulate a quarried stone slab," which often have complex and irregular veining (’762 Patent, col. 2:55-58). This may support a construction that accommodates non-linear or meandering veins as long as their overall orientation is width-wise or lengthwise.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim separately recites both a "width-wise" and "lengthwise" vein, suggesting two distinct and identifiable features must be present. The patent figures, such as FIG. 1 and FIG. 6, depict clear, separate regions of different materials that could be interpreted as forming distinct veins (’762 Patent, FIG. 1; '762 Patent, FIG. 6). A defendant might argue that these embodiments limit the terms to more defined, distinguishable linear features.

For the ’440 Patent (Claim 14)

  • The Term: "sequentially dispensing"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed manufacturing process. The infringement analysis for this method patent will depend on whether Cosentino's process involves a time-ordered deposition of different materials, as required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "sequentially" may simply require that the first dispensation step is completed before the second begins, without precluding other intermediate steps or variations in timing. The overall goal is to place different materials in different regions, and any process achieving this in a step-wise fashion could be argued to fall within the term's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific sequence of using a first stencil, dispensing a first mix, removing the first stencil, positioning a second stencil, and dispensing a second mix (’440 Patent, col. 12:20-49; '440 Patent, FIG. 7). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires a distinct and separate two-step stencil-based process, rather than any process that happens to be time-ordered.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The factual basis alleged is that Cosentino actively encourages infringement by third parties (e.g., distributors, fabricators, and end-users) through its marketing materials, website content, and sales and distribution channels (Compl. ¶31; Compl. ¶32; Compl. ¶39; Compl. ¶40; Compl. ¶47; Compl. ¶48).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. For the ’762 and ’440 patents, the complaint bases this on Cosentino’s alleged knowledge of the patents since at least September 30, 2020, arising from prior litigation between the parties (Compl. ¶28; Compl. ¶36; Compl. ¶44). For the ’718 patent, the basis is alleged knowledge since at least February 11, 2026, from a letter providing notice of the patent (Compl. ¶28; Compl. ¶52). The complaint alleges that Cosentino continued its infringing activities despite this knowledge.

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

  • Evidentiary Proof of Process: A central issue for the ’440 method patent will be one of evidentiary access and proof. Can Cambria demonstrate that the specific process Cosentino uses in its overseas facilities to manufacture the imported slabs practices the "sequentially dispensing" steps required by the claims? This often presents a significant discovery challenge in product-by-process cases.
  • Technical Infringement and Claim Scope: A key question will be one of pattern interpretation. Do the aesthetic designs of the Accused Products, which are meant to appear complex and natural, meet the specific structural limitations of the asserted product claims, such as the requirement for distinct "width-wise" and "lengthwise" veins? The case may depend on whether the court adopts a broad or narrow construction of these descriptive terms.
  • Impact of Prior Litigation: The allegation of willfulness appears particularly significant given the parties' litigation history. A core question for the court will be whether Cosentino's design and sale of the new Accused Products, after settling a prior case on the same patents, constitutes objectively reckless behavior sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.
Loading Complaint