North Atlantic Imports v. LoCo Crazy Good Cookers — Propane Griddle Patent Dispute Transferred to Georgia
North Atlantic Imports (trading as Blackstone) filed suit in Delaware against LoCo Crazy Good Cookers over alleged infringement of US10660473 covering propane griddle technology. After 605 days and a parallel Georgia complaint asserting a second patent, the parties stipulated to transfer the Delaware action to the Middle District of Georgia, consolidating both disputes in a single venue.
Blackstone’s propane griddle patent fight moves from Delaware to Georgia
On September 28, 2023, North Atlantic Imports LLC — operating under the Blackstone brand — filed suit in the Delaware District Court against LoCo Crazy Good Cookers Inc., alleging infringement of US10660473B2, which covers propane griddle cooking systems. The complaint also raised claims of false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and false marking. The accused products are the LoCo Propane Griddle models LCG1STTC36 and LCG3ST3C36, placing two competing outdoor cooking brands in direct patent conflict.
The Delaware action proceeded through scheduling in March 2024, but in February 2025 Blackstone filed a second complaint — this time in the Middle District of Georgia — asserting a related patent, US11877693. LoCo responded by seeking to amend its counterclaims in Delaware to add a non-infringement declaratory judgment count on the ‘693 patent. Before the court ruled on that motion, the parties conferred and agreed to transfer the entire Delaware action to Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), consolidating both patent disputes in a single forum.
The 605-day Delaware tenure before transfer is consistent with a case that developed enough procedural history to expose venue inefficiency once a related action opened in a different court. The transfer was stipulated — suggesting both sides saw practical benefit in consolidation — but the public record does not disclose whether any settlement framework or licensing discussions accompanied the agreement. Merits adjudication, claim construction, and damages questions are all deferred to the Georgia proceeding.
Filing to Case Transferred in 605 days
605 days in Delaware before consensual venue transfer — longer than the median district-level patent case resolution
Case transferred to Georgia: what the venue change means for both parties
What a § 1404(a) transfer means — and what it doesn’t
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits a federal district court to transfer a civil action to any district where it could have been brought, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Here, the transfer was consensual — both sides stipulated to it — meaning no court-compelled dismissal or merits ruling occurred. All claims and counterclaims from the Delaware action migrate intact to the Middle District of Georgia, which will now govern discovery, claim construction, and trial.
No merits adjudication in DelawareBlackstone consolidates two patent fronts in a single Georgia court
By opening the Georgia action on US11877693 and then agreeing to transfer the Delaware case, Blackstone effectively pulls both asserted patents — US10660473 and US11877693 — into one proceeding. Consolidation can reduce litigation cost and create synergies in claim construction, but it also means Blackstone must sustain two patent infringement claims simultaneously before the same judge. The company’s leverage may increase if the patents are found to cover overlapping product functionality.
Two patents, one forumLoCo faces expanded patent exposure in a new venue
LoCo’s motion to add a declaratory judgment counterclaim on the ‘693 patent in Delaware signals it anticipated the second patent becoming a live issue. With the transfer, LoCo now defends against both patents in the Middle District of Georgia — a court where Blackstone chose to initiate the ‘693 action, suggesting some venue advantage for the plaintiff. LoCo will need to assess whether Georgia counsel, local rules, and the new judge’s claim construction tendencies change its litigation posture.
Venue risk shifts to defendantOutdoor cooking IP: a two-patent battleground takes shape
The transfer and consolidation of US10660473 and US11877693 in Georgia signals that Blackstone is pursuing a comprehensive IP enforcement strategy against LoCo’s griddle line, not a single-patent skirmish. For other outdoor cooking equipment manufacturers, this case suggests that portfolio-level patent assertions — combining utility patents with false advertising and false marking claims — are becoming a favoured enforcement pattern. FTO analysis against both patents is advisable for any company commercialising propane griddle products.
Portfolio enforcement in outdoor cookingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | North Atlantic Imports, LLC | Company | Outdoor cooking brand (Blackstone) — holder of US10660473B2 propane griddle patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LoCo Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. | Company | LoCo Crazy Good Cookers Inc. — manufacturer of competing propane griddle productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexis K. Juergens | Attorney | Counsel for North Atlantic Imports, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christine Dealy Haynes | Attorney | Counsel for North Atlantic Imports, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Frederick L. Cottrell , III | Attorney | Counsel for North Atlantic Imports, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jared J. Braithwaite | Attorney | Counsel for North Atlantic Imports, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wesley F. Harward | Attorney | Counsel for North Atlantic Imports, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Richards Layton & Finger PA | Law Firm | Representing North Atlantic Imports, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clement A. Asante | Attorney | Counsel for LoCo Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jay E. Heidrick | Attorney | Counsel for LoCo Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael P. Dulin | Attorney | Counsel for LoCo Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick T. Muffo | Attorney | Counsel for LoCo Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen J. Kraftschik | Attorney | Counsel for LoCo Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Polsinelli PC | Law Firm | Representing LoCo Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated transfer order reflects a procedural resolution rather than any merits adjudication. The verdict text confirms that the parties jointly agreed to move the Delaware action to the Middle District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), driven by the filing of a parallel ‘693 patent action in Georgia. No claim construction, infringement finding, or damages determination was issued. Both the original infringement claims and LoCo’s counterclaims carry forward to the transferee court, leaving all substantive issues unresolved at this stage.
US10660473B2 — Propane Griddle Cooking System
US10660473B2, filed under application number US15/582682, covers propane griddle cooking system technology — the core functional architecture of the flat-top outdoor cooking appliances that have grown rapidly in the consumer and commercial outdoor cooking market. The patent is asserted against LoCo’s LCG1STTC36 and LCG3ST3C36 propane griddle models, suggesting the claims reach the burner arrangement, heat distribution, or structural configuration of competing flat-top griddles. A related patent, US11877693, was asserted in the parallel Georgia action, indicating a continuation or family relationship that extends Blackstone’s IP coverage of the same technology domain.
Blackstone has become one of the dominant players in the flat-top outdoor griddle category, and the assertion of US10660473 against a direct competitor’s named products signals an active enforcement posture designed to protect market position. For the broader outdoor cooking equipment sector — including companies developing propane, natural gas, or multi-fuel griddle platforms — this patent family represents a meaningful competitive barrier. Any manufacturer shipping products in the flat-top griddle category should treat both US10660473 and US11877693 as high-priority FTO targets, particularly given the plaintiff’s apparent willingness to pursue multi-front litigation.
Should your team run an FTO against US10660473B2?
If your R&D or product team is developing or commercialising propane griddles, flat-top outdoor cooking appliances, or related burner-and-griddle-surface systems, US10660473B2 and its related patent US11877693 are directly relevant FTO targets. This litigation shows that Blackstone actively enforces these patents against named competing products, with false marking and advertising claims layered on top — creating significant commercial risk beyond royalty exposure alone. FTO analysis should be completed before any new griddle SKU enters the market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10660473B2 against your product’s technical features, flag related family members including US11877693, and surface any prior art or design-around opportunities. Eureka’s patent landscape tools also identify where Blackstone’s portfolio may have gaps — useful intelligence whether you are designing a new product, negotiating a licence, or assessing litigation risk on an existing SKU.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10660473B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar propane cooking appliance patent infringement cases in US federal courts
Cases involving outdoor cooking equipment patents in US District Courts, particularly infringement actions over propane griddle and flat-top appliance technology.
What this case signals for the outdoor cooking equipment IP landscape
A multi-patent, multi-venue enforcement play in the propane griddle sector carries lessons for IP teams across the outdoor cooking and appliance industries.
Venue consolidation is now a plaintiff-side enforcement tool
Blackstone’s move — file a second action in a preferred venue, then stipulate to transfer the first — illustrates a deliberate forum-selection strategy. IP teams should anticipate that plaintiffs holding related patents may sequence filings to drive consolidation into a more favourable district, making early venue analysis critical when a first suit is filed.
False marking and false advertising layered on patent claims raises settlement costs
The original Delaware complaint bundled patent infringement with false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and false marking. This multi-claim structure increases defence cost and reputational risk, typically accelerating settlement discussions. Defendants in similar consumer-facing product disputes should assess non-patent claims early — they often drive the economics more than the patent itself.
North v LoCo — key questions answered
North Atlantic Imports (Blackstone) filed a patent infringement action against LoCo Crazy Good Cookers in the Delaware District Court on September 28, 2023, asserting US10660473B2. After Blackstone filed a second related action in the Middle District of Georgia on a related patent (US11877693), the parties stipulated to transfer the Delaware case to Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The case closed in Delaware on May 5, 2025 after 605 days, with all claims transferring to Georgia.
In the Delaware action (1:23-cv-00999), Blackstone asserted US10660473B2, covering propane griddle cooking systems. In the subsequent Middle District of Georgia action filed February 25, 2025, Blackstone asserted US11877693. Both patents appear to relate to flat-top propane griddle technology, and both proceedings are now consolidated in Georgia following the transfer.
The transfer was stipulated by both parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) after Blackstone filed a second patent action in the Middle District of Georgia asserting a related patent (US11877693). Consolidating both actions in Georgia avoided parallel proceedings in two courts over related patents and products. The transfer was approved by the Delaware court in May 2025.
The complaint identified two LoCo Crazy Good Cookers products as accused of infringing US10660473B2: the LoCo Propane Griddle model LCG1STTC36 and the LoCo Propane Griddle model LCG3ST3C36. Both are flat-top propane griddle appliances sold in the consumer outdoor cooking market.
No. The Delaware District Court did not issue any merits ruling — no claim construction order, infringement finding, or damages determination was made before the case was transferred. The transfer to the Middle District of Georgia was procedural, and all infringement claims, as well as LoCo’s counterclaims, carry forward to the Georgia court for substantive adjudication.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.