DCT

2:10-cv-04674

Welcome Co Ltd v. Ronghui Feng

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-04674, C.D. Cal., 06/24/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that each defendant, consisting of various individuals and entities, conducts business in the Central District of California through web-based retail sales of consumer products on platforms such as ebay.com and amazon.com.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of various hand-held plastic bag sealers infringes a portfolio of seven U.S. patents related to the design, construction, and safety features of such devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, typically battery-operated, electric devices that use a heated wire to melt and seal plastic bags, commonly used for food storage and preserving household items.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted utility patents claim a shared priority date through a series of continuation and continuation-in-part applications, suggesting a long-term and focused patent prosecution strategy to cover various features and improvements related to a core product line.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-08-26 Earliest Priority Date for all asserted utility patents
1997-12-05 Priority Date for ’950 Design Patent
1998-12-01 U.S. Patent No. D401,950 Issued
2000-05-16 U.S. Patent No. 6,064,038 Issued
2001-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,232,579 Issued
2001-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,326,594 Issued
2003-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,627,853 Issued
2005-08-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,936,790 Issued
2008-01-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,315,010 Issued
2010-06-24 Complaint Filed

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

The complaint alleges infringement of a portfolio of patents but does not identify which claims are asserted against any accused product (Compl. ¶¶23-35). For the purposes of this analysis, representative independent claims have been selected for the two lead utility patents.

U.S. Patent No. 6,064,038 - "Hand-Held Electric Sealer with Detachable Heat Resistant Cover Sheet", Issued May 16, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that in prior art hand-held sealers, the heat-resistant cover sheet (typically made of Teflon®) that protects the heating wire from melted plastic is not replaceable. If this cover sheet becomes damaged, the entire device may be rendered useless (Compl. Ex. B, ’038 Patent, col. 1:31-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a hand-held sealer where the heat-resistant cover sheet is held in place by a detachable frame. This frame can be removed from the heating unit or housing, allowing a user to easily replace a damaged cover sheet without having to discard the entire device (’038 Patent, col. 1:40-52; Abstract). The exploded view in Figure 2 illustrates the distinct components of the heating unit (20), which includes the frame (241), the heat resistant cover sheet (24), and the heat insulative base (21).
  • Technical Importance: This approach introduces serviceability and extends the useful life of a low-cost consumer electronic device, a notable improvement over disposable or difficult-to-repair prior art designs (’038 Patent, col. 2:10-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim Asserted (Selected for Analysis): Claim 1.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • A hand-held electric sealer comprising a housing.
    • A heating unit mounted in the housing, which includes a heat insulative base with a protrusive portion and an electric heating wire on that portion.
    • A heat resistant cover sheet covering at least a portion of the heating wire.
    • The cover sheet is held within a frame, which has "retainer means" that engage the protrusive portion of the heat insulative base to secure the cover sheet.
    • A press unit pivotally connected to the housing.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,232,579 - "Electric Heat Sealer with Safety Device", Issued May 15, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional electric heat sealers lack safety controls. An accidental external force could cause the sealing mechanism to connect electrically and produce heat, creating a risk of injury or property damage (Compl. Ex. C, ’579 Patent, col. 1:19-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a safety device that selectively prevents the electrical circuit from closing when the sealer is not in use. Embodiments include a manually operated safety switch that opens the circuit, and a pivotable protective frame that physically blocks the press bar from depressing the sealing mechanism, thereby preventing contact with the electrical terminals (’579 Patent, col. 1:25-28; Abstract). Figure 2 shows an exploded view with a safety switch (71) and a separate protective frame (73).
  • Technical Importance: The invention adds an essential safety layer to a household appliance that generates heat, addressing a significant potential hazard in prior art designs and enhancing user safety (’579 Patent, col. 1:21-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim Asserted (Selected for Analysis): Claim 1.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • An electric heat sealer with a casing defining a battery chamber with various terminal plates.
    • A spring holder.
    • A sealing mechanism with a heat insulative base, an electric wire, locating plates, and a compression spring.
    • A press bar with a heat insulative press block.
    • A safety device comprising a safety switch with terminals and lead wires connected to the battery chamber's terminal plates.
    • The safety device further comprises a protective frame pivotally connected to the casing.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • *U.S. Patent No. D401,950, "Handy Electric Heat Sealing Apparatus", Issued Dec. 1, 1998*

    • Technology Synopsis: This is a design patent claiming the ornamental appearance of a hand-held electric heat sealing apparatus, as shown in its figures (Compl. Ex. A, ’950 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
    • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (the single claim).
    • Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of the accused hand-held bag sealer products (Compl. ¶¶23-35).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 6,326,594, "Hand-Held Electric Sealer with Safety Means", Issued Dec. 4, 2001*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a hand-held electric sealer with safety features to prevent accidental activation. The invention describes various embodiments of safety switches, including press-button switches and physical stop plates, and configurations for use with either battery or AC power (Compl. Ex. D, ’594 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: No specific claims identified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The safety mechanisms and power configurations of the accused hand-held bag sealer products (Compl. ¶¶23-35).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 6,627,853, "Electric Heat Sealer With Safety Device", Issued Sep. 30, 2003*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family, continues to describe an electric heat sealer with a safety device. It focuses on claims directed to the combination of a sealing mechanism, a press bar, and a safety device comprising a safety switch and a pivotable protective frame that physically blocks the press bar when not in use (Compl. Ex. E, ’853 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: No specific claims identified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The safety switch and protective frame mechanisms of the accused hand-held bag sealer products (Compl. ¶¶23-35).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 6,936,790, "Electric heat sealer with safety device", Issued Aug. 30, 2005*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent further refines the safety device concept for an electric heat sealer. The claims appear directed to various structural combinations of the casing, sealing mechanism, press bar, and a safety device, including both a safety switch and a protective frame that can be moved into and out of a blocking position (Compl. Ex. F, ’790 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: No specific claims identified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The combined safety mechanisms of the accused hand-held bag sealer products (Compl. ¶¶23-35).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 7,315,010, "Electric Heat Sealer with Safety Device", Issued Jan. 1, 2008*

    • Technology Synopsis: The most recent patent in the asserted family continues to claim an electric heat sealer with safety features. The claims cover various structural arrangements of the battery chamber, sealing mechanism, press bar, and safety devices, including a safety switch and a protective frame (Compl. Ex. G, ’010 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: No specific claims identified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The safety mechanisms and internal construction of the accused hand-held bag sealer products (Compl. ¶¶23-35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a range of hand-held, portable, and manual plastic bag sealers sold by the various defendants through online marketplaces. Specific product names mentioned include "Handy Plastic Bag Sealer," "Handheld Bag Instant Sealer," "EasySeal Heat Easy-to-Use Bag Sealer," and "Portable Battery Bag Sealer" (Compl. ¶¶24, 25, 27, 33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are hand-held electric sealing devices that incorporate the inventions claimed in the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶24-35). The allegations are general and do not describe the specific technical operation or features of any accused product beyond its product name and its sale via an identified eBay auction or Amazon ASIN number. The complaint alleges these products are sold to consumers for household use (Compl. ¶¶3-14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide a detailed mapping of claim elements to accused product features. The following tables are constructed based on the representative independent claims selected in Section II and the general allegation that the accused products are infringing hand-held electric sealers.

6,064,038 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A hand-held electric sealer comprising a) a housing, The complaint alleges the accused products are hand-held electric sealers, which necessarily include a housing (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 4:20-22
b) a heating unit mounted in said housing, said heating unit comprising i) a heat insulative base having a protrusive portion and ii) an electric heating wire mounted on said protrusive portion... The accused products are alleged to be heat sealers, which inherently contain a heating unit with a heating wire mounted on an insulative base (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 4:32-34; 4:41-44
c) a heat resistant cover sheet covering at least a portion of said electric heating wire, The accused heat sealers are alleged to include a heat resistant cover sheet to protect the heating wire (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 4:34-36
wherein said heat resistant cover sheet is held within a frame, said frame comprising retainer means that engage said protrusive portion of said heat insulative base to secure said heat resistant... The complaint's general infringement allegation suggests the accused products include a frame with retainer means for securing the cover sheet (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 4:44-52
d) a press unit pivotally connected to said housing and acting against said heating unit. The accused hand-held sealers are alleged to include a hinged press unit for applying pressure to the heating element to create a seal (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 4:20-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the accused products, sold by numerous different online retailers, actually contain the specific structure of Claim 1. Specifically, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products have a distinct "frame" with "retainer means" that allows for the removal and replacement of the heat resistant cover sheet, as opposed to a permanently affixed or integrated cover?
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "retainer means." The patent specification discloses hooks as an example (’038 Patent, col. 4:49-52). The question for the court could be whether other fastening mechanisms found in the accused products, if any, fall within the scope of this term.

6,232,579 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An electric heat sealer comprising: (a) a casing defining a battery chamber... comprising... a first metal contact plate... and a second metal contact plate... spaced from said second terminal plate by a gap... The complaint alleges the accused products are battery-operated sealers, which necessarily include a casing, battery chamber, and electrical contacts (Compl. ¶33). ¶24-35 col. 4:10-24
(c) a sealing mechanism mounted in said casing and moved up and down relative to said first and second metal contact plates, said sealing mechanism comprising... a heat insulative base... an electric wire... a compression spring... The accused products are alleged to contain a movable sealing mechanism that is depressed to make electrical contact and create a seal (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 4:30-49
(d) a press bar having a fixed end pivotally connected to one end of said casing and a free end on which is mounted a heat insulative press block... The accused products are alleged to include a hinged press bar to actuate the sealing mechanism (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 4:51-54
(e) a safety device, said safety device comprising a safety switch having two opposite terminals and two lead wires... connected to said second terminal plate and said second metal contact plate... The complaint's general infringement allegation suggests that the accused products contain a safety switch that interrupts the electrical circuit (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 5:3-13
and wherein said safety device further comprises a protective frame pivotally connected to said casing on the outside... The complaint's general infringement allegation suggests that the accused products also contain a pivotable protective frame that physically blocks the press bar (Compl. ¶24). ¶24-35 col. 5:36-40
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires both a "safety switch" and a "protective frame." A key factual question will be whether any of the accused products incorporate both of these distinct safety features as claimed, or if they employ only one, or an entirely different safety mechanism.
    • Scope Questions: The term "safety device" is defined in the claim as comprising two specific components. This raises the question of whether a product that includes a safety feature not enumerated in the claim (e.g., a pressure-activated switch without a separate protective frame) could be found to infringe.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"retainer means" (’038 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the core invention of a replaceable cover sheet. The scope of "retainer means" will determine whether the claim covers only the specific hook-and-recess mechanism shown in the patent or a broader category of fasteners that secure the frame to the heating unit.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the general term "means" suggests the patentee did not intend to limit the claim to the specific embodiments shown, potentially encompassing any structure that performs the function of retaining the frame.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of "retainer means," such as "downwardly extending hooks" that engage "coupling recessed portions" (’038 Patent, col. 4:49-52) and "upwardly extending hooks" that engage "recesses" (’038 Patent, col. 4:53-57). A defendant may argue these specific examples limit the scope of the more general term.

"safety device" (’579 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis for the '579 patent. Claim 1 explicitly defines the "safety device" as comprising both a "safety switch" and a "protective frame." The case may turn on whether an accused product must have both of these specific structures to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the invention as an "electric heat sealer... and a safety device," suggesting the overall concept is a sealer with a safety feature. Plaintiff may argue that the term should be understood in this broader conceptual sense.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language of Claim 1 is explicit: "a safety device, said safety device comprising a safety switch... and wherein said safety device further comprises a protective frame." This "comprising" language strongly suggests that, for the purposes of this specific claim, the "safety device" must include both enumerated elements. The specification also describes the switch and frame as distinct components of the safety device (70) (’579 Patent, col. 5:3-6).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants have induced infringement by "inducing others to sell, offer for sale, and/or use Defendant's products" (Compl. ¶42). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for inducement, such as referencing user manuals or advertising materials that instruct on an infringing use.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is "willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license and with full knowledge of one or more of the Welcome Patents" (Compl. ¶¶40, 45). No specific facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

This case, as pleaded, presents several fundamental questions for the court that go beyond typical claim construction disputes.

  • Evidentiary Burden: A primary issue will be one of proof and specificity. Can the plaintiff meet its evidentiary burden to show that the numerous, disparately sourced accused products—identified only by online auction or retail listings—each practice all the specific limitations of the asserted claims? The complaint's lack of detail on the technical construction of any accused product suggests this will be a central challenge.
  • Combinational Scope: A key legal question will be one of claim scope for combined elements. Does Claim 1 of the ’579 patent, which defines a "safety device" as comprising both a switch and a protective frame, read on a device that may have a safety feature but lacks one of these two specific, enumerated components?
  • Functional vs. Structural Equivalence: For the '038 patent, the case may turn on the distinction between function and structure. Does an accused product with a permanently affixed protective cover infringe claims requiring a removable "frame" with "retainer means," simply because both serve to protect the heating wire, or is the specific claimed structure of replaceability a dispositive difference?