SUNDESA LLC v. Giant Sports Products LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sundesa, LLC (Utah)
  • Defendant: Giant Sports Products, LLC (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maschoff Brennan
• Case Identification: 2:15-cv-02245, C.D. Cal., 03/26/2015
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant conducts substantial business in the district, including nationwide sales through commercial websites that direct products to California residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shaker cups infringe a utility patent related to a mixing apparatus with a free-moving agitator and a design patent for the ornamental appearance of a bottle.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to containers, commonly known as shaker cups, used for mixing powdered nutritional supplements with liquids, a common accessory in the fitness and health market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a cease and desist letter on April 22, 2014, notifying Defendant of the asserted patents. This event is cited to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-02-18	'032 Patent Priority Date
2002-04-30	'032 Patent Issue Date
2003-09-09	'235 Design Patent Priority Date
2005-10-04	'235 Design Patent Issue Date
2014-04-22	Defendant allegedly receives cease and desist letter
2015-03-26	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 - “Flow-Through Agitator,” issued April 30, 2002

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of mixing powdered compositions (e.g., dietary supplements, baby formula) with liquids. These powders often form clumps surrounded by a paste-like layer that inhibits liquid penetration, and simple shaking is often ineffective at breaking them up ('032 Patent, col. 1:55-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "physically independent" agitator, typically a wire-frame object, that is placed inside a container but is not attached to it ('032 Patent, col. 2:45-54). When the container is shaken, the agitator moves freely, creating turbulence and directly impacting clumps. This combined crushing, grinding, and screening action is intended to disperse the powder more effectively than a fixed mixing element or simple shaking ('032 Patent, col. 3:6-15; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a reusable, transferable agitator designed to address all areas within a container, overcoming limitations of fixed mixing elements or agitators designed only to disperse settled material at the bottom of a can ('032 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 15 (apparatus) and 18 (method) (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).
• Independent Claim 15 (mixer):
  • a hand-held, shakeable container
  • a lid removably coupled to the container to form a completely enclosed mixing area
  • a physically independent agitator object placed within the container, free from any structural connection
  • the agitator having "narrow rod-like elements defining a shape with interstitial spaces" and a "hollow interior space"
• Independent Claim 18 (method):
  • placing ingredients into a hand-held, shakeable container
  • placing a physically independent agitator (with a framework and voids) into the container
  • securing a removable lid to form an enclosed mixing area
  • shaking the container to propel the agitator through the ingredients
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Design Patent No. D510,235 - “Bottle,” issued October 4, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; they protect the unique, ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The '235 Design Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a bottle as depicted in its seven figures ('235 Patent, "CLAIM," "DESCRIPTION"). Key visual features include the overall tapered profile of the bottle, vertical indented grip panels on the sides, and the specific configuration of the flip-top lid with an integrated carrying loop ('235 Patent, Figs. 1-5).
• Technical Importance: In the consumer products space, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a source identifier and a key driver of consumer preference.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a bottle, as shown and described" ('235 Patent, "CLAIM"). Infringement analysis hinges on a visual comparison between the claimed design and the accused product.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Giant Sports Shaker Cups" (Compl. ¶12). No specific models are identified.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as accessories sold by Giant Sports, a company in the business of selling nutritional supplements (Compl. ¶12). The products are shaker cups marketed to customers for mixing ingredients, which allegedly involves performing the methods of the '032 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that the design of these cups is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '235 Patent (Compl. ¶17).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'032 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products embody at least claim 15 and that their use, as instructed by Defendant, constitutes performance of the method of claim 18 (Compl. ¶¶12, 14). The following table summarizes the likely mapping based on the complaint's general allegations.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a hand-held, shakeable container for holding a liquid/powder mixture;	The body of the "Giant Sports Shaker Cups"	¶12	col. 8:6-7
a lid removably coupled to said hand-held shakeable container, wherein said lid serves to allow said mixer to form a completely enclosed mixing area...	The removable lid of the "Giant Sports Shaker Cups" which seals the container for shaking.	¶12	col. 8:8-12
a physically independent agitator object removably placed within said hand-held, shakeable container, said physically independent agitator object being free from any structural connection to said hand-held, shakeable container and having narrow rod-like elements defining a shape with interstitial spaces...and a hollow interior space	The complaint alleges the Accused Products "embody at least claim 15," which implies the presence of a loose, free-moving agitator with a structure corresponding to the claim's description.	¶12	col. 8:13-24

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: A primary question will be whether the agitator in the accused "Giant Sports Shaker Cups" has a structure that meets the claim limitations of "narrow rod-like elements defining a shape with interstitial spaces" and a "hollow interior space." The complaint does not provide specific factual details or images of the accused agitator.
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of "physically independent agitator object." Evidence will be required to show that the accused agitator is indeed "free from any structural connection" and moves freely to every location as the claim requires ('032 Patent, col. 8:21-24).

'235 Design Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the design of the Accused Products is "substantially the same as the ornamental design of the '235 Design Patent" (Compl. ¶36). It further alleges that the similarity is such that "customers are likely to be deceived and persuaded to buy the Accused Products thinking they are actually buying products protected by the '235 Design Patent" (Compl. ¶18). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing them to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The resolution of this claim will depend on a direct visual comparison of the accused cups and the design claimed in the '235 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '032 Patent, the construction of the following term appears central to the dispute.

• The Term: "physically independent agitator object"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention and appears in both asserted independent claims 15 and 18. The definition will determine what kind of free-moving object within a shaker cup falls within the scope of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific structure and properties of the agitator distinguish the invention from the prior art and define the boundary of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the agitator's function broadly as being "physically independent of the container" and able to "roll or tumble around the container" ('032 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:3). This could support an interpretation covering any unattached object that moves within the container to aid mixing.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves and the detailed description link this object to a specific structure, such as a "framework" of "narrow rod-like elements" with a "hollow interior" (e.g., Claim 15, col. 8:16-19). The specification consistently depicts embodiments as wire-frame or coiled objects (e.g., Figs. 1-4, '032 Patent). This could support a narrower construction limited to agitators with such open, flow-through structures.

For the '235 Design Patent, claim construction is not a typical issue, as the claim is simply for the design "as shown and described." The dispute will focus on the application of the ordinary observer test rather than the definition of words.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '032 Patent, stating that Defendant "markets, describes, encourages, and impliedly instructs its customers to use the Accused Products to mix ingredients" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶14, 24). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused products are "especially made to be used" for infringement and have "no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶16, 27).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The complaint bases this on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stemming from a cease and desist letter and a provided copy of the patents sent on April 22, 2014 (Compl. ¶¶19-21, 32, 41). The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continued its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶29).

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

1. A question of structural correspondence for the '032 Patent: Does the agitator within the "Giant Sports Shaker Cups" possess the specific "framework" of "narrow rod-like elements" and a "hollow interior" as required by the asserted claims, or does it operate on a different principle (e.g., a solid ball)? The resolution will depend on the construction of these terms and the specific design of the accused product.
2. A question of visual identity for the '235 Design Patent: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the accused shaker cup "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '235 Patent? This will be determined by a visual comparison of the products, focusing on the overall appearance and the specific combination of claimed design elements.
3. An evidentiary question of knowledge and intent: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant had the specific intent to encourage infringement through its user instructions, and that Defendant knew of the patents and the high likelihood of infringement after receiving the 2014 cease and desist letter, which would be central to the claims for indirect and willful infringement?