DCT
2:17-cv-02803
Wesley Corp v. Audoormatics USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wesley Corp (Michigan)
- Defendant: Audoormatics USA Inc (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Frisenda Quinton Nicholson
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-02803, C.D. Cal., 04/12/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant's principal place of business is located within the district, and the alleged infringement has occurred and continues to occur there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hamburger press product infringes a patent related to a multi-part device for forming and stuffing articles of food.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to culinary devices, specifically mechanical presses designed to create a cavity within a food patty (such as a hamburger) for the insertion of fillings, and then seal the patty.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this litigation and does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-10-30 | '552 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-01-01 | Plaintiff's business operations began "since at least 2009" |
| 2014-04-22 | '552 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-04-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,701,552 - "Forming Device for Articles of Food"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,701,552, issued April 22, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty and mess associated with consuming hamburgers that have numerous toppings, which can lead to "inadvertent spillage," particularly for younger individuals. It notes that conventional mold devices are often limited to shaping only the exterior of food ('552 Patent, col. 1:50-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-component forming device that enables a user to create a stuffed food patty in a series of steps. As described, the device uses a shell assembly and a distinct two-part press assembly to first form a base patty, then use one part of the press to create a cavity in the patty for fillings, and finally use the full press assembly to compress a top layer of food, thereby sealing the fillings inside ('552 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-18). The interaction between the first and second press mechanisms is a key feature, allowing for different stages of the forming process ('552 Patent, col. 5:5-14).
- Technical Importance: The disclosed invention provides a method for creating "individualized packaged food article[s]," which can expedite food delivery and reduce the potential for mess by containing all ingredients within the food item itself ('552 Patent, col. 1:42-50, col. 2:1-3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1 through 20 of the '552 Patent (Compl. ¶36). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A shell assembly comprising a first shell member, a second shell member, and a base member.
- A press assembly moveable within the shell assembly.
- The press assembly itself includes:
- A "first press mechanism" defining a "slot".
- A "second press mechanism" including a "projection" extending outwardly.
- The "projection" of the second press mechanism "slidably engages" the "slot" of the first press mechanism to guide the movement of the second press mechanism relative to the first.
- The complaint asserts all dependent claims in addition to the independent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is identified as the "STUFZ BURGER PRESS" (Compl. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are "copies of Plaintiff's genuine STUFZ products" (Compl. ¶36). It further alleges that the accused products are sold with "instruction manuals for customers and end-users to perform Plaintiff's methods" and are advertised in packaging "identical to Plaintiff's packaging" (Compl. ¶37). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused product beyond these allegations of copying. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is predicated on the allegation that the accused product is a "copy" of the patentee's commercial embodiment and is used according to the patentee's methods (Compl. ¶36, ¶37).
'552 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a shell assembly extending between a first end and a second end, the shell assembly including: a first shell member... a second shell member... a base member... | The "STUFZ BURGER PRESS" is alleged to be a copy of Plaintiff's product and therefore includes a shell assembly with the claimed components. | ¶36, ¶37 | col. 4:38-52 |
| a press assembly moveable between the first end and second end of the shell assembly... | The accused product, as an alleged copy, is purported to contain a press assembly that moves within the shell assembly. | ¶36, ¶37 | col. 5:3-9 |
| a first press mechanism having an outer circumference... the first press mechanism defining a slot... | The press assembly of the accused product is alleged to contain a first press mechanism that includes a slot, consistent with the claimed structure. | ¶36, ¶37 | col. 5:15-32 |
| a second press mechanism having an outer circumference... the second press mechanism including a projection extending outwardly... | The press assembly of the accused product is alleged to contain a second press mechanism that includes a projection, consistent with the claimed structure. | ¶36, ¶37 | col. 5:48-61 |
| wherein the projection of the second press mechanism slidably engages the slot of the first press mechanism to guide movement of the second press mechanism with respect to the first press mechanism. | The projection and slot on the respective press mechanisms of the accused product are alleged to slidably engage to guide relative movement. | ¶36, ¶37 | col. 9:41-47 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory, resting entirely on the assertion that the accused product is a "copy" (Compl. ¶36). A central issue for the court will be whether discovery produces evidence demonstrating that the accused "STUFZ BURGER PRESS" in fact contains each and every limitation of the asserted claims. The functionality and interaction of the accused device's internal components will be subject to factual determination.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the specific two-part press assembly recited in claim 1—requiring a "projection" on one part that "slidably engages" a "slot" on the other—reads on the actual structure of the accused device. The defense may argue that any pressing mechanism in its device is structurally or functionally different from the claimed configuration.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not identify specific claim terms for construction. However, the structure of claim 1 suggests potential disputes over the following terms.
The Term: "press assembly"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites a "press assembly" comprising two distinct, interacting sub-components ("first press mechanism" and "second press mechanism"). The definition of this composite term is critical, as it forms the core of the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires the two mechanisms to be capable of independent movement, as described in the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and one might argue it covers any assembly of parts used for pressing. The summary of the invention describes the press assembly more generally as being "moveable between the first end and second end of the shell assembly" ('552 Patent, col. 2:34-36).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a specific structural arrangement where the "second press mechanism" is moveable "independent of the first press mechanism" in certain positions ('552 Patent, col. 2:47-50). The detailed description of the "fifth position" also hinges on the disengagement and independent movement of the second press mechanism ('552 Patent, col. 7:26-34). This may support an interpretation limiting the term "press assembly" to a device that allows for such selective, independent movement.
The Term: "slidably engages"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific mechanical relationship between the "projection" and the "slot". The nature of this "engagement" will be central to determining infringement. An issue may arise as to what type and degree of contact and guidance are required to meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to encompass any sliding relationship where one part moves along another, providing some directional guidance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description show a specific tab-in-slot structure that appears to constrain and guide movement along a defined path ('552 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:29-41). A party could argue that "slidably engages" requires more than incidental contact and necessitates a specific guiding relationship as depicted in the embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide "instruction manuals for customers and end-users to perform Plaintiff's methods" (Compl. ¶37). The pleading also asserts that Defendants acted with "specific intent to encourage" infringement (Compl. ¶35).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "actual and/or constructive notice" of Plaintiff's patent rights before and during the period of alleged infringement (Compl. ¶35). The complaint does not specify the basis for the alleged actual notice.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be evidentiary: Do the internal mechanics of the accused "STUFZ BURGER PRESS" actually map onto the specific, multi-part structure recited in the patent's independent claims? The case's viability depends on whether Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that the product is a "copy" can be substantiated with proof that every claim limitation is met.
- The case will also likely involve a core issue of claim scope: Will the term "press assembly" be construed to cover any multi-component pressing device, or will it be limited by the specification's detailed description to a structure where the two press mechanisms can be selectively disengaged for independent movement? The resolution of this construction issue may determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.