DCT

2:17-cv-08854

Timely Inventions LLC v. Intuit Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-08854, C.D. Cal., 12/08/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s principal place of business being located in California and its conducting of business within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s QUICKEN software packaging assembly infringes a patent related to a dual-purpose packaging system for shipping and retail display.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns bulk packaging assemblies, such as those used on shipping pallets, that are designed to convert from a shipping container into a point-of-sale display structure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-12-16 '865 Patent Priority Date
2011-01-04 '865 Patent Issue Date
2017-12-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,861,865 - “PACKAGING ASSEMBLY,” issued January 4, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional bulk packaging where the side panels used for shipping are an extra component that adds weight and cost, and which "serve no useful function other than to merely hide the pallet from view" once the products arrive at a retail location ('865 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a packaging assembly with side panels that serve a dual purpose. For shipping, the panels are folded upward to enclose and protect the products. For retail display, the same panels are folded downward to cover the pallet and function as an advertising medium, thereby minimizing waste and improving efficiency ('865 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-21). The core inventive concept is this transformation from a shipping container to a retail display.
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a more economical and efficient method for shipping and displaying products in bulk by integrating the shipping container and the retail display structure into a single, convertible unit ('865 Patent, col. 1:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" of the patent ('865 Patent, Compl. ¶10).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A pallet with upper side edges.
    • Product containers arranged on the pallet.
    • A plurality of side panels, each having a "mounting flap" and a "main flap" that share a fold line.
    • The mounting flap is "interposed between the pallet and the plurality of product containers" and affixed to the pallet so the fold line is at an upper side edge.
    • During shipping, the main flaps are "folded upwardly" to enclose the products.
    • During display, the main flaps are "folded downwardly" to cover the pallet and expose the products.
    • A "first face" of the main flap is visible only when folded downwardly for display.
  • The complaint's use of "one or more claims" suggests a reservation of the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are "Defendant's QUICKEN packaging assembly which Defendant sells through Costco, and all reasonably similar products" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused packaging assembly meets all the limitations of at least claim 1 of the ’865 Patent (Compl. ¶10). However, it provides no specific technical description of how the accused packaging is constructed or how it functions. The pleading states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’865 Patent and incorporates by reference an infringement claim chart as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶11). As this exhibit was not provided with the public filing, this analysis relies on the complaint’s narrative allegations, which assert that the Accused Products "meet all of the limitations of at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶10). A detailed, element-by-element analysis is not possible without the referenced exhibit or further factual detail.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused QUICKEN packaging actually performs the dual-functionality required by the claim. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that its side panels are designed to be "folded upwardly" for shipping and subsequently "folded downwardly" to "cover the pallet" for display? The complaint does not provide this evidence.
    • Scope Questions: A likely point of contention will concern the structural limitations of the claims. For example, does the accused packaging include a distinct "mounting flap" that is "interposed between the pallet and the plurality of product containers" as recited in the claim? The specific method of attachment of the side panels to the pallet in the accused product will be central to this inquiry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "mounting flap"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural component of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product has a structure that can be properly characterized as a "mounting flap" distinct from the "main flap." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent figures and description suggest a specific configuration that may not be present in the accused product.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not define the term with explicit structural limitations beyond its location and function, requiring only that it is "interposed between the pallet and the plurality of product containers" and "affixed to the pallet" (’865 Patent, col. 7:17-21). This may support a construction based on plain and ordinary meaning.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the mounting flap in a preferred embodiment as being "generally trapezoidal in shape," in contrast to the "generally rectangular" main flap (’865 Patent, col. 3:55-57). A party could argue this embodiment limits the scope of the term to a flap with these distinct characteristics.

  • The Term: "interposed between the pallet and the plurality of product containers"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase dictates the specific location of the "mounting flap." The physical assembly of the accused product will determine whether this limitation is met.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that "interposed between" simply means located in the space separating the product containers from the pallet, without requiring direct physical contact or a specific sandwiched arrangement.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that after the side panels are affixed, product containers are arranged on the pallet, and "The mounting flaps...are thus interposed between the pallet and the plurality of product containers" (’865 Patent, col. 3:40-43). This language, combined with the figures, may support a narrower construction requiring the flap to be physically held in place underneath the base layer of products.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendant infringes "by directing and controlling others," which could form the basis for an induced infringement claim (Compl. ¶13). However, it does not plead any specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as referencing instructions or manuals that direct others to assemble or use the packaging in an infringing manner.
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement "is and has been willful" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide a factual basis for this allegation, such as asserting that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’865 Patent.

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of operational functionality: what is the actual, real-world function and construction of the accused "QUICKEN packaging assembly"? The viability of the infringement claim depends entirely on whether discovery reveals that it practices the dual-mode operation recited in the patent—specifically, side panels that convert from an upward-folded shipping enclosure to a downward-folded, pallet-covering retail display.
  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused packaging contain a distinct "mounting flap" that is "interposed between the pallet" and the product containers, as described in the patent's claims and preferred embodiments? Or does it utilize a different mechanism for attaching its side panels that falls outside the scope of the claim language?