DCT
2:18-cv-02227
Timely Inventions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Timely Inventions, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (South Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: San Diego IP Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-02227, C.D. Cal., 03/16/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants conducting regular business in the district and committing infringing acts, including the sale of "Samsung Gear 3 Frontier products at Costco."
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the packaging for Defendant’s "Samsung Gear 3 Frontier" product infringes a patent related to a convertible packaging assembly designed for both shipping and retail display.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns dual-purpose packaging for bulk goods, which functions as a protective shipping container and converts into a point-of-sale display that hides the shipping pallet and advertises the product.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-12-16 | ’865 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-01-04 | ’865 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-03-16 | 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 addresses inefficiencies and costs in shipping and displaying bulk consumer products. Conventional pallet-based displays require separate shipping materials (like cardboard panels and shrink-wrap) that become waste upon arrival at a retail location, adding cost and weight to shipping and serving little purpose post-delivery. (’865 Patent, col. 5:46-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a packaging assembly where the side panels serve a dual role. For shipping, the panels fold upward from a pallet base to form a box, enclosing and protecting the products. (’865 Patent, col. 6:20-28). For retail display, the same panels are folded downward to cover and hide the shipping pallet, with their outward-facing side bearing advertising material. (’865 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:43-50). This integrated design aims to reduce material waste, shipping costs, and setup time at the retail site.
- Technical Importance: This approach combines the functions of a shipping container and a retail "display skirt" into a single, reusable component, offering potential economic and logistical advantages in the consumer goods supply chain. (’865 Patent, col. 5:5-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, alleging infringement of "the claims of the '865 patent" generally. (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A pallet having upper side edges;
- A plurality of product containers...contiguously arranged on the pallet; and
- A plurality of side panels, each including a mounting flap and a main flap;
- Wherein the mounting flap is interposed between the pallet and the product containers and affixed to the pallet;
- Wherein, during shipment, the main flaps are folded upwardly...to substantially enclose the plurality of product containers;
- Wherein, during display, the main flaps are folded downwardly...to cover the pallet and to expose the plurality of product containers; and
- Wherein the first face of the main flap (bearing printed matter) is visible when folded downwardly but not when folded upwardly.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the packaging for the "Samsung Gear 3 Frontier" product. (Compl. ¶2, ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the "Samsung Gear 3 Frontier" product "utilizes the inventions claimed in the '865 patent." (Compl. ¶2-3). It identifies retailers such as Costco as points of sale for the accused product. (Compl. ¶2). The complaint does not provide any specific description, photographs, or diagrams of the accused packaging or its functionality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed mapping of claim elements to the features of the accused product's packaging. (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). A summary based on the complaint's theory is presented below.
’865 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pallet having upper side edges | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶10 | col. 7:7-8 |
| a plurality of product containers, each holding at least one product, contiguously arranged on the pallet | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶10 | col. 7:9-11 |
| a plurality of side panels, each including a mounting flap, and a main flap having side edges, a bottom edge and a first face and a second face | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶10 | col. 7:12-16 |
| wherein the mounting flap is interposed between the pallet and the plurality of product containers and is affixed to the pallet | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶10 | col. 7:20-24 |
| wherein, during shipment of the packaging assembly, the main flaps are folded upwardly...to substantially enclose the plurality of product containers | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶10 | col. 7:25-28 |
| wherein, during display of the packaging assembly, the main flaps are folded downwardly...to cover the pallet and to expose the plurality of product containers | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶10 | col. 7:29-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the packaging for a consumer electronics product like a smartwatch incorporates the large-scale, convertible, pallet-based system described in the patent. The complaint lacks any factual allegations describing the structure of the accused packaging.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the term "pallet", as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the base of a consumer product box, or if it is limited to the industrial shipping pallet context described in the specification (e.g., a structure engageable by a forklift). (’865 Patent, col. 5:60-65).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pallet"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to every claim. Its construction will determine if the patent applies to the accused product's packaging at all. The patent describes its invention in the context of bulk shipping for retailers like Costco (Compl. ¶2), where industrial pallets are common. Whether the base of a consumer electronics box can be considered a "pallet" will be a central issue.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly limit the "pallet" to a specific size or material, defining it functionally as a base having "upper side edges" on which products are arranged. (’865 Patent, col. 7:7-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently discusses the "pallet" in a manner that suggests a conventional shipping pallet, including an embodiment that contemplates using a forklift to "engage the bottom-most supporting pallet." (’865 Patent, col. 5:60-65). This context may support a narrower definition tied to industrial shipping.
The Term: "main flap"... "folded upwardly... to substantially enclose" AND "folded downwardly... to cover the pallet"
Context and Importance: This dual-functionality is the core of the claimed invention. Infringement requires proof that a single "main flap" component performs both the shipping-enclosure function and the display-covering function. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused packaging has a single, contiguous structure that is manipulated in these two distinct ways.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the folding actions ("folded upwardly," "folded downwardly") without specifying the mechanism, potentially allowing for various structural implementations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific configuration where side panels are hinged along the pallet edge to achieve this dual-mode conversion. (’865 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:17-24). A court may view this as limiting the scope to structures that operate in a substantially similar way.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating on information and belief that Defendants encouraged and aided others, "including customers such as Costco," to infringe by using and/or reselling the accused products. (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). The complaint alleges Defendants had knowledge of the patent and specific intent for their customers to infringe. (Compl. ¶13-14).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been deliberate and willful "at least since each Defendant first learned about the '865 patent." (Compl. ¶14). This allegation does not specify whether knowledge was pre-suit or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Fundamental Factual Question: Does the retail packaging for the "Samsung Gear 3 Frontier" smartwatch, a consumer electronic device, actually possess the convertible, dual-function side panels described in the '865 patent, which is directed to large-format, pallet-based shipping and display systems? The complaint provides no specific facts to support this threshold premise.
- A Definitional Scope Question: Can the term "pallet", as used throughout the patent in the context of bulk shipping, be construed broadly enough to read on the structural base of a small consumer product box, or is it limited to the industrial pallet art from which it originates?
- A Functional Infringement Question: Assuming the accused packaging has some form of foldable flap, does that single structure perform the specific dual function required by the claims: first folding up to enclose the product for shipping, and then folding down to cover its own base for display? The infringement case will depend on proving this precise sequence of operations.