Packit LLC v. Newell Brands Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PackIt, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Newell Brands, Inc. (Delaware) and Rubbermaid, Inc. (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vedder Price (CA), LLP
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-05574, C.D. Cal., 06/22/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district—specifically a distribution center of over one million square feet—and committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ freezable lunch bag products infringe a patent related to collapsible insulated containers with integrated gel packs.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to personal food and beverage containers that integrate a freezable gel into their walls and are designed to collapse for convenient storage.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of an application filed in 2010, which itself claims priority to a 2009 provisional application. No other procedural events such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-04-23	'853 Patent Priority Date
2017-09-02	Alleged First Sale of Accused Product
2018-04-24	U.S. Patent No. 9,950,853 Issues
2018-06-22	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,950,853 - "Collapsible Insulated Container"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,950,853, "Collapsible Insulated Container", issued April 24, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional coolers and lunch bags as being problematic because they require separate, loose gel packs that can be lost and take up valuable space, or because existing bags with built-in cooling are often bulky and difficult to fold into a compact condition for storage or freezing ('853 Patent, col. 1:24-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an insulated container with pliable walls that have built-in pockets containing substantially flat gel packs. The container is designed with foldable "crease lines" between these pockets, which allow the entire container to be collapsed into a relatively flat package for easy storage in a freezer or elsewhere ('853 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-54).
• Technical Importance: The patented design seeks to solve key usability issues by integrating the cooling source directly into the container's structure in a manner that also facilitates compact, flat storage ('853 Patent, col. 2:25-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8 (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A base wall and a peripheral wall defining a cavity.
  • The peripheral wall comprises at least a front wall and a rear wall, each having an outer layer and an inner layer.
  • At least one "crease" where the inner and outer layers are joined, which extends orthogonally to the main axis of the container.
  • A "first rectangular gel pack" located between the layers on the side of the crease closer to the open end of the container.
  • A "second rectangular gel pack" located between the layers on the side of the crease closer to the base wall.
  • The peripheral wall is configured to fold along the crease, bringing the open end closer to the base wall into a folded configuration. ('853 Patent, col. 7:36-col. 8:5).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Rubbermaid LunchPAK Insulated Freezable Lunch Bag," specifically model number 2011817 and ASIN B073VRCYDP, along with any equivalent products sold by Defendants, as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶¶18, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "freezable bags" that are sold and marketed by Defendants (Compl. ¶¶1, 4-5). It states that the products are sold through channels including Amazon.com and directly compete with Plaintiff's own patented product line (Compl. ¶¶15, 18, 23).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific construction or technical operation of the accused products, instead referencing an external claim chart exhibit that was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in "Exhibit B" to detail its infringement theory; as this exhibit was not provided, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Infringement Theory Summary

The complaint alleges that the Defendants directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-8 of the '853 Patent (Compl. ¶22). The core of the allegation is that the "Rubbermaid LunchPAK Insulated Freezable Lunch Bag" is a collapsible container that embodies the patented invention (Compl. ¶21). This suggests the accused product is alleged to have a peripheral wall with inner and outer layers, at least one fold-defining crease, and separate gel packs positioned on opposite sides of that crease, allowing it to be collapsed as claimed ('853 Patent, Claim 1).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the proper construction of "crease... at which the inner layer and the outer layer are joined." The specification repeatedly discloses this feature as being formed by "lines of stitching" ('853 Patent, col. 3:8-11). The case may turn on whether the accused product's folding mechanism, if different, falls within the scope of this term.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "first rectangular gel pack" and a "second rectangular gel pack" on opposite sides of the crease ('853 Patent, col. 7:55-66). A key factual question will be whether the accused product contains two distinct gel packs as claimed, or if it utilizes a single, larger gel insert designed to fold. The evidence will need to establish the precise physical construction of the accused product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "crease"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's point of novelty—the ability to fold into a compact state. Its definition will be critical for determining whether the accused product's folding structure infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to define the specific mechanism that enables the container's collapsibility.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language of Claim 1 requires only that the "crease" be a location "at which the inner layer and the outer layer are joined" ('853 Patent, col. 7:48-50). This language does not explicitly limit the method of joining.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "crease lines" as being "formed by lines of stitching" that pass through the container's layers ('853 Patent, col. 3:8-16). A party could argue that this disclosure limits the term "crease" to structures formed by stitching.

The Term: "a first rectangular gel pack... and a second rectangular gel pack"

• Context and Importance: The claim explicitly recites two distinct gel packs separated by the crease. This limitation is central to the infringement analysis, as a product with a single, unitary gel insert may not literally meet this element.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "rectangular" should be interpreted broadly to cover generally rectangular shapes and that two functionally separate cooling sections of a single insert could meet the spirit of the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's use of "a first" and "a second" pack, combined with the specification's reference to "individual gel packs" being held in "respective pockets," suggests that the invention requires physically separate and distinct components, not a single, foldable unit ('853 Patent, col. 3:37-41; Claim 1).

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "willful and in reckless disregard of PackIt's patent rights" (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that any continued infringement following receipt of the complaint is willful and egregious, forming a basis for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶29).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "crease," which is described in the specification as being formed by "lines of stitching," be construed to cover other methods of creating a fold line in a multi-layered container wall?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of physical structure: does discovery and a product teardown reveal that the accused lunch bag is constructed with two physically distinct "rectangular gel packs" as recited in Claim 1, or does it employ a single, unitary gel insert, raising questions of both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents?