DCT

2:18-cv-07884

Dae Sung Hi Tech Co Ltd v. Gthunder

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-07884, C.D. Cal., 01/04/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendants do business in California, have committed acts of infringement in the state, maintain regular and established business in the district, and have purposely availed themselves of the jurisdiction by selling products to California consumers through commercial websites like Amazon.com.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that numerous third-party sellers on Amazon.com are infringing a patent related to a two-part bag sealing device.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable clips or rods for creating an airtight seal on flexible bags, commonly used for food storage.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiffs allege to have sent cease and desist letters to all Defendants in July 2018 via Amazon.com's internal email system, notifying them of the alleged infringement prior to filing suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-11-13 ’696 Patent Priority Date
2009-03-17 ’696 Patent Issue Date
2009-05-01 First 2 Market begins commercial use and becomes exclusive U.S. distributor
2018-03-01 Defendants allegedly begin selling infringing products
2018-07-01 Plaintiffs send cease and desist letters to Defendants
2019-01-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 - "Pack Sealing Method and Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696, "Pack Sealing Method and Device," issued March 17, 2009 (the "’696 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the unreliability of conventional bag sealing methods, such as zipper packs that can be collapsed by external pressure, hinged devices that provide a weak seal, and standard vinyl packs that allow odors to escape and lack rigidity to stay open for filling (’696 Patent, col. 1:12-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part sealing device. It consists of a solid "rod member" and an outer "tubular member" with a longitudinal slit. To seal a bag, the user wraps the bag's opening around the inner rod member. The outer tubular member is then slid over the rod, with the wrapped bag material captured in the "squeeze gap" between the two components, creating a firm and reliable seal (’696 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-11). Figure 1 illustrates the separate rod (14) and tubular member (16) components and their intended application to a pack (8) (’696 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a reusable, robust, and airtight sealing mechanism for flexible packaging that is asserted to be more reliable than integrated zipper closures or simple clips (’696 Patent, col. 1:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific claims of the ’696 Patent asserted against the Defendants. It makes a general allegation of infringement against "the invention claimed in the '696 Patent" (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "bag sealing devices" sold by a multitude of Defendants under various brand names and Amazon storefronts, including GRIPSTIC, GTHUNDER, TRENDY COOKS, LOVELY HOME ESSENTIALS, and others (Compl. ¶29). The complaint alleges that "all of the defendants market the same product on Amazon.com" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide a technical description of the structure or operation of the accused devices. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the invention claimed in the '696 Patent" (Compl. ¶29). The complaint provides a reference to Exhibit 6, which is described as showing the accused products being sold on Defendants' Amazon.com storefronts (Compl. ¶42).
  • The complaint alleges that Plaintiff First 2 Market has sold over 6.2 million of its own sealing devices since May 2009 and that Defendants' sales have resulted in lost sales for the Plaintiffs (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not assert any specific claims of the ’696 Patent, which precludes the creation of a detailed claim chart analysis. The infringement allegations are made generally against "the invention claimed in the '696 Patent" (Compl. ¶29).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As no specific claims are asserted in the complaint, an analysis of key claim terms for construction is not possible.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "contributing to infringement" (Compl. ¶29). It further alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendants have entered into contracts with third parties to manufacture and/or sell the infringing devices (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing the knowledge or intent required for induced infringement or the specific requirements for contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that in July 2018, Plaintiffs' attorney sent cease and desist letters via Amazon.com's email system to all Defendants, putting them on notice of the ’696 Patent. The complaint alleges that Defendants did not respond and continued their infringing activities, which is presented as evidence of willful, intentional, and malicious conduct (Compl. ¶30, ¶32, ¶34).

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: the complaint fails to identify which specific claims of the ’696 Patent are asserted. This may prompt a motion to dismiss or a court order requiring Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to provide Defendants with adequate notice of the specific infringement allegations they must defend against.
  • A central procedural question will be one of proper joinder: the complaint joins dozens of distinct, and in many cases foreign, entities as Defendants, based on the allegation that they all "market the same product on Amazon.com" (Compl. ¶15). The court will have to determine whether the infringement claims against these separate sellers arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact, as required for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
  • Assuming the case proceeds, a primary evidentiary question will involve technical proof: Plaintiffs will bear the burden of demonstrating, on a claim-by-claim basis, that the accused products sold by each of the numerous Defendants meet every limitation of the asserted claims. The lack of technical detail in the complaint suggests this will be a central focus of discovery and expert analysis.