DCT
2:19-cv-06262
Dae Sung Hi Tech Co Ltd v. Trendy Cooks
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dae Sung Hi Tech. Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea) and First 2 Market Products, LLC (Ohio)
- Defendant: Trendy Cooks (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kenneth G. Eade
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-06262, C.D. Cal., 07/19/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is said to do business in the state, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and have a regular and established business there. The complaint further alleges purposeful availment through advertising and selling products on commercial websites, including Amazon.com, with shipments to customers in California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s bag sealing devices infringe a patent related to a two-part mechanical sealing mechanism for flexible bags.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable devices for creating an airtight and watertight seal on consumer food storage bags and other flexible packs.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Dae Sung Hi Tech. Co., Ltd. is the owner of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff First 2 Market Products, LLC is the exclusive U.S. distributor and is contractually obligated to enforce the patent. The complaint states that Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendant in July 2018, to which no response was allegedly received.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-11-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 Earliest Priority Date |
| 2009-03-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 Issued |
| 2009-05-01 | Exclusive distributorship for '696 Patent devices begins |
| 2018-07-01 | Plaintiffs' counsel sends cease-and-desist letter |
| 2019-07-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 - "PACK SEALING METHOD AND DEVICE"
- Issued: March 17, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies shortcomings in prior art for sealing flexible bags. It notes that conventional zipper packs may have seals that "be easily collapsed by external pressure," while hinged clamping devices "cannot provide a reliable seal," particularly at the middle of the device ('696 Patent, col. 1:23-34). It also notes that standard vinyl packs lack the rigidity to be held open for easy filling ('696 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part sealing device composed of a "rod member" (14) and a "slit tubular member" (16) ('696 Patent, Fig. 1). To seal a bag, the user wraps the opening of the bag (8) around the rod member. The outer tubular member, which has a longitudinal slit (20), is then slid over the rod member, capturing the bag material within a "squeeze gap" (18) to create a firm seal ('696 Patent, col. 5:1-11; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The described invention aims to provide a simple, reliable, and reusable sealing mechanism that overcomes the weaknesses of integrated zippers and basic clips, offering a more robust seal for containing liquids, solids, and odors ('696 Patent, col. 2:55-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint broadly alleges infringement of the patent without identifying specific claims. Independent claim 1 is the primary apparatus claim.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a rod member
- a tubular member adapted to be slidably fitted around the rod member, wherein the tubular member has a circular cross-sectional shape
- a squeeze gap defined between the rod and tubular members
- a slit formed longitudinally at the tubular member
- an inclined guide formed at one end of the rod member
- another inclined guide formed at one end of the tubular member
- the rod member is formed at one end with a specific structure comprising a bent portion, a horizontal extension, and a semicircular protrusion
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "bag sealing devices sold under the TRENDY COOKS trademark" (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that these devices practice the invention claimed in the '696 Patent (Compl. ¶22). It states the products are sold through "highly active commercial websites, including Amazon.com" and are shipped to customers in California (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the structure or operation of the accused devices.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or map specific product features to individual claim elements. The following table maps the general allegation—that the accused products "practice the invention claimed in the '696 Patent" (Compl. ¶22)—to the elements of the representative independent claim 1.
'696 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pack sealing device including a rod member, | The complaint alleges that the accused devices practice the patented invention, which would require the presence of a rod member. Specifics of the accused rod member are not provided. | ¶22 | col. 5:1-2 |
| a tubular member adapted to be slidably fitted around the rod member, | The complaint generally alleges the accused devices practice the invention, which would require a slidably fitted tubular member. No specific details are provided. | ¶22 | col. 5:1-2 |
| a squeeze gap defined between the rod member and the tubular member, | The complaint's general allegations suggest the accused devices create a seal, which in the patent is achieved via a squeeze gap. The complaint does not describe the accused device's mechanism. | ¶22 | col. 5:2-4 |
| a slit formed at the tubular member to extend in a longitudinal direction of the tubular member, | A longitudinal slit is a required feature of the claimed invention. The complaint does not contain allegations specific to this element. | ¶22 | col. 5:6-8 |
| an inclined guide formed at one end of the rod member, and another inclined guide formed at one end of the tubular member, | The complaint does not provide details on whether the accused devices include the claimed inclined guides for facilitating insertion of the bag. | ¶22 | col. 5:17-21 |
| wherein: the tubular member has a circular cross-sectional shape; | The complaint does not specify the cross-sectional shape of any component of the accused devices. | ¶22 | col. 17:67-68 |
| and the rod member is formed, at one end thereof, with a bent portion... a horizontal extension... and a semicircular protrusion... | The complaint does not allege facts regarding the specific, complex geometry required at the end of the claimed rod member. | ¶22 | col. 18:3-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue for the court will be whether Plaintiffs can produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused TRENDY COOKS device incorporates the specific structural limitations of Claim 1. The complaint lacks factual allegations detailing the structure of the accused product, particularly concerning the specific geometry of the rod member's end (bent portion, horizontal extension, and protrusion) and the circular shape of the tubular member, which are required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product operates by creating a "squeeze gap" between a rod and a separate slidable "tubular member," as opposed to using a different clamping or sealing mechanism? The complaint does not offer a technical description of the accused device's operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not identify any claim terms for construction. Based on the patent, the following term may be central to the dispute.
- The Term: "rod member"
- Context and Importance: This term defines one of the two core components of the claimed device. Its construction will determine the range of structures that can be considered the central element around which a bag is wrapped. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could either limit the patent to simple, elongated shapes or allow it to cover more complex structures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a particular geometry, stating that the "rod member 14 may have a diverse cross-sectional shape," including "circular, semicircular, oval, semi-oval, triangular, or rectangular," as well as polygonal shapes like "diamond, trapezoidal, pentagonal, hexagonal, or octagonal" ('696 Patent, col. 5:26-32).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be understood in the context of the consistently depicted embodiments, which show a simple, elongate, and substantially uniform element (e.g., '696 Patent, Fig. 4). This could be used to argue that more complex or non-uniform structures fall outside the scope of "rod member."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have contributed to infringement and have "entered into contracts or relationships with certain third-parties to make and/or sell infringing sealing devices" (Compl. ¶16, ¶20). These allegations appear to form the basis for claims of induced or contributory infringement, although specific facts supporting knowledge and intent for these claims are not detailed beyond the existence of such "contracts or relationships."
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on purported pre-suit knowledge of the '696 Patent. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs' counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendant in July 2018 via Amazon.com's internal email system, and that Defendant continued to market the accused products after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶18, p. 5).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can Plaintiffs produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused "TRENDY COOKS" device possesses the specific structural features recited in the asserted patent claims? The complaint's lack of detailed factual allegations places the burden entirely on future discovery to establish a technical basis for infringement, especially for the highly specific geometric limitations in claim 1.
- A key question on damages will concern willfulness: Did the July 2018 cease-and-desist letter provide Defendant with actual knowledge of the '696 Patent and its alleged infringement? If so, the court will need to determine whether Defendant's continued sales constituted objectively reckless conduct sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages.