Carlson Pet Products Inc v. Supra National Express Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Carlson Pet Products, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Supra National Express, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ice Miller LLP
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-06312, C.D. Cal., 07/22/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being incorporated in California, having a regularly established place of business in the district, and having committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s importation of pet gates infringes patents related to a residential barrier system featuring a smaller, independently operable gate within a larger main gate.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a need in the consumer market for child and pet safety barriers that can contain a toddler while allowing selective passage for a small pet, enhancing convenience for households with both.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit recently survived ex parte reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, with the original claims confirmed patentable. This action follows a prior lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff in the District of Delaware against unidentified "John Doe" entities, through which discovery allegedly identified the current Defendant as the importer of the accused products. The successful reexaminations may strengthen the patents’ presumption of validity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,448,381, “Small Gate Within Big Gate Within Barrier,” issued May 28, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the inconvenience and potential danger of conventional child safety gates, which create a total barrier that adults must awkwardly step over and which fully confine household pets that pose no danger (’381 Patent, col. 4:41-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a residential barrier system comprising a large primary gate ("first gate") that contains a smaller, independently openable secondary gate ("second gate") (’381 Patent, Abstract). This configuration allows the main barrier to remain secured against a child while the smaller gate can be opened to permit a small pet to pass through, providing selective access control (’381 Patent, col. 4:26-30).
• Technical Importance: This dual-gate design provided a practical solution for households with both small children and small pets, balancing safety with convenience.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶39, 41).
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in essential part:
  • A removable barrier frame for a passageway.
  • A "first gate" within the frame.
  • A "second gate" located "within the first gate," with a smaller height and width.
  • The second gate must be openable relative to the first gate.
  • A detailed description of the "first gate frame," including specific first, second, third, fourth, and fifth upright support members and a horizontal support member arranged in a particular configuration.
  • A requirement that an upright support member of the second gate is "coaxial" with the fifth upright support member of the first gate frame when the second gate is closed.

U.S. Patent No. 9,458,668, “Small Gate Within Big Gate Within Barrier,” issued October 4, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’381 Patent, this patent addresses the same fundamental problem of creating a selective residential barrier (’668 Patent, col. 1:49-59).
• The Patented Solution: The ’668 Patent also claims a gate-within-a-gate structure. Its claims focus more specifically on the structural relationship between the two gates, requiring a "first gate frame" that includes a "second gate framing perimeter immediately about the second gate perimeter." A key feature is that this framing structure is claimed as a "one-piece, unitary and integral element" that is non-rotatably fixed to the first gate (’668 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:14-21).
• Technical Importance: The invention as claimed in this patent emphasizes a robust and potentially more integrated and manufacturable design for the dual-gate system.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶49, 51).
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in essential part:
  • A removable barrier frame.
  • A "first gate" pivotally mounted to the frame.
  • A "second gate" pivotally mounted to the first gate.
  • The first gate must comprise a "first gate frame" that includes a "second gate framing perimeter" immediately surrounding the second gate's perimeter.
  • Crucially, the first gate frame and the second gate framing perimeter must comprise a "one-piece, unitary and integral element" that is non-rotatably fixed to the first gate.
  • The second gate must be "swingable away from either of the first and second faces" of the first gate.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "Cumbor Auto Close Safety Baby Gate, Easy Open Extra Tall Thru Gate with Pet Door" (the "Cumbor Pet Gate"), sold to consumers on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶18-19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Cumbor Pet Gate is a safety barrier that includes a main gate structure with a smaller, secondary "Pet Door" (Compl. ¶19). This functionality is alleged to align with the gate-within-a-gate system claimed by the patents-in-suit. The complaint provides an image of the Amazon.com order page for the accused "Cumbor Pet Gate," showing the product and its marketing name "...with Pet Door" (Compl. ¶19, Ex. C).
• Plaintiff alleges the Cumbor Pet Gates originate in China and are imported into the United States by Defendant Supra National Express for distribution to Amazon fulfillment centers (Compl. ¶¶29, 31-32, 40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Cumbor Pet Gate contains structures that meet every element of at least independent claim 1 of each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶41, 51). The complaint also references a Bill of Lading that allegedly bears Defendant Supra’s logo and name, documenting the delivery of "Cumbor inventory" to an Amazon facility (Compl. ¶¶31-32, Ex. D).

’381 Patent Infringement Allegations

’668 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Structural Questions: A primary point of contention will likely be factual and technical: does the physical construction of the Cumbor Pet Gate meet the highly specific structural and geometric limitations recited in the claims? For example, the analysis will turn on whether the accused gate has upright members that are "coaxial" as required by the ’381 Patent, and whether its frame is truly a "one-piece, unitary and integral element" as required by the ’668 Patent.
• Liability Questions: The case raises the question of whether a logistics and shipping provider like Supra can be held liable for direct infringement by "importing" an accused product under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶41, 51). The evidence connecting Supra directly to the importation, such as the referenced Bill of Lading, will be central to this determination.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "coaxial" (’381 Patent, Claim 1(g))

• Context and Importance: This term dictates a precise spatial relationship between an upright member of the main gate frame and an upright member of the smaller pet door. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused product's components share a common axis as defined by this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because deviation from a strict geometric definition could provide a non-infringement defense.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "coaxial." A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning, which might accommodate minor manufacturing tolerances and not require perfect mathematical alignment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification states, "Upright support member 86 is coaxial with upright support member 70 when the relatively small gate 16 is closed" (’381 Patent, col. 5:51-53). This declarative statement, combined with the detailed nature of the claim, could support an argument that the term requires a strict, demonstrable alignment along a shared central axis.

Term 2: "one-piece, unitary and integral element" (’668 Patent, Claim 1(d))

• Context and Importance: This phrase is central to defining the construction of the main gate frame relative to the pet door opening. The case may turn on whether the accused gate, which may be assembled from multiple components (e.g., welded tubes), can be considered a "one-piece, unitary and integral element."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that components that are permanently fixed together (e.g., by welding) to function as a single, inseparable unit meet the definition. The patent describes the element as "nonrotatably fixed to said first gate" (’668 Patent, col. 10:21), which may support an interpretation based on functional inseparability rather than initial formation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the triplet of "one-piece," "unitary," and "integral" requires that the element be originally formed as a single, continuous piece (e.g., via molding or bending a single piece of material), not assembled from separate parts. The redundant language suggests a strong intent to claim a very specific type of monolithic construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both inducement and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant causing the gates to be imported and shipped for customer use, with knowledge established at least as of the complaint filing (Compl. ¶¶43, 53). The contributory infringement allegation is based on knowingly importing a product that is a material part of the invention, is especially adapted for infringement, and has no substantial non-infringing use because it infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶44, 54).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued importation of the accused products after having actual knowledge of the patents and the infringement allegations from the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶42, 52). The complaint also pleads willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶43, 53).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: can Plaintiff prove that the physical construction of the accused Cumbor Pet Gate meets the specific, multi-part structural and geometric limitations of the asserted claims? The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product's frame is a "one-piece, unitary and integral element" (’668 Patent) and whether its components have a "coaxial" alignment (’381 Patent).
• A second central issue will be one of infringer identity and liability: does the evidence, particularly the referenced Bill of Lading, establish that Defendant Supra, a logistics provider, engaged in acts of "importation" sufficient to create liability for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)?
• Finally, a key question for damages will be one of scienter: assuming infringement is found, what evidence demonstrates that Defendant possessed the requisite knowledge and intent to support the claims for indirect infringement and willful infringement, particularly for conduct preceding the filing of this complaint?