DCT
2:19-cv-07191
SUNDESA LLC v. Tabletops Unlimited
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sundesa, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: Tabletops Unlimited, Inc. D/B/A ROVE (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maschoff Brennan PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-07191, C.D. Cal., 08/19/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant resides in the district and is incorporated in California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shaker cups and bottles infringe two utility patents and one design patent related to mixing agitators and container lid mechanisms.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to consumer beverage containers, specifically shaker cups used to mix powdered supplements with liquids and container lids with integrated carrying handles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter and courtesy copies of the asserted patents on January 30, 2018, a fact that may be used to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-02-18 | U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 Priority Date |
| 2002-04-30 | U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 Issued |
| 2012-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 Priority Date |
| 2013-06-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478 Priority Date |
| 2014-04-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 Issued |
| 2016-02-02 | U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478 Issued |
| 2018-01-30 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-08-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 - “Flow-Through Agitator,” issued April 30, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of mixing powdered compositions, such as dietary supplements or baby formula, with liquids, which often results in clumping and an inhomogeneous suspension. Existing agitators are often fixed to the container, difficult to clean, or inefficient at dispersing clumps throughout the fluid. (’032 Patent, col. 1:55-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a physically independent agitator, separate from the container, that is composed of a "wire-frame" structure. This structure, which can be a grid or a coil, has interstitial spaces or voids that allow liquids and powders to flow through it. When shaken inside a container, the agitator moves freely, and the flow through its structure creates turbulence that effectively breaks up clumps and mixes the contents. (’032 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-25; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a simple, reusable, and highly effective mixing device that can be transferred between containers and is more efficient than simple shaking alone. (’032 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the '032 patent generally, without specifying claims. Independent claim 18, a method claim, is representative of the alleged use.
- Independent Claim 18 (Method) elements include:
- placing a composition of ingredients into a hand-held, shakeable container;
- placing a physically independent agitator into the container, the agitator being free of structural connection and comprising a framework with a plurality of significant voids;
- securing a removable lid to form a completely enclosed mixing area; and
- shaking the container to propel the agitator through the composition, causing the composition to flow into and out of the voids to create a homogeneous mixture.
U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 - “Container Lid Having Independently Pivoting Flip Top and Handle,” issued April 15, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: For container lids with integrated handles and flip-top caps, there is a design conflict: placing the handle for convenient carrying can increase the risk that forces on the handle will unintentionally open the flip-top. (’830 Patent, col. 1:11-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lid assembly where the carrying handle and the flip-top cap pivot independently of one another, despite sharing a common pivot axis. The handle is structurally "sandwiched" between the lid's mounting posts and the flip-top's pivot structure, securing the handle while decoupling its movement from the flip-top. (’830 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-54; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design resolves the conflict between ergonomic carrying and secure sealing by mechanically isolating the forces applied to the handle from the flip-top cap. (’830 Patent, col. 2:27-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the '830 patent generally. Independent claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.
- Independent Claim 1 (Lid) elements include:
- a lid base with an opening and a mount with two posts;
- a handle with a pivot at each end;
- a flip top with its own pivot for sealing the opening;
- a "sandwiched" arrangement where each end of the handle is positioned between the flip-top pivot and a post on the mount;
- a connection where protrusions from the flip-top pivot extend into openings in the handle; and
- the handle and flip top are each independently pivotable about a common axis.
Multi-Patent Capsule
U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478 - “Closure for a Container,” issued February 2, 2016
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a container lid. The claimed design consists of the specific visual appearance and non-functional aesthetic features of the closure, including the shapes and contours of the handle, flip-top cap, and spout area. (’478 Design Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of the "Third Accused Product" is "substantially the same as" the design claimed in the '478 Patent. (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies four accused instrumentalities: the "First Accused Product" and "Second Accused Product," which are Rove-branded shaker cups, and the "Third Accused Product" and "Fourth Accused Product," which are Rove-branded bottles with flip-top lids. (Compl. ¶¶10, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The First and Second Accused Products are shaker cups sold with a "whisk type ball that allow[s] users to perform the methods claimed in the '032 Patent" (Compl. ¶¶9-10). The complaint includes a visual of these shaker cups and their corresponding whisk ball agitators (Compl. p. 3). The Third and Fourth Accused Products are bottles featuring a flip-top lid, which are accused of infringing the '830 utility patent and the '478 design patent (Compl. ¶¶14-17). The complaint provides a visual of the accused lid and the bottle on which it is used (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’032 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| placing a composition of ingredients into a hand-held, shakeable container | Defendant allegedly instructs customers to place ingredients into the accused shaker cups for mixing. | ¶11 | col. 8:36-39 |
| placing a physically independent agitator into said hand-held, shakeable container...said physically independent agitator object being free of any structural connection...comprising an object having a framework with a plurality of significant voids therein | The "whisk type ball" sold with the accused products is a physically independent agitator with a wire-frame structure, as depicted in the complaint's visual evidence. | ¶¶10, 12; p. 3 | col. 8:40-47 |
| securing a removable lid to said hand-held, shakeable container...to form a completely enclosed mixing area | The accused products have removable lids that enclose the container for shaking. | ¶11 | col. 8:48-53 |
| shaking said container in a manner that propels said agitator through said composition of ingredients, wherein said composition of ingredients flows into and out of said voids thereby mixing said composition | Defendant's marketing and instructions allegedly encourage users to shake the accused products, causing the whisk ball to mix the contents via the claimed flow-through mechanism. | ¶11 | col. 8:54-63 |
’830 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the "Fourth Accused Product" infringes the '830 Patent but does not provide a detailed mapping of the product's features to the claim elements (Compl. ¶17). The visual of the product shows a lid with a handle and a flip-top, but the internal pivot mechanism is not detailed.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lid base having an opening for dispensing contents...and a mount | The accused product's lid has a base with a drinking spout and a mounting structure for the handle and flip-top. | ¶14; p. 4 | col. 3:31-33 |
| a handle comprising a first end with a first handle pivot and a second end with a second handle pivot | The accused product includes a carrying handle that appears to connect to the mount at two pivot points. | ¶14; p. 4 | col. 3:34-36 |
| a flip top for sealing the opening...including a flip top pivot | The accused product includes a flip-top cap to seal the spout, which appears to pivot on the mount. | ¶14; p. 4 | col. 3:37-40 |
| the first end of the handle is sandwiched between a first end of the flip top pivot and the first post of the mount... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific structural arrangement. | ¶17 | col. 3:56-62 |
| the handle and the flip top are each independently pivotable relative to the lid | The complaint does not provide specific allegations or evidence regarding the independent pivotability of the handle and flip-top. | ¶17 | col. 4:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the '032 patent, a potential dispute is whether the accused "whisk type ball" meets the definition of a "framework with a plurality of significant voids", as the patent primarily illustrates more regular grid or coil structures. For the '830 patent, a key question will be whether the accused lid's components are arranged in the specific "sandwiched" configuration required by the claims.
- Technical Questions: For the '830 patent, the central technical question is whether the handle and flip-top of the accused product are, in fact, mechanically independent in their pivotal motion. The complaint does not provide evidence (such as diagrams or technical descriptions) to substantiate this claimed functionality in the accused product.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’032 Patent
- The Term: "framework"
- Context and Importance: Infringement of the '032 patent hinges on whether the accused "whisk type ball" constitutes a "framework" as that term is used in the patent. The defendant may argue for a narrow construction limited to the patent’s specific examples to design around the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit definition: ""Wire-frame" shall refer to narrow, solid elements which may be combined to form a shape... "Wire-frame" may also refer to a solid surface which has been substantially perforated..." (’032 Patent, col. 4:20-25). This suggests the term is not limited to any single geometry.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently depict orderly structures, such as a spherical grid (Fig. 1) or a spiral coil (Fig. 2). A party could argue these examples implicitly limit the term to organized, open-lattice structures, not the potentially more chaotic structure of a "whisk."
For the ’830 Patent
- The Term: "sandwiched"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the spatial relationship between the handle, flip-top, and mount, which is the heart of the asserted invention. The infringement analysis for the '830 patent will likely turn on whether the accused product's assembly meets this structural requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "sandwiched", which may allow for an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of simply being placed between two other objects.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites that "the first end of the handle is sandwiched between a first end of the flip top pivot and the first post of the mount" (’830 Patent, col. 3:56-60). The figures and description show this arrangement is what physically traps the handle, making it a functional limitation, not just a positional one. This context suggests a narrower definition requiring a specific, constraining, three-part assembly.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the '032 patent. Inducement is based on allegations that Tabletops "instructs its customers" to use the accused shaker cups in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶25). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused products are "especially made to be used" in an infringing way and have "no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶13, 28).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement of all three asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶33, 41, 50). The basis for this allegation is the claim that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and its alleged infringement as of January 30, 2018, from a notice letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel, and yet continued its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶19-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "framework" in the '032 patent, which is illustrated with orderly grid and coil structures, be construed to cover the "whisk type ball" agitator sold with the accused shakers?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of mechanical function: does the accused bottle lid ('Fourth Accused Product') actually incorporate the specific "sandwiched" pivot structure that allows the handle and flip-top to pivot independently, as required by the claims of the '830 patent, or is there a fundamental difference in its mechanical operation?
- For the design patent claim, the central question will be one of visual identity: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "Third Accused Product" lid substantially the same as the '478 design patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer, potentially causing marketplace confusion?