DCT
2:22-cv-00062
Airplane Pockets LLC v. Daniels
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Airplane Pockets LLC (California)
- Defendant: Jack Daniels (California); Cal West Holdings, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Foundation Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00062, C.D. Cal., 01/05/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants reside in the district, have a regular and established place of business, committed alleged acts of infringement within the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, including one of Plaintiff's founding members and the patent's original inventor, are infringing a patent for a sanitary airplane tray table cover by manufacturing and selling the patented product without authorization.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to travel accessories, specifically a dual-purpose fabric cover that provides a sanitary surface for an airplane tray table while also offering a storage pocket for personal items.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Jack Daniels is a founding member of Plaintiff, the named inventor on the patent-in-suit, and that he assigned the patent to the Plaintiff. The patent infringement claim is presented as part of a broader commercial dispute between former business partners involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of company assets.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-07-11 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,051,087 |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,051,087 Issued |
| 2022-01-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,051,087, Sanitary Cover for Airplane Tray Including Pocket for Personal Use, issued June 9, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that commercial airplane tray tables and seat-back pockets are used by an "uncountable number of passengers," leading to traveler concerns about their sanitary condition. It also identifies the limited space in existing seat-back pockets as a problem (’087 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part fabric cover designed to fit over an airplane tray table. As described in the detailed description, a first pocket slides over the tray table itself, providing a clean surface or "fresh tablecloth" for the user. A second pocket is attached to and hangs from the first, offering a sanitary space for the traveler's personal items ('087 Patent, col. 3:11-27, col. 4:41-42). This configuration is illustrated in Figure 1 of the patent, which the complaint attaches as part of Exhibit 1 (Compl. ¶22; ’087 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention purports to offer a single, reusable accessory that addresses two common traveler concerns: the hygiene of the tray table surface and the need for clean, accessible personal storage during a flight ('087 Patent, col. 1:49-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶26). Independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 6 (method) are available for assertion.
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): A sanitary protective cover comprising:
- a first pocket made of stretchy material configured to slide onto the tray
- a second pocket
- a specific structural relationship wherein the openings of the two pockets are separated by the front face of the first pocket and the rear face of the second pocket
- a specific geometric relationship wherein the plane of the first pocket's opening and the plane of the second pocket's opening are "coplanar"
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Airplane Pockets Tray Table Cover" (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused product "embodies one or more claims of the Patent" (Compl. ¶26). It is described as a product that Plaintiff was formed to exploit, manufacture, market, and sell (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the construction, materials, or operation of the accused product, but alleges Defendants are making and selling it for their own benefit in a "competing enterprise" (Compl. ¶¶19, 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing an element-by-element analysis or a claim chart. The following table maps the elements of representative independent Claim 1 to the complaint's general allegations.
’087 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a first pocket made of stretchy material and configured to slide onto the tray, the first pocket having... [structural sub-elements] | The complaint alleges the accused "Tray Table Cover" embodies the patent's claims, which would require it to have a first pocket structure as claimed (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 3:14-19 |
| b. a second pocket having... [structural sub-elements] | The "Tray Table Cover" is alleged to embody the patent's claims, which would require it to have a second pocket structure as claimed (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 3:20-24 |
| c. wherein the opening of the first pocket and the opening of the second pocket are separated by the front face of the first pocket and the rear face of the second pocket | The complaint does not detail the specific structure of the accused product, but its allegation of infringement implies this required structural relationship exists (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 5:5-8 |
| d. wherein the first plane and the second plane are coplanar | The complaint does not provide details on the geometry of the accused product, but its allegation of infringement implies that the openings of the product's pockets are coplanar as claimed (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 5:9-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused "Tray Table Cover" meets every limitation of the asserted claims? The complaint provides no specific evidence that the accused product is made of a "stretchy material" or that the openings of its two pockets are "coplanar," both of which are explicit limitations in Claim 1.
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory rests on conclusory statements. The court will need to determine if the accused product, once its specific design is established through discovery, falls within the scope of the patent's claims. The lack of specific factual allegations in the complaint suggests that claim construction will be a critical phase of the litigation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "stretchy material"
Context and Importance: This term appears as an express limitation in independent claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product is made from a material the court construes as "stretchy." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification contains potentially conflicting statements about its essentialness.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of the claims defines the scope of the invention, and Claim 1 explicitly requires the material to be "stretchy."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the device "can be made of a stretchy material so that the pocket can expand... but it is not limited to stretchy material" ('087 Patent, col. 4:48-50). A defendant may argue this language either renders the term indefinite or indicates that the "stretchy" feature was not essential to the invention at the time of filing, potentially raising validity questions.
The Term: "coplanar"
Context and Importance: This term in Claim 1 defines a specific geometric relationship between the openings of the two pockets. Infringement will require proving that the accused product's design meets this precise spatial arrangement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for the term's plain and ordinary meaning in geometry, allowing for some tolerance in manufacturing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be interpreted narrowly as depicted in the patent's figures, such as Figure 3, which shows the two openings lying on the same flat plane ('087 Patent, Fig. 3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants make and sell the product to "manufactures and end users," thereby causing them to infringe (Compl. ¶¶27, 28).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "actual knowledge of the Patent." This allegation is supported by the factual assertion that Defendant Jack Daniels is the named inventor on the patent and assigned it to the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶15, 16, 29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidence and specificity: Can the Plaintiff, moving beyond the complaint's conclusory allegations, produce technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused "Tray Table Cover" meets every specific limitation of an asserted claim, such as the requirements for "stretchy material" and "coplanar" openings?
- The case may turn on a key claim construction and validity question: How will the court reconcile the explicit requirement of "stretchy material" in Claim 1 with the specification's statement that the invention is "not limited to stretchy material"? This tension could impact the claim's ultimate scope and enforceability.
- A central theme will be the commercial context: Given that the lawsuit is between former business partners and the named defendant is the patent's inventor, a core question is how this underlying business dispute will shape the litigation, potentially framing the patent infringement count as leverage within a larger set of commercial claims.