GWR Holdings LLC v. Twenty Four 7 Global Solutions Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GWR Holdings LLC; American Pan Company; CMBB LLC (all Ohio)
  • Defendant: Twenty Four 7 Global Solutions Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-07455, C.D. Cal., 08/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant allegedly residing in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and having a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s imported "black metallic bread forms" infringe a patent related to industrial baking trays for baguettes.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns industrial-scale baking trays designed to produce consistent, sanitary baked goods like baguettes by controlling loaf length and facilitating cleaning.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiffs allege they provided Defendant with a "Notice of Patent" on March 26, 2025, and that Defendant denied liability on April 16, 2025. The complaint outlines a licensing arrangement where GWR Holdings owns the patent, licenses manufacturing rights to American Pan Company, and grants exclusive sales rights to CMBB LLC.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-06-06	’766 Patent Priority Date
2014-01-01	Subway allegedly began endorsing Plaintiffs' bread forms
2016-05-10	’766 Patent Issue Date
2022-01-01	Subway allegedly approved current version of GWR form
2025-03-26	Plaintiffs sent "Notice of Patent" to Defendant
2025-04-16	Defendant responded, denying liability
2025-08-11	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,332,766 - "Industrial Baguette Tray"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,332,766, “Industrial Baguette Tray,” issued May 10, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art baking trays used for baguettes and crusty rolls. Designs with open ends failed to control the product's overall length, while designs with closed ends created by adding a flat bar were considered unsanitary and difficult to clean, with neither type meeting NSF standards for bakery equipment sanitation (’766 Patent, col. 1:12-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an industrial baking tray, including the frame and baking subunits, fabricated from a single piece of metal. It features a frame holding multiple "baking subunits," each with a concave surface for the dough. These subunits have solid, closed ends to precisely control the length of the baked product and a perforated middle section to help form a proper crust. This integrated, seamless design is intended to be highly sanitary and easy to clean, addressing the shortcomings of previous designs (’766 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:36-45, 3:64-67).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention's significance was its purported ability to solve two problems at once: providing precise control over the final product's dimensions while simultaneously meeting stringent sanitation standards for industrial food equipment (’766 Patent, col. 1:42-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the ’766 Patent generally and references a claim chart exhibit, but does not identify specific claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶28). The analysis focuses on independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 requires, among other elements:
  • A baking tray comprising a frame and a plurality of baking subunits.
  • The frame is fabricated from a single piece of material and defines multiple apertures.
  • Each aperture is surrounded by a recessed channel on the frame's upper portion and a rim-like structure on the lower portion.
  • Each baking subunit has a concave baking surface with closed end portions and a perforated middle portion.
  • The subunits are attached to the frame with a plurality of permanent bonds.
  • This bond, in combination with the frame's structure, reduces or eliminates any open volume between the frame and the baking subunit.
• The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks to enjoin infringement of "any claim of the '766 Patent," suggesting the potential assertion of dependent claims later in the litigation (Compl. p. 6, ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are "black metallic bread forms" that Defendant 24/7 allegedly purchases, imports from China, and sells on the website QuickSupply.com (Compl. ¶¶9, 12, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides no specific technical description of the Accused Products' features or operation (Compl. ¶9).
• It alleges a specific market context wherein the franchisor Subway has mandated a phase-out of non-metal bread forms, limiting its franchisees' options to either Plaintiffs' patented product or the Accused Product (Compl. ¶21). This allegation positions the Accused Product as a direct commercial competitor and functional substitute for Plaintiffs' product within the Subway supply ecosystem (Compl. ¶¶19-21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit C, which was not publicly available at the time of this analysis (Compl. ¶28). The infringement theory, as narrated in the complaint, is that the Defendant’s "black metallic bread forms" embody the key features of the ’766 patent, including a frame with apertures and baking subunits with concave surfaces, solid ends, and perforated middle sections (Compl. ¶11). The core of the allegation is that these accused forms are structurally and functionally equivalent to the patented invention.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be one of evidence. As the complaint lacks detailed technical allegations or visual aids depicting the accused product, Plaintiffs will need to establish through discovery that the "black metallic bread forms" actually possess the specific structural elements required by Claim 1. This includes the "recessed channel," the "rim-like structure," and a "permanent bond" that achieves the functional requirement of eliminating open volume for sanitation.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether the accused product's manufacturing process and construction fall within the patent's claims. For instance, is the frame of the accused product "fabricated from a single piece of material," or is it assembled from multiple components in a way that might fall outside the claim's scope?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "fabricated from a single piece of material" (Claim 1(a)(i))
  • Context and Importance: This limitation applies to the tray's frame and is a core element of the patent's description. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product’s frame is constructed from multiple pieces that are welded, stamped, or otherwise joined, it may not meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer evidence for a broader reading. The patent itself appears to use the term consistently.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes this feature, stating the frame is "fabricated (e.g., stamped) from a single piece of aluminum or other suitable metal" (’766 Patent, col. 3:19-22) and describing an embodiment where the entire tray, including subunits, is "manufactured from a single piece of... deep drawn metal" (’766 Patent, col. 4:12-16).
• The Term: "closed" (referring to "end portions of each concave baking surface," Claim 1(b)(iii))
  • Context and Importance: The "closed" ends are critical to the patent's stated goal of controlling product length and improving sanitation over prior art designs (’766 Patent, col. 1:18-24). The case may hinge on whether the accused product's end portions are "closed" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the method of closure, which could support an argument that any structure that blocks the end of the baking form meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification distinguishes the invention from prior art that used an "added... flat bar" to close the ends (’766 Patent, col. 1:20-21). It describes the invention's end portions as being "solid metal and closed," implying an integral, one-piece construction rather than a composite assembly (’766 Patent, col. 3:41-42).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’766 Patent "since at least as early as March 26, 2025," the date Plaintiffs allegedly sent a notice letter (Compl. ¶27). Based on this alleged notice, the complaint asserts that Defendant's subsequent infringement has been "knowing, intentional, and willful" (Compl. ¶29).

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

1. Evidentiary Proof of Structure: Given the complaint’s lack of technical detail about the accused product, a primary issue will be evidentiary. Can Plaintiffs demonstrate through discovery that the accused "black metallic bread forms" meet every structural limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the "single piece" fabrication of the frame and the specific "permanent bond" that eliminates open volume for sanitary purposes?
2. Claim Construction of Manufacturing Method: The case will likely involve a dispute over the definitional scope of key manufacturing terms. Specifically, the construction of "fabricated from a single piece of material" will be critical in determining whether the accused product’s assembly process falls within the bounds of the patent's claims.
3. Market-Based Infringement: A key factual question will be the role of the market context in the infringement narrative. The allegation that Subway created a two-supplier market consisting of only the patented and accused products (Compl. ¶21) raises the question of whether this context strengthens the argument for direct substitution and, if infringement is found, how it will influence damages and willfulness analyses.