DCT
2:25-cv-07455
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, and CMBB LLC (Ohio)
- Defendant: Twenty Four 7 Global Solutions Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP; Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-07455, C.D. Cal., 09/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant residing in the district, committing alleged acts of infringement in the district, and having a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s sale of industrial bread forms infringes a patent related to the design and construction of commercial baking trays.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns industrial-grade baking trays, specifically those designed for producing baguettes and similar bread products, where sanitation, durability, and precise control over the final product's shape are critical.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent a "Notice of Patent" to the Defendant on March 26, 2025, putting Defendant on notice of the patent-in-suit. Defendant allegedly responded on April 16, 2025, denying liability. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-06-06 | ’766 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-05-10 | ’766 Patent Issued |
| 2025-03-26 | Plaintiffs issue "Notice of Patent" to Defendant |
| 2025-04-16 | Defendant responds, denying liability |
| 2025-09-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,332,766 - "Industrial Baguette Tray"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes technical challenges with existing industrial baking trays. Designs with open ends fail to adequately control the length of the baked product, while designs with closed ends are often unsanitary and difficult to clean, failing to meet standards set by organizations like NSF International for bakery equipment sanitation (Compl. ¶1; ’766 Patent, col. 1:17-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a baking tray constructed from a main frame with apertures, into which individual baking "subunits" are permanently attached. Each subunit has a concave surface with solid, closed ends to control product length and a perforated middle section to help form a proper crust. The method of attachment, where a flattened rim on the subunit is secured into a channel on the frame, is designed to eliminate open volumes between the components, resulting in a "highly sanitary tray" that is easy to clean (’766 Patent, col. 3:25-29, col. 3:59-65; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to solve the trade-off between product control and sanitation by creating a closed-end baking mold that meets stringent commercial food equipment hygiene standards (’766 Patent, col. 1:43-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not explicitly identify which claims it asserts, but its infringement allegations track the elements of independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1: A baking tray comprising:
- A frame fabricated from a single piece of material, having upper and lower portions and defining a plurality of apertures.
- Each aperture is surrounded by a recessed channel in the upper portion and a rim-like structure in the lower portion.
- A plurality of individual baking subunits, each having a concave baking surface with a flattened rim, closed end portions, and a perforated middle portion.
- Each subunit is disposed within one of the frame's apertures.
- A plurality of permanent bonds formed between the individual baking subunits and the frame.
- Each bond is formed between the recessed channel in the frame's upper portion and the flattened rim of a baking subunit.
- The bond, in combination with the rim-like structure, reduces or eliminates open volume between the frame and the subunit.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "black metallic bread forms" sold by Defendant Twenty Four 7 Global Solutions Inc. for use by Subway franchisees (Compl. ¶¶9, 17, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products are baking trays used in the commercial production of bread (Compl. ¶29). They are allegedly sold on QuickSupply.com, a website for Subway franchisees, and imported from China (Compl. ¶¶17-18). The complaint further alleges that Subway has mandated a phase-out of non-metal bread forms, positioning the Accused Product as a direct competitor to Plaintiffs' own product, which was previously the only metal bread form available to franchisees (Compl. ¶¶19, 21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an "amended claim chart" as Exhibit C, which was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶28). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for claim 1 based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
’766 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame, (i) wherein the frame is fabricated from a single piece of material... (iii) wherein the frame defines a plurality of individual apertures formed therein | The Accused Products include a frame fabricated from a single piece of material, which defines a plurality of individual apertures (Compl. ¶¶30, 31, 33). | ¶¶30, 31, 33 | col. 4:36-41 |
| (v) wherein each of the individual apertures is surrounded by a recessed channel formed in the upper portion of the frame | Each aperture in the frame of the Accused Products is surrounded by a recessed channel in the frame’s upper portion (Compl. ¶35). | ¶35 | col. 4:46-49 |
| (vi) wherein each of the individual apertures is surrounded by a rim-like structure formed in the lower portion of the frame | Each aperture in the frame of the Accused Products is surrounded by a rim-like structure in the frame’s lower portion (Compl. ¶36). | ¶36 | col. 4:50-53 |
| a plurality of individual baking subunits... (i) wherein each baking subunit further includes a concave baking surface... (ii) wherein an upper portion of each concave baking surface is surrounded by a flattened rim | The Accused Products include a plurality of individual baking subunits, each with a concave baking surface. An upper portion of each surface is surrounded by a flattened rim (Compl. ¶¶38-40). | ¶¶38-40 | col. 4:55-58 |
| (iii) wherein end portions of each concave baking surface are closed, (iv) wherein a middle portion of each concave baking surface further includes a plurality of perforations formed therein | The end portions of the Accused Products' concave baking surfaces are closed, and the middle portions have a plurality of perforations (Compl. ¶¶41-42). | ¶¶41, 42 | col. 4:59-64 |
| a plurality of permanent bonds formed between the individual baking subunits and the frame | The Accused Products have a plurality of permanent bonds between the baking subunits and the frame (Compl. ¶44). The complaint further alleges these bonds include a lock seam (Compl. ¶48). | ¶¶44, 48 | col. 4:65-67 |
| wherein each permanent bond further includes... a permanent bond formed between each recessed channel... and the flattened rim of each individual baking subunit | Each permanent bond is formed between a recessed channel in the frame's upper portion and the flattened rim of an individual baking subunit (Compl. ¶45). | ¶45 | col. 5:1-4 |
| the permanent bond... in combination with the rim-like structure... reduces or eliminates any open volume between the frame and each individual baking subunit | The alleged permanent bond, combined with the rim-like structure, reduces or eliminates open volume between the frame and each baking subunit (Compl. ¶¶46-47). | ¶¶46, 47 | col. 5:5-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product's bond includes a "lock seam" (Compl. ¶48). While the asserted independent claim 1 requires a "permanent bond," dependent claim 2 specifically adds the "lock seam" limitation. A point of contention may arise over whether the "permanent bond" of claim 1 should be interpreted to require a lock seam, or if that limitation is confined to claim 2.
- Technical Questions: The core of the dispute will likely involve a physical comparison of the products. A key question will be whether the accused product's method of joining its subunits to its frame constitutes a "permanent bond" formed between a "recessed channel" and a "flattened rim" that "reduces or eliminates any open volume" in the specific manner claimed by the ’766 Patent. The defendant may argue its construction is technically different.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "permanent bond"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's claimed sanitary advantages. The definition will determine whether various methods of attachment (e.g., welding, crimping, adhesive bonding, lock-seaming) fall within the scope of claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that its method of attachment, even if permanent, is structurally distinct from the bond described and enabled in the patent specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses broad phrasing, stating the flattened lip portion is "lock-seamed, welded or otherwise permanently attached" to the frame (Compl. ¶2; ’766 Patent, col. 3:61-63). This suggests the patentee contemplated multiple forms of permanent attachment beyond a specific "lock seam."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 explicitly recites that the "permanent bond... further includes a lock seam" (’766 Patent, col. 5:12-15). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, this may suggest that the term "permanent bond" in independent claim 1 does not necessarily require a lock seam. However, a party could argue that the specification's primary disclosure focuses on the lock seam as the key to achieving the sanitary result, potentially limiting the scope of "permanent bond" to structures that function equivalently.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "indirectly" infringing activities, but the complaint's factual allegations focus on direct infringement by the defendant for making, using, selling, and importing the Accused Products (Compl. ¶28; Prayer for Relief ¶A). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement theories like inducement or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶56). The basis for this claim is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’766 Patent stemming from a "Notice of Patent" letter sent by Plaintiffs to Defendant on March 26, 2025, and Defendant's continued alleged infringement after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶¶22, 27, 56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s determination of two central issues:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court define "permanent bond"? Will the term be construed to cover a range of attachment methods, as suggested by the specification, or will its scope be limited by the specific structural interactions (e.g., a lock seam) emphasized as providing the invention's sanitary benefits?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual infringement: Does the physical construction of the accused baking tray—specifically the junction between its frame and baking molds—possess the combination of a "recessed channel," a "flattened rim," and a "rim-like structure" that are bonded together to eliminate open volume, as strictly required by the limitations of Claim 1?