DCT
5:20-cv-01054
CLEARLY Clean Products LLC v. Eco Fo
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Clearly Clean Products, LLC (Connecticut) and Converter Manufacturing, LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: Eco Food Pak (USA.), Inc. (California) and Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Law Associates, APC; Norris McLaughlin P.A.
- Case Identification: 5:20-cv-01054, C.D. Cal., 05/18/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant Eco Food Pak (USA.), Inc. because it resides in the Central District of California and has committed alleged acts of infringement there. Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. on the basis that it is a foreign entity and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ rolled-edge thermoplastic food trays infringe two patents directed to methods of manufacturing such trays with smooth, safe peripheries.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of sharp edges on thermoformed plastic containers, which can puncture protective film wraps or cause injury, by creating a rolled-over, smooth flange.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patents. The U.S. Patent No. 10,562,680 is a continuation-in-part of the application which led to U.S. Patent No. 9,908,281, indicating the patents belong to the same family and share a common specification.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-08-31 | Earliest Priority Date for ’281 and ’680 Patents |
| 2018-03-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,908,281 Issued |
| 2020-02-18 | U.S. Patent No. 10,562,680 Issued |
| 2020-05-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,562,680 - "Formed Thermoplastic Article Having a Smoothly-Curved Distal Periphery," issued February 18, 2020 (’680 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes that shaped articles made from thermoplastic materials, such as food trays, are often finished by trimming, which "leaves a sharp edge that can injure flesh or tear or cut materials which come into contact with the edge" (’680 Patent, col. 1:26-30). This is particularly problematic for sealing technologies that use thin, fragile plastic films (’680 Patent, col. 1:52-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a thermoplastic article with a specially designed "deflectable flange" at its periphery. This flange has a complex geometry—including a bend region, a spacer, an elbow, and a peripheral flange—that allows the sharp, cut edge of the plastic sheet to be rolled over and tucked away from the article's exterior. The process involves deflecting the flange and applying heat to soften the material, causing it to retain the smooth, rolled shape upon cooling, thereby sequestering the sharp edge. (’680 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This design allows for the creation of food trays with smooth, safe edges, making them suitable for multiple sealing technologies (e.g., overwrap, vacuum-sealed, modified atmosphere) that were previously incompatible with sharp-edged thermoformed plastics (’680 Patent, col. 3:51-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An article having a smooth, non-circular periphery, comprising a shaped thermoplastic substrate sheet.
- A body including a bottom surrounded by sidewalls.
- A deflectable flange joined to the sidewalls, the flange itself including:
- a peripheral edge of the substrate sheet.
- a smoothly-curved bend region where a proximal portion is offset from a distal portion by an angle A of from 85 to 135 degrees.
- a substantially planar extension between the junction and the bend region.
- a peripheral flange bearing the peripheral edge, connected to the rest of the flange by an elbow.
- a curved bent portion between the elbow and the bend region, which positions the peripheral edge away from the periphery.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶17).
U.S. Patent No. 9,908,281 - "Formed Thermoplastic Article Having Smooth Edges," issued March 6, 2018 (’281 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’680 Patent, this patent addresses the problem of sharp edges on thermoformed articles which can damage sealing films or cause injury (’281 Patent, col. 1:25-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an article formed from a thermoformable sheet that includes a body (e.g., a tray) and an "extension extending peripherally away from the body." This extension incorporates the sheet's peripheral edge and a "bent portion" located between that edge and the body. This bent portion is "sufficiently bent" so that the potentially sharp peripheral edge is displaced away from the main periphery of the article, resulting in an overall smooth periphery. (’281 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15).
- Technical Importance: The invention enables the production of thermoformed plastic trays suitable for sealing technologies that require smooth, non-abrasive edges for contact with fragile films (’281 Patent, col. 3:39-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Claim 9, which depends on independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶34-35).
- Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- An article formed from a thermoformable sheet with a peripheral edge and sufficient rigidity.
- A body shaped as a rounded rectangular tray with a concave compartment.
- An extension extending peripherally from the body.
- The extension includes the peripheral edge and a bent portion between the edge and the junction with the body.
- The bent portion has a smooth periphery and is sufficiently bent to displace the peripheral edge from the article's periphery.
- The complaint asserts Claim 9, which further specifies that the extension includes a bend region, a peripheral flange, and an elbow (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "rolled-edge rigid plastic food trays" marketed by Defendants as "turned edge trays" (Compl. ¶¶4, 5). The complaint identifies a specific "Model E090733TE Accused Product" as an exemplary infringing article (Compl. ¶19). These products are also allegedly sold under the "Master Cut" brand and used in supermarkets like Save Mart (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are identified as shaped thermoplastic trays made of polyethylene terephthalate (Compl. ¶¶19, 27). They are described as having a rectangular shape with rounded corners, a body with a bottom and sidewalls, and a "deflectable flange" extending around the periphery (Compl. ¶¶19, 22). The complaint provides an annotated photograph showing the top view of the accused tray, identifying its body, bottom, and deflectable flange (Compl. p. 6). Functionally, they are used as food packaging trays (Compl. ¶17). Plaintiffs allege these trays compete with their own "Roll Over-Wrap™" brand-named trays (Compl. ¶3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’680 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An article having a smooth, non-circular periphery, the article comprising a shaped thermoplastic substrate sheet... | The accused product is identified as a non-circular, rectangular tray made from polyethylene terephthalate, a thermoplastic. | ¶¶19, 22, 27 | col. 12:51-54 |
| a body including a bottom surrounded by sidewalls... | The accused product is alleged to have a body with a bottom surrounded by sidewalls, as shown in annotated photographs. | ¶19 | col. 13:59-62 |
| and a deflectable flange joined at a junction to the sidewalls at at least a portion of the periphery... | The accused product allegedly possesses a deflectable flange that extends completely around the body. | ¶¶19, 22 | col. 13:62-67 |
| the deflectable flange including a peripheral edge of the substrate sheet at a position distal from the junction; | A cross-sectional photograph purports to show the accused product's flange includes a peripheral edge distal from its junction with the sidewall. | ¶20 | col. 22:49-54 |
| a smoothly-curved bend region interposed between the junction and the peripheral edge wherein a proximal portion of the bend region is offset from a distal portion thereof by an angle A of from 85 to 135 degrees; | The complaint alleges the accused product has a bend region and provides a photograph with overlaid lines to show the offset angle "A" is about 105 degrees, which is within the claimed range. | ¶¶20-21 | col. 20:1-10 |
| a substantially planar extension interposed between the junction and the proximal portion of the bend region, the plane of the extension being substantially parallel to the bottom... | An annotated cross-sectional photograph identifies an "Extension" region on the accused product's flange that is alleged to be planar and parallel to the bottom. | ¶20 | col. 21:3-7 |
| a peripheral flange bearing the peripheral edge and being connected to the rest of the deflectable flange by way of an elbow; and a curved bent portion... | The complaint provides annotated photographs identifying a "Peripheral Flange," "Elbow," and "Bent Portion" in the accused product's flange structure. | ¶¶20-21 | col. 21:7-14 |
’281 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An article formed from a thermoformable sheet having a peripheral edge and having sufficient rigidity... | The accused product is alleged to be formed from a sheet of polyethylene terephthalate, a thermoformable material. | ¶¶36, 10-11 | col. 2:5-7 |
| the article comprising a body having the shape of a rounded rectangular tray with a concave compartment formed therein... | The accused product is alleged to be a rounded rectangular tray with a concave compartment. | ¶36 | col. 2:7-9 |
| and having an extension extending peripherally away from the body... | A cross-sectional photograph of the accused product's edge is provided to show an extension extending peripherally from the tray body. | ¶37 | col. 2:9-10 |
| the extension including the peripheral edge of the thermoformable sheet and a bent portion interposed between the peripheral edge and the junction between the body and the extension... | The complaint alleges, with photographic support, that the accused product's extension includes a peripheral edge and an interposed bent portion. | ¶37 | col. 2:10-13 |
| the bent portion having a smooth periphery and being sufficiently bent that the peripheral edge of the thermoformable sheet is displaced from the periphery of the article... | The complaint alleges the accused product's bent portion displaces the peripheral edge, creating a smooth periphery. | ¶37 | col. 2:13-15 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’680 Patent may depend on whether the accused product's geometry meets the patent's specific dimensional and relational requirements. Questions may arise such as: Does the accused product's "Extension" region qualify as "substantially planar" and "substantially parallel to the bottom," or does its structure exhibit a degree of curvature or angle that falls outside a reasonable interpretation of those terms?
- Technical Questions: For the ’281 Patent, which uses broader language like "bent portion," the dispute may focus on the definition of that structure. A question for the court could be: Does the term "bent portion," as used in Claim 1, read on the multi-component structure of the accused product (which the complaint separately labels with terms like "bend region," "elbow," and "flange"), or does the patent's own language and prosecution history limit "bent portion" to a more unitary structure?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "smoothly-curved bend region" (’680 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the primary flexing point of the patented flange structure. Its construction is critical because infringement will depend on whether the transition between the horizontal and vertical elements of the accused product's flange has the specific characteristics required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a qualitative term ("smoothly-curved") combined with a quantitative limitation (the angular offset).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to create a smooth periphery by "rolling over the sharp edge" (’680 Patent, Abstract). This could support a construction where any non-sharp, functionally effective bend resulting from the described process meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the "bend region" (150) as a distinct, arc-like section with a defined radius of curvature (’680 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 22:1-5). This suggests the term may require a specific, discernible arc rather than just any non-angular transition.
The Term: "bent portion" (’281 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is the key structural element in Claim 1 responsible for displacing the sharp edge and creating the smooth periphery. Whether the accused product infringes will depend heavily on whether its flange assembly constitutes a "bent portion."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the "bent portion" functionally as being "sufficiently bent that the peripheral edge... is displaced from the periphery of the article" (’281 Patent, col. 2:13-15). This may support a broad construction that covers any structure achieving the claimed function of edge displacement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Asserted dependent Claim 9, which adds further structure, recites that the "extension includes a bend region... and a peripheral flange... connected to the bend region by an elbow" (’281 Patent, col. 2:16-21). A defendant may argue that these more specific elements are not part of the "bent portion" itself, suggesting the term in the independent claim should be construed more narrowly to not encompass such a complex, multi-part structure.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement of both patents. The allegations are based on Defendants manufacturing, marketing, and selling the accused trays to distributors for resale, knowing that the public's use of the trays constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶¶24, 40). Specific alleged acts include promoting the trays on interactive websites and providing product literature and technical support (Compl. ¶¶25, 41).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement of both patents, asserting that Defendants have had "actual and constructive knowledge" of the patents and continued their infringing activities "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶23, 26, 39, 42). This suggests a primary basis in post-suit conduct, although pre-suit willful blindness is also alleged (Compl. ¶¶24, 40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: do the precise geometric and relational limitations of the ’680 patent's claims—such as a "substantially planar extension" and a specific angular offset—read directly onto the physical form of the accused "turned edge trays," or will the dispute turn on the interpretation and evidentiary support for these dimensional terms?
- A key question of claim scope will be whether the broader term "bent portion" in the earlier ’281 patent can be construed to cover the accused product's multi-part flange, particularly in light of the more detailed structures described in that patent's own dependent claims and in its continuation-in-part, the ’680 patent.