DCT

3:20-cv-01526

SUNDESA LLC v. IMSINC LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SUNDESA, LLC d/b/a THE BLENDERBOTTLE COMPANY (Utah)
- Defendant: IMSINC, LLC d/b/a LIVESORE APPEL (Wyoming)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
Case Identification: 3:20-cv-01526, S.D. Cal., 08/06/2020
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and committing acts of infringement, such as selling products to consumers, within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shaker bottles infringe one utility patent and three design patents related to the design and function of container lids with integrated handles and flip-tops.
Technical Context: The technology relates to lids for portable beverage containers, commonly known as shaker bottles, which are widely used in the fitness and nutrition markets for mixing powdered supplements.
Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant cease and desist letters on December 18, 2019, and February 5, 2020, identifying alleged infringement prior to filing the lawsuit. This history is presented to support the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-09-07	Priority Date for U.S. Patent D696,551
2012-09-11	Priority Date for U.S. Patent 8,695,830
2013-06-06	Priority Date for U.S. Patent D748,478
2013-12-31	U.S. Patent D696,551 Issued
2014-04-15	U.S. Patent 8,695,830 Issued
2015-04-29	Priority Date for U.S. Patent D820,038
2016-02-02	U.S. Patent D748,478 Issued
2018-06-12	U.S. Patent D820,038 Issued
2019-12-18	Plaintiff sends first cease and desist letter
2020-02-05	Plaintiff sends second cease and desist letter
2020-08-06	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 - “CONTAINER LID HAVING INDEPENDENTLY PIVOTING FLIP TOP AND HANDLE”

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830, “CONTAINER LID HAVING INDEPENDENTLY PIVOTING FLIP TOP AND HANDLE,” issued April 15, 2014 (Compl. ¶8; ’830 Patent, Cover).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of designing a container lid with an integrated handle, noting a "trade-off between positioning the handle in a convenient and efficient location, and minimizing the risk that the flip top will be opened unintentionally due to forces on the handle" (’830 Patent, col. 1:12-19).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a container lid where the carrying handle and the flip-top cap pivot independently of one another, but share a common axis of rotation (’830 Patent, col. 1:21-24). The handle is structurally captured between the flip top’s pivot mechanism and the mounting posts on the lid base, a configuration designed to prevent the handle from being accidentally detached while allowing both components to move freely and independently (’830 Patent, col. 3:60-65; Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: This design architecture provides a robust carrying loop that does not interfere with the sealing function of the flip top or create leverage that could inadvertently open it during transport or use (’830 Patent, col. 1:12-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A lid base with a dispensing opening and a mount with two posts.
- A handle with a handle pivot at each of its two ends.
- A flip top with an elongated body and a flip top pivot.
- A specific structural arrangement wherein the flip top pivot is positioned between the two ends of the handle.
- Each handle pivot connects to a receiving portion on one of the mount posts.
- Each end of the handle is "sandwiched" between the flip top pivot and a mount post.
- Protrusions on the flip top pivot extend into openings in the handle.
- The handle and flip top are each "independently pivotable" relative to the lid and "independently movable about a common axis."

U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478 - “CLOSURE FOR A CONTAINER”

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478, “CLOSURE FOR A CONTAINER,” issued February 2, 2016 (Compl. ¶9; D’478 Patent, Cover).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Not applicable. Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not function.
The Patented Solution: The D’478 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "closure for a container" as depicted in its figures (D’478 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of the visual characteristics and overall appearance of the closure, including the particular shape of its base, the contours of the flip-top element, and the specific form of the integrated carrying loop, as shown in solid lines in views such as Figure 1 (D’478 Patent, Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: Not applicable. The value of a design patent lies in its distinctive aesthetic, which can serve as a source identifier for consumers.

Key Claims at a Glance

Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described. The complaint asserts this claim against the accused products (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Design Patent No. D696,551 - “BOTTLE LID HAVING INTEGRATED HANDLE”

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D696,551, “BOTTLE LID HAVING INTEGRATED HANDLE,” issued December 31, 2013 (Compl. ¶10).
Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a bottle lid with an integrated handle. The claimed design is defined by the specific visual appearance of the lid, including the particular shapes and interrelation of the base, the flip-top closure, and the carrying handle, as illustrated in the patent's figures (D’551 Patent, Figs. 1-6).
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶31).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of the lids on the "LiveSore Shaker Bottles" is substantially similar to the claimed design (Compl. ¶31, p.9).

U.S. Design Patent No. D820,038 - “LID FOR A CONTAINER”

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D820,038, “LID FOR A CONTAINER,” issued June 12, 2018 (Compl. ¶11).
Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a container lid, which is depicted in both open and closed configurations. The claimed design is characterized by the particular visual appearance created by the shapes and arrangement of the lid base, spout, flip-top, and integrated handle (D’038 Patent, Figs. 1-15).
Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶31).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the lids on the "LiveSore Shaker Bottles" is substantially similar to the claimed design (Compl. ¶31, p.9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as the "LiveSore Shaker Bottles" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products as shaker bottles used for mixing and consuming supplements (Compl. ¶6). The relevant features are concentrated in the bottle lid, which incorporates a flip-top closure and an integrated carrying handle (Compl. ¶30, Ex. 7). The complaint provides images of four differently branded but structurally similar shaker bottles, suggesting the accused lid design is used across a product line. The image grid on page 7 of the complaint shows four different branded versions of the accused shaker bottles (Compl. p.7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’830 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a lid base having an opening for dispensing contents of the container;	The accused product includes a lid base with an opening for dispensing contents (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 82).	¶30	col. 2:61-63
a mount comprising a first post and a second post;	The accused lid base has a mount with two posts (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 82).	¶30	col. 3:19-22
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 handle with a pivot at each end (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 83).	¶30	col. 3:10-12
a flip top for sealing the opening, the flip top comprising an elongated body with a first end for opening the flip top and a second end including a flip top pivot;	The accused product includes a flip top with a pivoting end for sealing the opening (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 83).	¶30	col. 3:5-7
the first handle pivot is connected to a first receiving portion of the first post..., the first handle pivot comprising a first protrusion that extends into the first receiving portion of the first post of the mount;	The accused handle pivot allegedly connects to the mount post via a protrusion extending into a receiving portion (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 84).	¶30	col. 3:23-26
the first end of the handle is sandwiched between a first end of the flip top pivot and the first post of the mount and the second end of the handle is sandwiched between a second end of the flip top pivot and the second post...;	The handle ends are allegedly positioned between the flip top pivot and the mount posts (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 85).	¶30	col. 3:63-65
a first protrusion on the first end of the flip top pivot extends into a first opening in the first end of the handle and a second protrusion on the second end of the flip top pivot extends into a second opening...;	Protrusions on the accused flip top pivot allegedly extend into openings in the accused handle (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 85).	¶30	col. 3:27-29
the handle and the flip top are each independently pivotable relative to the lid, and independently movable about a common axis.	The handle and flip top are shown to be capable of independent movement (Compl. Ex. 7, p. 86).	¶30	col. 3:30-35

Design Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "LiveSore Shaker Bottles" infringe the D’478, D’551, and D’038 design patents (Compl. ¶31). The legal theory is that, to an ordinary observer familiar with prior art container lids, the overall ornamental appearance of the accused lids is "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the patents, such that the observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶31). To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison table showing photographs of the accused lids next to figures from each of the asserted design patents (Compl. p.9).

Identified Points of Contention

’830 Patent (Utility): The dispute may center on whether the accused lids meet the precise structural limitations of claim 1. Key questions could include: (1) Does the accused handle's connection to the mount constitute a "protrusion that extends into" a receiving portion, or does it use a different mechanism? (2) Is the accused handle truly "sandwiched" between the flip-top pivot and the mount posts in the specific structural sense required by the claim? The defense may argue for a narrow construction of these terms to distinguish the accused product's architecture.
Design Patents: The primary point of contention will be the "ordinary observer" test. The analysis will question whether an ordinary observer, when considering the prior art, would find the overall visual impression of the accused lids to be confusingly similar to the patented designs. The defense may introduce other container lid designs as prior art to argue that any similarities are common in the field and that the protectable scope of Plaintiff's designs is narrow.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "sandwiched between" (from ’830 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the spatial and mechanical relationship that allegedly secures the handle to the lid while allowing independent movement. Practitioners may focus on this term because whether the accused device's components are arranged in a "sandwiched" configuration will be a central fact question for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "handle 102 is secured between flip top pivot 101a and posts 104a" (’830 Patent, col. 3:63-65). A party could argue this language supports a broader meaning of being generally located and held "between" the two components, not necessarily requiring constant, tight physical contact.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly the assembled views in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, depict a compact arrangement where the components are in close proximity. A party could argue these embodiments suggest "sandwiched" implies a tight, constrained fit that is necessary to prevent the handle from being "squeezed together" and removed (’830 Patent, col. 3:56-62).

The Term: "independently pivotable" (from ’830 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This functional limitation goes to the core purpose of the invention: solving the problem of a handle interfering with a flip top. The degree of "independence" required will likely be disputed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the handle and flip top can "each independently pivot," and that the "handle 102 can be freely pivoted... [while the] flip top 101 can be pivoted... without pivoting handle 102" (’830 Patent, col. 3:14-16, 3:30-35). This could support an interpretation where independence simply means one part can be moved without necessarily moving the other under normal conditions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's stated purpose is to "minimiz[e] the risk that the flip top will be opened unintentionally due to forces on the handle" (’830 Patent, col. 1:15-19). A party could argue that "independently" must be construed in light of this objective, requiring a complete lack of mechanical influence that could transmit opening forces from the handle to the flip top.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant "knowingly" and "intentionally" infringes, but it does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement or provide specific factual allegations of inducing others or contributing to the infringement of others (Compl. ¶29, ¶31). The allegations are focused on Defendant's own acts of making, using, and selling.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s alleged continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶26, ¶29, ¶31). This allegation is supported by reference to two cease-and-desist letters sent to Defendant on December 18, 2019 and February 5, 2020, which allegedly identified the infringing activity and the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶20-22, ¶32).

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

A core issue for the utility patent will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused lid's mechanism meet the specific, multi-part structural and spatial relationships recited in Claim 1 of the ’830 Patent, particularly the "sandwiched" arrangement of the handle, or is there a material difference in its assembly and operation?
A key question for the design patents will be the scope of the claimed ornamental designs in view of the prior art: will an ordinary observer find the overall visual appearance of the accused lids to be substantially the same as the patented designs, or will the defense be able to distinguish them by pointing to functional elements or features common to other lids in the market?
A central question for damages will be willfulness: given that the complaint alleges Defendant continued to sell the accused products after receiving two separate pre-suit notice letters, the court will need to determine if this conduct was sufficiently egregious to be considered willful, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages.