DCT

1:24-cv-01194

Lovepop Inc v. Poplife LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01194, D. Colo., 04/30/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant resides there, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and the alleged acts of infringement occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pop-up greeting cards infringe three utility patents and one design patent related to the construction and ornamental design of three-dimensional pop-up cards.
  • Technical Context: The technology lies in the field of paper engineering, specifically concerning "slice-form" construction methods for creating intricate, self-erecting three-dimensional structures within greeting cards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on May 12, 2021, Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant identifying the asserted intellectual property. Following further correspondence in which Defendant ultimately refused to cease its allegedly infringing activities, Plaintiff filed this suit. This history forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-12-16 Priority Date for '658, '033, and '021 Patents
2016-01-27 Defendant's alleged first use of "POPLIFE Mark"
2016-10-11 Priority Date for D'448 Patent
2016-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,524,658 Issued
2017-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,601,033 Issued
2019-11-19 U.S. Design Patent No. D867,448 Issued
2021-05-12 Plaintiff sent cease and desist letter to Defendant
2023-07-18 U.S. Patent No. 11,705,021 Issued
2024-04-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,524,658 - "POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,524,658, "POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT," issued December 20, 2016. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional pop-up cards as often being expensive and complex to produce, requiring multiple paper pieces or strings to function, which in turn limits the placement and design of the pop-up elements. (’658 Patent, col. 1:41-2:15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a "slice-form" construction, where a three-dimensional object is formed from interlocking planar pieces. (’658 Patent, col. 3:55-58). The pop-up structure is secured to the card's inner panels via tabs on the slice-form elements, which allows the structure to self-erect upon opening and collapse flat upon closing, purportedly simplifying manufacturing and expanding design possibilities. (’658 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This method aimed to make intricate pop-up cards more cost-effective and versatile by reducing material complexity and enabling more freedom in the placement of the pop-up element. (’658 Patent, col. 2:16-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 65).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A card with first and second panels connected by a crease line.
    • A self-erecting pop-up display structure secured to the inner faces of the panels.
    • The structure includes a first and second "sliceform element," each with tabs at opposite ends securing it to the first and second panels, respectively.
    • The first and second sliceform elements are foldable and form a "parallelogram shape" when the card is open.
    • The structure includes at least one additional sliceform element connected to the first and second sliceform elements.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this count.

U.S. Patent No. 9,601,033 - "POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,601,033, "POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT," issued March 21, 2017. (Compl. ¶14).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent patent, the ’033 Patent addresses the manufacturing cost, complexity, and design constraints of traditional pop-up greeting cards. (’033 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention specifies a pop-up element made from a first plurality of slice-form elements arranged perpendicularly to a second plurality. (’033 Patent, Abstract). The entire structure is coupled to a single sheet of paper (the card) using "distal tabs" that are themselves folded to be perpendicular to their respective slice-form elements, enabling the structure to erect into a 3D configuration from a flat state. (’033 Patent, col. 4:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific and efficient mechanical structure for creating complex, self-erecting slice-form sculptures that can be integrated into a simple, single-sheet greeting card. (’033 Patent, col. 2:16-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 80).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A pop-up card made from a single sheet of paper with a single crease.
    • A pop-up "sliceform element" with a first plurality of slice-form elements perpendicular to a second plurality.
    • The first plurality has a first element with a perpendicular distal tab coupled to the left panel and a last element with a perpendicular distal tab coupled to the right panel.
    • The second plurality has a first element with a perpendicular distal tab coupled to the right panel and a last element with a perpendicular distal tab coupled to the left panel.
    • The element displays as a 3D configuration when open and folds flat when closed.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this count.

U.S. Patent No. 11,705,021 - "POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,705,021, "POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT," issued July 18, 2023. (Compl. ¶18).
  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same technical theme, this patent claims a pop-up card with a self-erecting display structure composed of a first and a second set of slice-form elements. The invention is characterized by its specific attachment mechanism, requiring four distinct tabs—a first and second tab from the first set of elements and a third and fourth tab from the second set—to secure the structure to the card's sections. (’021 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 96).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products like the "Corgi Puppy Pop Up Card" of infringing by allegedly incorporating a self-erecting slice-form structure secured to the card via four tabs corresponding to the claimed arrangement. (Compl. ¶97).

U.S. Design Patent No. D867,448 - "ROSE BOUQUET POP-UP CARD"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D867,448, "ROSE BOUQUET POP-UP CARD," issued November 19, 2019. (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design for a pop-up card that displays a bouquet of roses in a vase when opened, as shown in the patent's figures. (D’448 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-8).
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described. (Compl. ¶¶ 112-113).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Infringing Design," shown in a side-by-side comparison, is substantially similar in overall appearance to the patented design, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer. (Compl. ¶113).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant's line of three-dimensional pop-up greeting cards, collectively identified as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶49). The complaint provides an extensive, non-exhaustive list of specific product names and URLs. (Compl. ¶49, pp. 11-17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are greeting cards that, when opened, deploy a three-dimensional paper sculpture. The complaint alleges these sculptures are constructed using slice-form techniques that mirror the methods described in the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 81, 97). For example, a photograph of the accused "When Sh#% Hits The Fan" card shows a pop-up fan structure built from interlocking paper elements. (Compl. p. 24). The products are marketed and sold to consumers through Defendant's e-commerce website. (Compl. ¶61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'658 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a card comprising a first panel and a second panel connected to each other along a crease line, said card being foldable on the crease line The accused "When Sh#% Hits The Fan" card is a foldable card with two panels joined by a central crease. ¶66 col. 3:9-12
a self-erecting pop-up display structure secured to inner faces of the first and second panels such that the pop-up display structure is in a collapsed state when the card is in a folded position and in an erected state when the card is in an opened position The accused card contains a pop-up fan structure that is secured to the inner panels and erects when the card is opened. A photograph shows the base of the structure attached to the inner panels of the card. (Compl. p. 23). ¶66 col. 3:13-19
said pop-up display structure including a first sliceform element and a second sliceform element, each of the first and second sliceform elements having a tab at a first end thereof secured to the first panel and a tab at an opposite second end thereof secured to the second panel The pop-up structure allegedly includes at least two sliceform elements, each with tabs at its ends that are secured to the opposing panels of the card. ¶66 col. 3:20-27
wherein the first and second sliceform elements are each foldable along a crease line between first and second ends thereof such that the first and second sliceform elements form a parallelogram shape when the pop-up structure is in the erected state The complaint alleges that the base sliceform elements of the pop-up structure are foldable and form a parallelogram when the card is open. ¶66 col. 3:28-32
wherein said pop-up display structure further includes one or more additional sliceform elements connected to said first and second sliceform elements The pop-up fan structure allegedly includes additional sliceform elements that interlock with the base elements to create the three-dimensional fan shape. ¶66 col. 3:33-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the base of the accused pop-up structure, as shown in complaint images (Compl. p. 23, bottom right), meets the claim requirement of forming a "parallelogram shape." The visual evidence suggests a rectangular base, which is a type of parallelogram, but the precise geometry and its consistency across all accused products will be a matter for factual determination.
    • Technical Questions: A key question is whether the various components of the accused fan structure function as distinct "sliceform elements" connected in the manner required by the claim, or if they could be characterized as a single, unitary piece or a different type of construction.

'033 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An article comprising a pop-up card, the pop-up card comprising: a single sheet of paper including a single crease and separating the sheet of paper into a left panel and a right panel... The accused "Corgi Puppy Pop Up Card" is alleged to be made from a single sheet of paper that folds along a central crease into two panels. ¶81 col. 3:20-25
a pop-up sliceform element coupled to said sheet, wherein the sliceform includes a first plurality of sliceform elements perpendicular to a second plurality of slice-form elements when in the open position The Corgi pop-up is allegedly a sliceform element made of interlocking pieces. A photograph depicts the Corgi sculpture as being formed from one set of paper slices oriented perpendicularly to a second set of slices. (Compl. p. 35, top image). ¶81 col. 4:1-5
wherein the first plurality of sliceform elements comprises: a) a first sliceform element with a distal tab perpendicular to the first sliceform element... coupled to the left panel, and b) a last sliceform element with a distal tab perpendicular... coupled to the right panel The complaint alleges the longitudinal slices of the Corgi have perpendicular distal tabs at their ends, with one end's tab attached to the left panel and the other end's tab attached to the right. A detail photograph shows an alleged tab attachment point. (Compl. p. 36, top image). ¶81 col. 4:5-12
wherein the second plurality of sliceform elements comprises: a) a first sliceform element with a distal tab perpendicular... coupled to the right panel, and b) a last sliceform element with a distal tab perpendicular... coupled to the left panel The complaint alleges the latitudinal slices of the Corgi likewise have perpendicular distal tabs, with one attached to the right panel and the other to the left panel, creating a cross-braced attachment to the card base. ¶81 col. 4:13-20
wherein the open position the pop-up sliceform element is displayed as a three-dimensional configuration, and in the closed position said pop-up sliceform element folds together into a flat configuration The accused Corgi card displays a 3D sculpture when open and folds flat for mailing when closed. ¶81 col. 4:21-25
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may involve the term "distal tab perpendicular to the... sliceform element." The parties may contest whether the accused card's attachment points constitute "tabs" in the claimed sense and whether they are truly "perpendicular" to the sliceform elements, a geometric condition that could be subject to interpretation (e.g., strictly 90 degrees vs. functionally perpendicular).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts infringement across a wide array of products. A significant evidentiary challenge will be to demonstrate that the specific perpendicular slice-form and tab-based attachment mechanism of the Corgi card is present in all other accused products, such as the "Bluebird of Happiness" or "Tree House" cards.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "sliceform element" (’658 Patent, Claim 1; ’033 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted utility patents. The outcome of the case may depend heavily on whether the interlocking paper components of the Accused Products are construed as "sliceform elements." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition dictates the fundamental nature of the claimed invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a general definition of slice-forms as "geometric models constructed from interlocking sets of planar pieces." (’658 Patent, col. 3:55-58). A plaintiff could argue this language encompasses any structure built from interlocking flat components.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same section of the specification states, "The basic idea behind slice-form construction is the creation of two sets of slotted pieces that intersect at right angles." (’658 Patent, col. 4:1-4). A defendant could seize upon this language to argue the term is limited to structures whose primary components intersect perpendicularly.
  • The Term: "parallelogram shape" (’658 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the required geometry of the base sliceform elements when the card is open. Proving that the accused structures form this specific shape is essential for the patentee to establish infringement of this claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "parallelogram" has a well-understood geometric meaning (a quadrilateral with two pairs of parallel sides). The patentee may argue that as long as the base elements form any shape meeting this definition (including rectangles and squares), the limitation is met. The patent provides no special definition to narrow it.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the specific embodiments and figures imply a more constrained shape or that the accused products, in practice, do not maintain a precise parallelogram geometry when opened, potentially due to paper flex or design variations, thus avoiding infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the '658, '033, and '021 patents. It asserts inducement by alleging Defendant encourages its customers to use the cards in their intended (and allegedly infringing) manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 70, 86, 102). It asserts contributory infringement by alleging Defendant's products are especially made to infringe and have no substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 87, 103).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four asserted patents. The complaint bases this on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the specific patents-in-suit and the specific allegedly infringing products via correspondence that began on May 12, 2021. (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 69, 76, 85, 92, 101, 108, 116, 122).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "sliceform element," which the specification introduces with the "basic idea" of right-angle intersections, be construed broadly enough to read on the varied construction methods that may be present across the dozens of accused products?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: beyond the representative examples charted in the complaint, what evidence will be required to prove that each of the numerous and visually distinct accused cards meets every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the specific geometric requirements like the "parallelogram shape" of the ’658 Patent or the "perpendicular" tabs of the ’033 Patent?
  • For the design patent, the central question will be one of visual deception: will a court find that the overall ornamental appearance of Defendant's accused rose bouquet card is "substantially the same" as the D'448 patented design, such that it would confuse an ordinary observer and induce a sale based on this confusion?