DCT

3:22-cv-00165

TOMY Intl Inc v. Mayborn Group Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00165, D. Conn., 01/28/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper for Mayborn USA because its principal place of business is in the District of Connecticut and it has allegedly committed acts of infringement there. Venue is alleged as proper for Mayborn Group, Ltd. on the basis that it is a foreign company subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Parent's Choice Stack and Go" line of infant drinking cups infringes four patents related to reusable, stackable, and spill-resistant cup technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical design of lids and cups for infant "sippy cups," focusing on creating a secure, spill-resistant seal between the lid and the cup body.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendants a cease-and-desist letter on September 25, 2020, putting them on notice of the asserted patents. Subsequent settlement discussions were unsuccessful. Three of the four asserted patents expired in late 2021, but Plaintiff seeks damages for infringement that allegedly occurred during their patent term.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-10-05 Earliest Priority Date for ’784, ’826, ’112, and ’388 Patents
2007-03-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,185,784 Issues
2012-10-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,286,826 Issues
2013-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,540,112 Issues
2014-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,807,388 Issues
2020-01-10 Plaintiff allegedly becomes aware of infringing products
2020-01-XX Defendants allegedly begin selling Accused Products
2020-09-25 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendants
2021-10-05 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,540,112 and 8,807,388 Expire
2021-11-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,185,784 Expires
2022-01-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,185,784 - "Drinking Containers"

Issued March 6, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes a common design trade-off in children’s sippy cups between achieving a sufficient flow rate for drinking and preventing leakage when the cup is not in use or is tipped over (U.S. Patent No. 7,185,784, col. 1:35-38). Additionally, it notes that existing valve-based solutions can be difficult to clean properly (U.S. Patent No. 7,185,784, col. 1:38-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an improved mechanical seal between the lid and the cup body to address leakage. The solution involves specific interlocking geometry where a groove on the lid is sized to "receive and snap over the rim of the main body" (U.S. Patent No. 7,185,784, col. 1:53-56). This is achieved through a "first lip" projecting outward from the lid's groove and a "second lip" projecting inward from the cup's rim, which create a "nominal radial interference" when engaged to form a secure seal (’784 Patent, col. 2:1-4; Fig. 4-5).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a mechanical sealing method intended to be secure and reliable for mass-produced, low-cost disposable or reusable cups, without relying on complex or hard-to-clean valve systems (Compl. ¶ 66).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 102).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A main body with a rim having a domed upper surface and inner/outer walls defining a recess.
    • A removable lid with a groove sized to receive and snap over the rim to form a seal.
    • An extended drinking spout.
    • Wherein the groove and rim have interlocking features on an inboard side.
    • The interlocking features include a first lip projecting radially outward from the lid into the groove.
    • The interlocking features also include a second lip projecting radially inward from the outer surface of the rim to produce a nominal radial interference with the first lip.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,286,826 - "Drinking Containers"

Issued October 16, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’784 Patent, the background section discusses the need for spill-resistant drinking containers for children and the design challenges associated with traditional sippy cups, including leakage and cleaning (U.S. Patent No. 8,286,826, col. 1:24-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’826 Patent also describes a mechanical seal between the lid and cup body. The claims define the geometry slightly differently, describing a rim on the main body that includes "a first lip projecting toward the interior cavity from the outer surface" and a lid with a groove that includes "a second lip projecting from the inner surface of the groove" which is configured to "form a seal with the first lip" (’826 Patent, col. 12:47-65). This architecture, depicted in Figures 4 and 5, creates the interlocking seal.
  • Technical Importance: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’784 Patent, this patent protects alternative or refined aspects of the same core technology, aiming to secure a robust patent position around the snap-fit sealing mechanism for low-cost cups (Compl. ¶ 77-79).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 (Compl. ¶ 109).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A main body with a rim that includes an outer surface, an inner surface defining a recess, and a first lip projecting toward the interior cavity from the outer surface.
    • A removable lid configured to enclose the cavity.
    • The lid includes a groove formed to receive the rim, the groove having an inner surface and an outer surface.
    • The lid also includes a second lip projecting from the inner surface of the groove, where the second lip is configured to form a seal with the first lip.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,540,112 - "Drinking Containers"

Issued September 24, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family as the ’784 and ’826 Patents, is also directed to the sealing mechanism between a cup body and a lid (Compl. ¶¶ 84-87). The claims focus on the geometric relationship between the interlocking lips on the cup rim and lid groove, specifying that an upper portion of the rim's outer surface is curved and the "uppermost portion of the first lip is positioned below the uppermost point of the curved upper portion of the outer surface of the rim" when the cup is upright (’112 Patent, col. 12:51-57).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 19, and 48 (Compl. ¶ 117).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Parent's Choice Stack and Go" cups, particularly the spout variant, incorporate the patented sealing technology (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 117).

U.S. Patent No. 8,807,388 - "Drinking Containers"

Issued August 19, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also in the same family and directed to the same core technology of a mechanical seal for a sippy cup (Compl. ¶¶ 92-96). The claims further refine the specific geometry of the lid and rim, describing a "first diameter" extending across the cup between the innermost points of the rim's lip and a "second diameter" extending across the lid between the outermost points of the lid's lip, where the first diameter is less than the second to create an "interference fit" (’388 Patent, col. 13:5-24).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 13, and 19 (Compl. ¶¶ 124, 125).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both the spout and straw variants of the "Parent's Choice Stack and Go" cups infringe by incorporating the claimed sealing mechanism (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 124, 125).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "Parent’s Choice Stack and Go" cups, which are sold in a "spout cup variant" and a "straw cup variant" (Compl. ¶ 17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as reusable children's cups that include a main cup body, a removable lid with a groove, and a spout or straw for drinking (Compl. ¶ 55). Image 1 in the complaint depicts the accused spout cup variant, showing a translucent cup body, a colored lid, and an integrated drinking spout (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges these products are sold exclusively at Walmart but may be sold under other names through different retailers (Compl. ¶ 6). The products are positioned as a "competing line of infant drinking cups" to Plaintiff's "Take and Toss" products (Compl. ¶ 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that were not provided. The infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

  • Infringement Theory Summary: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products meet the limitations of the asserted claims across all four patents (Compl. ¶ 56). The core of the infringement allegation is based on the physical structure of the seal between the cup and lid. The complaint asserts that the Accused Products possess a main body with a domed rim defining a recess, and a removable lid with a groove designed to "receive and snap over the rim of the main body and form a seal" (Compl. ¶ 55). This description mirrors the fundamental "interlocking features" claimed in the asserted patents. The complaint alleges that both the spout and straw variants of the Accused Products infringe the ’388 Patent, while specifying only the spout variant for the ’784, ’826, and ’112 Patents (Compl. ¶¶ 102, 109, 117, 124-125).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the specific geometric configurations claimed in the patents—such as a "domed upper surface" on the rim, a "first lip" and "second lip" creating "nominal radial interference," and specific curved contours—can be read onto the structures of the Accused Products.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on precise measurements and engineering assessments of the Accused Products. A question for the court could be: Does the interaction between the lid and rim of the "Parent's Choice Stack and Go" cup create the specific "interference fit" or "nominal radial interference" required by the claims, or does it achieve a seal through a different, non-infringing mechanical interaction?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "interlocking features"

(’784 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it defines the novel sealing mechanism. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the seal on the Accused Products is found to have these specific "interlocking features" as defined by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself introduces the term broadly as "interlocking features on an inboard side" before defining them further (’784 Patent, col. 8:31-32). Plaintiff may argue this suggests a general concept of interlocking parts.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim immediately defines these features as comprising "a first lip projecting radially outward" and "a second lip projecting radially inward" to "produce a nominal radial interference" (’784 Patent, col. 8:33-40). The specification further describes these lips in a "particularly preferred embodiment" with specific dimensions (e.g., protruding "about 0.008 inch") (’784 Patent, col. 2:5-13). A defendant may argue this detailed description limits the term to a very specific geometric arrangement.

The Term: "a recess between inner and outer walls of the rim"

(’784 Patent, Claim 1 and similar language in the other patents)

  • Context and Importance: This structural limitation defines the shape of the cup's rim that engages with the lid's groove. The existence and specific configuration of this "recess" on the Accused Products will be a key factual element for determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its presence is a prerequisite for the claimed interlocking seal geometry.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition beyond its plain meaning, which could support a construction covering any channel or indentation between two walls on the rim.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 of the patents provides a specific illustration of the recess (154), showing a distinct U-shaped channel formed by the inner wall (150) and outer wall (152) of the rim (38) (’784 Patent, col. 4:58-61). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to a structure that closely mirrors this depiction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement by non-parties, "including end-users," despite having knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 101, 108, 116, 123). The complaint does not specify the particular acts of inducement beyond making the products available for sale.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful, deliberate, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶¶ 103, 110, 118, 126). This allegation is based on Defendants' alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving a cease-and-desist letter on September 25, 2020, which provided notice of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶ 13).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and structural correspondence: can the specific, multi-part geometric requirements for the interlocking seal—including the "first lip," "second lip," "recess," and "nominal radial interference"—be mapped onto the physical design of the accused "Parent's Choice Stack and Go" cups, or does the accused seal operate via a structurally distinct mechanism?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what factual evidence, likely from expert analysis and physical inspection, will be presented to establish whether the precise shapes, dimensions, and mechanical interactions of the accused cup's lid and rim meet the limitations detailed in the asserted claims?
  • For the patents that expired pre-suit, a central question for damages will be timing and apportionment: what evidence will establish the scope of infringing sales that occurred during the enforceable terms of the ’784, ’112, and ’388 Patents, prior to their respective expiration dates in late 2021?