DCT
1:18-cv-00232
Rubbermaid Commercial Products LLC v. Impact Products LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rubbermaid Commercial Products, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Impact Products, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00232, D. Del., 02/09/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Value Plus Containers" trash receptacles infringe a patent related to a venting system designed to reduce the suction effect when removing a trash bag liner.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses a common problem in large trash receptacles where a vacuum created under a trash bag liner makes removal difficult.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-02-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,712,623 Priority Date |
| 2010-05-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,712,623 Issued |
| 2018-02-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,712,623 - “RECEPTACLE WITH VENT”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,712,623, issued May 11, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how trash bag liners can conform to the inner walls of a receptacle, creating a seal; when the liner is lifted, this seal can create a "vacuum or suction effect" in the bottom of the container, making removal difficult and straining the user (’623 Patent, col. 1:26-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trash receptacle with built-in vents that allow air to flow from the upper part of the receptacle into the bottom area as the liner is removed, thereby preventing or releasing the vacuum (’623 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:38-44). These vents are specifically structured as vertical "outward protrusions" that form channels or airways along the receptacle's side wall, connecting the area below the liner to the area above it (’623 Patent, col. 3:3-9; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides an economical way to reduce the force required to remove liners from large receptacles without sacrificing the structural integrity of the container (’623 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’623 Patent, Compl. ¶21).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A receptacle with a "first chamber section" (lower part) and a "second chamber section" (upper part), where the upper section is wider than the lower section.
- A "vent" that provides fluid communication between the second chamber section and a "bottom area" of the first chamber section.
- The vent is formed by "first, second, third, and fourth outward protrusions" along the outer periphery of the first side wall.
- Each protrusion has specific dimensional ranges for its internal width (1 to 3.5 inches) and depth (0.25 to 0.90 inches).
- The side wall portions connecting certain pairs of protrusions (first-to-second and third-to-fourth) are longer than the side wall portions connecting the other pairs (second-to-third and fourth-to-first), defining a generally rectangular geometry.
- A negative limitation requiring that "no other outward protrusions" are formed along the longer side wall portions.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but states that Impact is infringing "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶5).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Defendant’s “Value Plus Containers,” specifically including the 20-gallon, 32-gallon, and 44-gallon models (Compl. ¶4, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are "trash can[s] having vents that allow for easy removal of liners" (Compl. ¶17).
- The complaint includes a photograph depicting the interior of the accused containers, which shows four vertical channels molded into the side walls. (Compl. ¶18, p. 4). This photograph, provided as a "fair and accurate depiction," shows the physical features alleged to constitute the infringing venting system (Compl. ¶18).
- The complaint alleges the products are offered for sale at various retail establishments (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’623 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first chamber section configured to receive items, the first chamber section having a first side wall and a bottom wall; a second chamber section located above the first chamber section, wherein the second chamber section has a second side wall and an internal width that is wider... | The Value Plus Container has a first chamber section with a side and bottom wall, and a second chamber section above it with an internal width wider than the first chamber section's internal width. | ¶22 | col. 2:48-51, 59-64 |
| a vent providing fluid communication between the second chamber section and a bottom area of the first chamber section, wherein the vent is formed by first, second, third, and fourth outward protrusions along an outer periphery of the first side wall and each protrusion includes two side surfaces | The product has a vent providing fluid communication between the sections, and this vent is formed by four outward protrusions on the periphery of the side wall. | ¶22 | col. 3:3-9 |
| wherein each outward protrusion has an internal width between the two side surfaces ranging from about 1 inch to about 3.5 inches and a depth ranging from about 0.25 inches to about 0.90 inches | Each protrusion on the accused product allegedly has an internal width and depth that fall within the claimed ranges. | ¶22 | col. 5:55-58 |
| wherein the first side wall includes a first side wall portion between the first and second protrusions, a second side wall portion between the second and third protrusions, a third side wall portion between the third and fourth protrusions, and a fourth side wall portion between the fourth and first protrusions | The accused product's first side wall includes four distinct portions connecting the four protrusions in sequence. | ¶22 | col. 5:59-64 |
| wherein a distance along the first side wall portion between the first and second protrusions and a distance along the third side wall portion... are both greater than a distance along the second side wall portion between the second and third protrusions and a distance along the fourth... | The distances along the side wall portions of the accused product between certain pairs of protrusions are alleged to be greater than the distances between the other pairs of protrusions. | ¶22 | col. 5:65-col. 6:3 |
| wherein no other outward protrusions are formed along the first side wall portion between the first and second protrusions and along the third side wall portion between the third and fourth protrusions | The accused product allegedly has no other outward protrusions along the specified longer side wall portions. | ¶22 | col. 6:4-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the negative limitation "no other outward protrusions." The analysis will depend on whether any other features on the accused product's side walls (e.g., molding artifacts, scuff guards, or minor structural reinforcements) could be construed as "outward protrusions."
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the dimensions of the accused product's protrusions fall within the claimed ranges (’623 Patent, Compl. ¶22). A factual dispute may arise over the actual measurements of the accused products and whether they literally meet the "about 1 inch to about 3.5 inches" width and "about 0.25 inches to about 0.90 inches" depth requirements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "outward protrusions"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central structural element of the invention. Its definition will determine what features on the accused product are assessed for infringement. The claim requires exactly four such protrusions forming the vent and no others on certain wall sections. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope dictates whether the accused product's channels meet the claim and whether other wall features might invalidate the "no other..." limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which could support a plain and ordinary meaning covering a wide range of structures that project outward from the side wall.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the protrusions as forming "airways or channels that enable air to flow" (’623 Patent, col. 3:8-10). A party could argue that to be an "outward protrusion" under the patent, a feature must be a channel-forming structure that facilitates airflow, not just any outward-facing feature. The detailed description of specific embodiments with tapering widths and depths could also be used to argue for a narrower construction (’623 Patent, col. 3:20-40).
The Term: "no other outward protrusions"
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a significant constraint on the claim scope. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused product's longer side walls are entirely free of any feature that could be defined as an "outward protrusion." The meaning of "protrusion" in this context is therefore critical.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (of what is prohibited): A broad interpretation of "outward protrusions" would mean that even minor, non-functional bumps or reinforcements on the specified wall sections would cause the accused product to fall outside the claim scope. The claim language itself, "no other," is absolute.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (of what is prohibited): A party could argue, based on the context of the patent, that "outward protrusions" in this limitation refers only to protrusions of the same type as the four vent-forming channels. Evidence for this would come from the specification's focus on the protrusions' role in forming vents, suggesting that incidental, non-venting features are not the "protrusions" contemplated by the claim (’623 Patent, col. 3:8-10).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain any specific allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that the defendant's acts "are willful and in reckless disregard of Rubbermaid's patent rights" (Compl. ¶25). However, the complaint does not allege any specific facts to support this, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or a refusal to cease infringing activities after notification.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court define an "outward protrusion"? The answer will determine both whether the accused product's four channels meet the claim's dimensional and structural requirements, and, critically, whether any other minor features on its side walls violate the "no other outward protrusions" limitation.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual compliance: do the accused "Value Plus Containers" literally meet the specific dimensional ranges for width and depth recited in Claim 1, and do they possess the claimed geometric relationships between the wall sections? The outcome may depend on precise measurements of the accused products.