DCT
1:18-cv-00692
Tangelo IP LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tangelo IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Tupperware Brands Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00692, D. Del., 05/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online catalog system infringes a patent related to creating an interactive, shoppable electronic version of a physical print publication.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of connecting consumers from static print advertisements to dynamic e-commerce platforms, allowing for product discovery and purchase.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit is part of a larger family of patents and applications, claiming priority back to a 1999 application, which may be relevant for establishing the scope of prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005 |
| 2013-04-23 | U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005 Issues |
| 2018-05-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005 - "Method for Determining Effectiveness of Display of Objects in Advertising Images"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005, issued April 23, 2013 (the "'005 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the frustration consumers experience when they see an item of interest in traditional media, like a print magazine or catalog, but lack a straightforward way to obtain more information or purchase it online (’005 Patent, col. 1:53-62, col. 2:11-14). It also notes that advertisers lack an objective way to measure the effectiveness of these print advertisements (’005 Patent, col. 2:51-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for creating an "interactive electronic representation" of a physical media object, such as a catalog page. A user can provide a unique identifier associated with the physical page (e.g., a page number) to a computer system, which then displays the corresponding interactive electronic page. This allows the user to select objects within the electronic page to get more information and initiate an online purchase (’005 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28-44).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents an early method for bridging the gap between static print media and the interactive capabilities of the internet, aiming to make print advertising directly actionable for consumers and measurable for advertisers (Compl. ¶11, 14-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, but its allegations most closely track independent method claim 1.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- Associating a page number of a physical publication page with an interactive and electronic replication of at least a portion of that page.
- The physical page must have at least two different products appearing on it.
- A host computer receives an input representing the page number.
- The host computer provides the interactive and electronic replication, which includes "exact reproductions" of the appearances of the at least two products.
- The replication enables a user to obtain additional information about the products.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks an injunction against infringement of "any claim of the '005 patent," suggesting the right to assert additional claims is reserved (Compl. p. 11, ¶B).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "online catalog system" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant operates an online catalog that functions as an "electronic and interactive replication" of its physical print catalogs (Compl. ¶20-21). The system allegedly associates a page number from the physical catalog, provided via a URL parameter (e.g.,
?page=2), with a corresponding web page displaying images from that catalog (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a screenshot of a physical catalog page to demonstrate the source material. This image shows multiple Tupperware products in a lifestyle setting (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges that users can interact with product images on the website to reveal pop-up windows with a "Shop Now" link, which directs the user to a product-specific page where they can view additional details and add the item to a shopping cart (Compl. ¶21, pp. 8-9). A composite image shows the interactive online catalog on top, and the resulting "Sift 'N Stor" product and purchase page that appears after user interaction below (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'005 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method for providing to a user an interactive and electronic replication... comprising: associating a page number of a physical publication page with an interactive and electronic replication... | Defendant's online catalog system allegedly uses a computer system to associate a page number from a physical catalog with an electronic, interactive version of that page, accessible via a URL. | ¶21 | col. 33:36-41 |
| the physical publication page having at least two different products appearing on the physical publication page; | The complaint provides screenshots of a catalog page featuring multiple distinct products, such as the "Quick Chef Pro System" and the "Sift 'N Stor." | ¶21, p. 5 | col. 33:42-44 |
| receiving by a host computer comprising at least one computer processor an input representing the page number; | A web server, acting as the host computer, is alleged to receive an input from a user's device representing the page number, such as through a URL request containing a page parameter. | ¶21 (p. 10) | col. 33:49-51 |
| providing from the host computer the interactive and electronic replication... including duplications of the appearances of the at least two different products; | In response to the input, the web server allegedly provides the web page, which contains images that are duplications of the products shown in the physical catalog. | ¶21 (p. 10), ¶21 | col. 33:52-58 |
| the duplications... being exact reproductions of the appearances of the at least two different products contained within the physical publication page; | The complaint alleges the electronic catalog contains "exact duplications" of products from the physical publication and provides side-by-side visual comparisons. | ¶21 | col. 33:59-62 |
| the interactive and electronic replication enabling the user to obtain additional information on the at least two different products... | Interaction with the online catalog (e.g., clicking a "+" symbol and "Shop Now") allegedly opens a product page with additional information, such as "PRODUCT DETAILS," and enables a user to initiate a purchase. | ¶21 (pp. 7-9) | col. 33:63-66 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "exact reproductions." The defense could argue that the digital images, which include interactive overlays and differ in resolution and layout from the print versions, are not "exact" copies as required by the claim. The question for the court will be whether this term requires literal, pixel-for-pixel identity or allows for functional and substantive replication across different media.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a URL parameter (
?page=2) fulfills the claim's requirement of "associating a page number... with an interactive and electronic replication." A potential point of contention is whether this method of web-based linking constitutes the "association" described in the patent, which also discusses the use of a "unique identification tag" that is stored and retrieved from a database (’005 Patent, col. 4:5-8).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"exact reproductions"
- Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on this term. Defendant’s system presents digital versions of catalog images, but they are embedded in a web interface with interactive elements. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any difference, however minor, between the print and digital images is sufficient to avoid infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes creating an "interactive electronic representation" of a visual media object to solve the problem of linking static media to e-commerce, suggesting the purpose is replication of substance, not necessarily the precise form (’005 Patent, col. 3:28-34). This may support a construction where "exact" refers to the content of the product's appearance, not the medium itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent drafters chose the strong modifier "exact." A defendant may argue this choice was deliberate and intended to mean a literal, identical copy, without the addition of interactive elements like "+" symbols or pop-up windows, which are not present in the original physical page. The complaint itself adopts this strong language (Compl. ¶21).
"associating a page number of a physical publication page with an interactive and electronic replication"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanism linking the physical and digital worlds. The viability of Plaintiff's infringement theory depends on whether Defendant's use of a URL parameter meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal is to allow a user to access an IER using an identifier from the physical object (’005 Patent, col. 3:38-44). A URL containing a page number is a direct technical method for achieving this on the internet, which could be seen as falling within the general principle of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a "unique identification tag" that is associated with an IER in a "relational database" (’005 Patent, col. 4:5-8). A defendant may argue that this describes a specific technical implementation that is narrower than simply processing a URL parameter with a server-side script.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) but does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of indirect infringement (i.e., induced or contributory infringement) (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or plead any facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not explicitly request enhanced damages for willfulness (Compl. p. 11, ¶D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "exact reproductions," as used in the patent claim, be construed to cover Defendant's online catalog images, which are presented in a different medium and include interactive overlays not present in the original physical publication?
- A key question of technical implementation will be whether Defendant's web server system, which uses a page number in a URL to retrieve and display a web page, performs the claimed step of "associating a page number... with an interactive and electronic replication," or if the patent requires a more specific database-centric architecture.