DCT
1:19-cv-00232
Quark Distribution Inc v. Impak Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Quark Distribution, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Impak Corp (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Meister Seelig & Fein LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00232, D. Del., 02/04/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of child-resistant flexible pouches infringes two patents related to child-resistant sealing systems for bags.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety features in flexible packaging, an area of market significance for containing products, such as edibles or pharmaceuticals, that should be kept away from children.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement on November 20, 2018. U.S. Patent No. 10,011,404 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 10,011,403 and is subject to a terminal disclaimer. A Certificate of Correction was issued for the '403 patent after the complaint was filed, which altered the language of asserted independent claim 1.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-02-23 | '403 and '404 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-07-03 | '403 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-03 | '404 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-11-20 | Pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant |
| 2019-02-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2019-10-29 | '403 Patent Certificate of Correction Issue Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,011,403 - "CHILD RESISTANT SEALING SYSTEM" (Issued July 3, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that many conventional resealable plastic bags are "easily opened and therefore not child resistant," which limits their utility for medicines and other potentially hazardous substances (’403 Patent, col. 1:15-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "directional" sealing system built into the bag's structure. It uses a multi-layer bag wall where specific layers are attached to extensions above and below an interlocking zipper mechanism to form distinct flaps (’403 Patent, col. 4:40-52; Fig. 3). The system is designed to release the seal only when a user pulls on a specific pair of flaps located below the zipper; pulling on other flaps, particularly those above the zipper, is meant to resist opening the bag (’403 Patent, col. 4:9-23).
- Technical Importance: The design integrates a child-resistant feature directly into the flexible film structure of the pouch, potentially avoiding the need for separate, bulky locking components like sliders or caps.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Essential elements of the corrected version of Claim 1 include:
- A container with a first layer of sheet material on a first side and at least a second and third layer of sheet material on a second side.
- A pair of closure strips with interlocking features, where one strip has extensions above and below the interlock, and the other has an extension only below the interlock.
- The first layer is attached to the extension below the first closure strip, forming a first upward extending flap.
- The second layer is attached to the extension below the second closure strip, forming a second upward extending flap.
- The third layer is attached to the extension above the first closure strip, forming a third upward extending flap.
- The container is "capable of being opened... by pulling the first and second flaps apart."
- The interlocking strips are configured such that pulling flaps other than the first and second "prevents the interlocking strips from being released."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-20 (Compl. ¶16).
U.S. Patent No. 10,011,404 - "CHILD RESISTANT SEALING SYSTEM" (Issued July 3, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '404 Patent addresses the same problem as the '403 Patent: the need for child-resistant sealing systems for flexible bags (’404 Patent, col. 1:15-21).
- The Patented Solution: As a continuation of the application that led to the '403 patent, the '404 patent describes a virtually identical directional, multi-flap sealing mechanism integrated into the bag's layers (’404 Patent, face page; col. 4:9-23). The invention relies on the specific attachment points of different material layers to extensions of the closure strips to create a non-obvious opening procedure.
- Technical Importance: This patent, like its parent, discloses a method for achieving child resistance through the inherent structural design of the pouch rather than through add-on mechanisms.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A container with a first layer of sheet material on a first side and at least a second and third layer of sheet material on a second side.
- A pair of closure strips with interlocking features, where one strip has extensions above and below the interlock, and the other has an extension only below the interlock.
- The second layer is attached to the extension below the first closure strip, forming a first upward extending flap.
- The first layer is attached to the extension below the second closure strip, forming a second upward extending flap.
- The third layer is attached to the extension above the first closure strip, forming a third upward extending flap.
- The container is configured to be opened by pulling the extensions below the linear interlocking strips apart.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-20 (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant IMPAK's "line of flat and stand up Pull-Tab Child Resistant Zipper Bags" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are flexible pouches featuring what is described as a "pull-tab zipper that is easy for adults to open, but nearly impossible for children" (Compl. ¶11, Fig. A). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows the product marketed for "edibles" and instructs users to "Place your thumb as far as possible into the pull-tab...and pull the zipper open" (Compl. ¶11, Fig. A). The complaint includes a photograph showing a user's hand inserted between two layers of the pouch below the zipper mechanism, seemingly demonstrating the intended method of opening (Compl. p. 6, Fig. C).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'403 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as corrected) - | Alleged Infringing Functionality - | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A container having a top end with an opening therein and a bottom end opposite the top end, and at least first and second sides... | The Accused Product is a container (bag) with top and bottom ends and first and second sides. | ¶17 | col. 5:26-29 |
| a first layer of sheet material forming the first side of the container and at least a second and third layer of sheet material forming the second side of the container, | The container includes a first layer of sheet material forming the first side and at least a second and third layer of sheet material forming the second side. - | ¶17 | col. 5:30-33 |
| a pair of closure strips extending along the opening of the container, each of the closure strips having at least one of a male and a female linear interlocking strip, a first of the pair of closure strips comprising: an extension above and an extension below... and a second of the pair of closure strips comprising an extension below... | The layers are attached to a pair of closure strips, which form first, second, and third upward extending flaps (tabs). - | ¶17 | col. 5:33-43 |
| wherein the first layer of sheet material is attached to the first of the pair of closure strip at the extension below...forming a first upward extending flap... | The Accused Product has a first flap on one side. - | ¶17 | col. 5:44-48 |
| the second layer of sheet material is attached to the second of the pair of closure strip at the extension below...forming a second upward extending flap, and the third layer of sheet material is attached to the first of the pair of closure strips at the extension above...forming a third upward extending flap... | The Accused Product has a second and third flap on the opposite side of the bag. - | ¶17 | col. 5:48-54 |
| the container therewith capable of being opened at the pair of closure strips by pulling the first and second flaps apart, | The container can be opened by pulling the first and second flaps apart. - | ¶17 | col. 5:54-55 |
| wherein the linear interlocking strips are configured such that when engaged...pulling apart any of the flaps other than the first and second flaps prevents the interlocking strips from being released... | When the closure strips are engaged, pulling flaps other than the first and second prevents or resists the interlocking strips from being released. - | ¶17 | col. 5:56-60 |
'404 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) - | Alleged Infringing Functionality - | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A container having a top end with an opening... | The Accused Product is a container (bag) with top and bottom ends and first and second sides. - | ¶27 | col. 5:25-29 |
| a first layer... and at least a second and third layer... | The container includes a first layer of sheet material forming the first side and at least a second and third layer of sheet material forming the second side. - | ¶27 | col. 5:29-32 |
| a pair of closure strips... a first of the pair... comprising: an extension above and an extension below... and a second of the pair... comprising an extension below... | The layers are attached to a pair of closure strips, which form first, second, and third upward extending flaps (tabs). - | ¶27 | col. 5:32-42 |
| wherein the second layer of sheet material is attached to the first of the pair of closure strip at the extension below... forming a first upward extending flap... | The Accused Product has a first flap on one side. - | ¶27 | col. 5:43-47 |
| the first layer of sheet material is attached to the second of the pair of closure strip at the extension below... forming a second upward extending flap, and the third layer of sheet material is attached to the first of the pair of closure strips at the extension above... forming a third upward extending flap... | The Accused Product has a second and third flap on the opposite side of the bag. - | ¶27 | col. 5:47-55 |
| the linear interlocking strips configured to be released from each other by pulling the extensions below the linear interlocking strips apart, | The container can be opened by pulling the first and second flaps apart. - | ¶27 | col. 5:43-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Mismatch: The complaint's infringement allegations for the '403 and '404 patents are textually identical (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 27). However, the asserted claims appear to recite mutually exclusive structures. Corrected Claim 1 of the '403 patent requires the "first layer" of material be attached to the "first" closure strip to form the first flap. In contrast, Claim 1 of the '404 patent requires the "second layer" of material be attached to the "first" closure strip to form that same first flap. This raises the question of whether a single product can simultaneously meet both of these distinct structural limitations as alleged.
- Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's seal actively "prevents or otherwise resists" release when incorrect flaps are pulled, as required by '403 Claim 1, versus simply being difficult to grip or apply leverage to from those positions?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "upward extending flap"
- Context and Importance: The claims of both patents require a specific arrangement of a "first", "second", and "third" upward extending flap, each formed by attaching a specific sheet layer to a specific part of a closure strip. The interpretation of what constitutes these distinct flaps, and how they are identified in a physical product, will be central to determining whether the accused bag's construction maps onto the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case rests on mapping the accused product’s physical layers to this claimed three-flap structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description refers to the flaps in more general terms, for instance as "a pair of major flaps 118, 120, and at least one intermediate flap, that extend laterally across the bag" (’403 Patent, col. 4:60-63). This language might support a less rigid definition not strictly tied to a specific layer count.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself defines each flap by its precise method of formation. For example, the "second upward extending flap" is explicitly formed by the attachment of the "second layer of sheet material" to the "second of the pair of closure strip at the extension below the respective linear interlocking strip" (’403 Patent, col. 5:48-52, as corrected). This suggests a narrow definition where each numbered flap is inextricably linked to a specific numbered layer and attachment point.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by "sellers that use the Accused Product for their packaging needs" and contributory infringement by providing components that are "not suitable for any substantial non-infringing use" and are "especially made or adapted for use" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 20, 29, 30).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued sale of the Accused Products after receiving a formal notice letter from Plaintiff's counsel on or about November 20, 2018 (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13, 21, 31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural infringement: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the single physical structure of the accused bag meets the distinct, and potentially conflicting, layer-to-strip attachment configurations recited in corrected Claim 1 of the ’403 patent and Claim 1 of the ’404 patent?
- The case will also likely involve a key question of claim construction: how the court defines the relationship between the claimed "first, second, and third layers of sheet material" and the corresponding "first, second, and third upward extending flaps". The outcome of this construction will determine whether the physical layers of the accused bag, as depicted in the complaint's visual evidence (Compl. p. 6, Fig. C), can be mapped onto the specific three-part structure required by the patents.