DCT
1:24-cv-01130
Tee Turtle LLC v. Just Play LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tee Turtle, LLC (Missouri)
- Defendant: Just Play, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01130, D. Del., 10/10/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in Delaware based on Defendant being a Delaware limited liability company with a registered agent in the district and allegedly conducting substantial business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Flip-A-Mood" line of reversible plush toys infringes a patent related to the mechanical construction of toys that can be turned inside-out.
- Technical Context: The technology involves the design of plush toys that can be inverted to reveal a second, distinct appearance or character expression, a popular novelty item.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,786,746, recently survived an Ex Parte Reexamination at the USPTO, which confirmed or deemed patentable all claims. The complaint also references pre-suit correspondence in which Defendant’s counsel allegedly denied infringement of a specific claim element, "the second body shape substantially matches the first body shape," signaling a likely focal point of the dispute.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-12-20 | ’746 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017 | Plaintiff introduces its "Reversible Plushies" product line |
| 2020-09-29 | ’746 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-08-02 | Plaintiff sends demand letter to Defendant |
| 2024-09-10 | Defendant responds to demand letter, disputing infringement |
| 2024-10-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,786,746 - “Reversible Toy,” issued September 29, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a toy that can be “easily and quickly reversed between positions to present different appearances or configurations” (’746 Patent, col. 1:26-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a plush toy constructed from two material layers forming a sealed, hollow body filled with stuffing. The toy can be turned inside-out through an opening to reveal a different exterior surface. A key feature is a "retainer," such as a ring of stitching, that defines the opening and has a diameter smaller than the maximum diameter of the toy's body (’746 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7). This structural relationship allows the toy to maintain a stable, "upstanding position" in either of its two configurations while still permitting the user to collapse it through the opening to transition between them (’746 Patent, col. 6:26-33).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a specific, replicable mechanical structure for creating a two-state reversible plush toy that is both durable and easy for a user to operate.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 21 (as amended during reexamination) (Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of Claim 21 include:
- A first and second material defining a sealed, fillable cavity.
- A fill material received within the cavity.
- A "stitching ring" that couples the materials, traps the fill material, and defines an opening with a specific "ring diameter."
- A first position where the toy has a "first body shape" and a second, inverted position where it has a "second body shape."
- A limitation requiring that "the second body shape substantially matches the first body shape" and has the same maximum diameter.
- A limitation requiring the "ring diameter" to be smaller than the maximum body diameter.
- A description of the transition process, where the toy collapses through the opening.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims stemming from Claim 21 (Compl. ¶33).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Flip-A-Mood" reversible plush toys, specifically including the "Joy & Sadness Plush" and the "Fear & Anxiety Plush" (Compl. ¶10, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are reversible plush character heads that can be turned inside-out to display a different emotion (Compl. ¶37; p. 7). The complaint provides an image from an Amazon.com product listing for the "Joy & Sadness Plush," which shows the toy in both its "Joy" and "Sadness" configurations. (Compl. p. 7). Plaintiff alleges these products are sold online, including on Amazon.com, and compete directly with Plaintiff's own "Reversible Plushies" (Compl. ¶12, 43).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Flip-A-Mood products meet every limitation of Claim 21 of the ’746 Patent but does not attach the referenced claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶32). The infringement theory can be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.
’746 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first material defining a first surface; a second material defining a second surface... the first and second material layers defining a sealed cavity... | The Flip-A-Mood toys are constructed of two layers of plush material forming a hollow, sealed head. | ¶38 | col. 4:65-67 |
| a fill material received within and filling the entire sealed cavity... | The toys are three-dimensional objects "filled with a fill material that makes them pliable enough to transition." | ¶38 | col. 5:3-15 |
| a stitching ring coupling the first material to the second material... the stitching ring having a ring diameter defining an opening | The toys have an opening at their base through which they are inverted, allegedly defined by a ring of stitching. | ¶31 | col. 6:45-48 |
| to transition from the first position to the second position, the first material is compressed towards the second material, collapsing both... through the opening | Users can turn the toys inside-out by pushing the body through the opening at its base. | ¶38 | col. 9:39-51 |
| the second body shape substantially matches the first body shape... | Plaintiff alleges the first and second body shapes are "substantially circular or spherical" and thus match, arguing that surface features like hair and mouths are "extraneous elements" not part of the claimed "body shape." | ¶37, ¶39 | col. 13:29-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint flags that Defendant has disputed the "substantially matches" limitation (Compl. ¶36). This raises a central claim construction question: Does the term "substantially matches," when read in light of the patent, require the two body shapes to be nearly identical, or does it permit the noticeable differences in silhouette seen in the accused "Fear & Anxiety Plush," where one configuration has attached hair features and the other does not? The complaint includes an image of the "Fear & Anxiety Plush" with outlines intended to support its argument that the underlying shapes match. (Compl. p. 10).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how to define the "body shape" of the accused products. The complaint argues for disregarding surface features like hair (Compl. ¶39-40), but the court will have to determine whether such features are integral to the "shape" or are merely "extraneous elements." The complaint provides side-by-side images of the "Joy & Sadness Plush" with red circles drawn around them to visually assert that the underlying shapes are the same. (Compl. p. 9).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "the second body shape substantially matches the first body shape"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint explicitly states that Defendant's counsel identified it as a basis for non-infringement in pre-suit correspondence (Compl. ¶36). The resolution of its meaning will likely be determinative for at least some of the accused products, particularly those with asymmetrical features between their two states.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint argues that the proper inquiry excludes "extraneous elements" (Compl. ¶39). A party advocating for this view may point to specification language describing the body generally as having a "globoid shape" ('746 Patent, col. 5:43-44) and noting that the first and second positions may present "the same or different configurations or characteristics" ('746 Patent, col. 4:6-8), suggesting the focus is on the core reversible structure rather than precise contours.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower definition may argue that the claim's additional requirement—that the "second body maximum diameter" is "the same as the first body maximum diameter"—implies a high degree of similarity is required for the overall shapes to "substantially match" ('746 Patent, col. 13:31-35). Furthermore, the patent's primary embodiments, as shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, depict two states with identical silhouettes, differing only in printed facial features, which may suggest the intended scope was limited to such symmetrical designs.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes general allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶1, 2, 46). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced infringement, such as detailing how user manuals or advertising instruct users to infringe, beyond the general allegations of marketing and selling the products (Compl. ¶12, 25).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s infringement became willful at least as of its receipt of a demand letter dated August 2, 2024, which allegedly included a copy of the ’746 Patent and a claim chart (Compl. ¶35, 41, 47). This allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge of the patent and the infringement contentions.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The dispute appears to center on a single, critical claim limitation, leading to two primary questions for the court and jury.
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "body shape," as used in the patent, be interpreted to exclude surface features like expressions and attached elements such as hair, as Plaintiff argues? The court's answer to this will dictate the scope of the "substantially matches" requirement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual comparison: Assuming the court adopts a definition of "body shape," does the evidence show that the two inverted states of Defendant's products, particularly the asymmetrical "Fear & Anxiety Plush," do, in fact, "substantially match"? This will likely involve expert testimony and a close examination of the products' physical construction.