Trove Brands LLC v. JH Studios Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sundesa, LLC (Utah)
  • Defendant: JH Studios, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Akerman LLP; Maschoff Brennan
• Case Identification: 8:19-cv-01809, M.D. Fla., 07/29/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Florida because the Defendant corporation maintains its headquarters and principal place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of shaker cups infringes two utility patents and two design patents related to beverage mixing containers, free-moving agitators, and independently pivoting lid components.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal beverage containers, or "shaker cups," widely used in the fitness and nutrition market to mix powdered supplements with liquids.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to Defendant on September 29, 2014, and April 9, 2019, putting Defendant on notice of the alleged infringement. The original action was filed on July 24, 2019, with the operative First Amended Complaint filed on July 29, 2020. This history forms the basis for Plaintiff's willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-02-18	U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 Priority Date
2002-04-30	U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 Issue Date
2003-09-09	U.S. Design Patent No. D510,235 Priority Date
2005-10-04	U.S. Design Patent No. D510,235 Issue Date
2010-04-16	U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 Priority Date
2010-09-29	U.S. Design Patent No. D644,065 Priority Date
2011-08-30	U.S. Design Patent No. D644,065 Issue Date
2014-04-15	U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 Issue Date
2014-09-29	Defendant begins selling Accused Product No. 1; Plaintiff sends first notice letter
2019-04-09	Plaintiff sends second notice letter
2019-07-24	Original Complaint Filing Date
2020-07-29	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 - "Flow-Through Agitator" (issued Apr. 30, 2002)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of mixing powdered compositions (e.g., dietary supplements, baby formulas) into liquids, which often results in clumping, and notes that agitators fixed to a container are often ineffective and difficult to clean (’032 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "physically independent" agitator object, typically a wire-frame ball, that is placed unattached inside a shaker container. When the container is shaken, the agitator moves freely throughout the liquid, and its "wire-frame shape" allows fluid to pass through it, creating turbulence that breaks up clumps and promotes a homogeneous suspension (’032 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-27). This free movement allows the agitator to reach and disperse aggregations of powder anywhere in the container, including at the surface, bottom, or sides (’032 Patent, col. 2:36-44).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a simple, reusable, and effective mixing mechanism for the growing market of nutritional supplements that was superior to simple shaking or fixed-agitator designs (’032 Patent, col. 1:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
  • A hand-held, shakeable container for a liquid/powder mixture.
  • A removable lid that creates a "completely enclosed mixing area."
  • A "physically independent agitator object" that is removably placed inside the container, is free from any structural connection to the container, and has "narrow rod-like elements" defining a shape with "interstitial spaces" and a "hollow interior."
  • Wherein the agitator moves freely to every location within the enclosed area to mix ingredients by allowing them to flow into and out of its hollow interior.
• The complaint seeks a judgment of infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others (Compl. p. 11, ¶A).

U.S. Design Patent No. D510,235 - "Bottle" (issued Oct. 4, 2005)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent does not solve a technical problem but instead protects a unique ornamental appearance for a product.
• The Patented Solution: The ’235 patent claims the specific ornamental design for a shaker bottle as depicted in its figures. The claimed design is defined by a combination of visual features, including the bottle's overall tapered profile, a specific flip-top cap integrated into the lid, a carrying loop, and vertical ribbed texturing on the side of the bottle for grip (’235 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic that can serve as a source identifier in the marketplace.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described. The complaint asserts this claim (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38).

U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 - "Container Lid Having Independently Pivoting Flip Top and Handle" (issued Apr. 15, 2014)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the design challenge of placing a carrying handle and a flip-top cap on the same lid without the force from carrying the bottle inadvertently opening the cap. The patented solution is a lid assembly where the handle and the flip-top cap are mounted to a common pivot structure but are able to rotate independently of one another (’830 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:20-27).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶50).
• Accused Features: The lids of Accused Product Nos. 2-4 are alleged to infringe by incorporating a handle and flip top that are each independently pivotable within a mount (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 51). The complaint provides annotated photos of the accused lid to illustrate these features (Compl. ¶51, pp. 16-17).

U.S. Design Patent No. D644,065 - "Bottle" (issued Aug. 30, 2011)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a bottle. The design's primary features include a distinct lid with a curved, integrated carrying loop and a sleek, tapered body profile (’065 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts the single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of Accused Product Nos. 1 and 5-8 are alleged to be substantially similar to the patented design (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies eight different "Accused Products," designated No. 1 through No. 8 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23). These products are shaker cups.

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are shaker cups sold by Defendant as "custom printed promotional items" for blending supplements (Compl. ¶17). They generally consist of a container body, a lid, and, in the case of Accused Product No. 1, a "whisk type ball" agitator (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes a photograph of the "Accused Product No. 1" shaker cup and its wire-ball agitator (Compl. ¶18, p. 6). Other accused products are identified by photographs and item numbers, with some specifically called out for their lid designs (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’032 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Accused Product No. 1, which includes a container, lid, and wire whisk ball, infringes at least claim 15 of the '032 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27). The allegations are summarized below.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a hand-held, shakeable container for holding a liquid/powder mixture;	The body of Accused Product No. 1 is a hand-held, shakeable container. A photograph shows the container.	¶27	col. 8:6-8
a lid removably coupled to said hand-held shakeable container, wherein said lid serves to allow said mixer to form a completely enclosed mixing area...	Accused Product No. 1 includes a removable lid that seals the container.	¶27	col. 8:9-13
a physically independent agitator object removably placed within said hand-held, shakeable container...having narrow rod-like elements defining a shape with interstitial spaces...and a hollow interior space...	The accused "whisk type ball" is a physically separate object placed inside the container, made of wire elements forming a spherical shape with openings.	¶27	col. 8:14-20
wherein liquids, powders, and various other said compositions of ingredients may be mixed by flowing into and out of said hollow interior space...as said physically independent agitator is allowed to move freely to every location within said enclosed mixing area...	When shaken, the whisk ball moves freely inside the container, and liquid and powder flow through it, mixing the contents.	¶28	col. 8:20-27

’235 Design Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the ornamental design of Accused Product No. 1 is "substantially the same as the design claimed in the '235 design patent" in the eye of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶38). To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison, juxtaposing a figure from the '235 patent with a photograph of Accused Product No. 1 (Compl. ¶38, p. 12). The allegation rests on the assertion that this visual resemblance would deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one (Compl. ¶39).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions ('032 Patent): A potential dispute may arise over the scope of the term "narrow rod-like elements." The court may need to determine if the continuous, wound wire of the accused whisk ball constitutes a plurality of "elements" as required by the claim, or if the term is broad enough to cover such a coiled construction.
• Technical Questions ('830 Patent): For the '830 patent, an evidentiary question will be whether the accused lid's components are structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed invention. The analysis will focus on whether the accused handle and flip top are truly "independently pivotable" about a "common axis" as taught in the patent.
• Visual Comparison ('235 and '065 Patents): For the design patents, the dispute will center on the "ordinary observer" test. The central question will be whether the visual differences between the accused products and the patented designs are sufficient to negate a finding of substantial similarity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "physically independent agitator object" ('032 Patent, Claim 15)

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the '032 patent, distinguishing it from prior art where mixing elements were fixed to the container. Its construction is critical, as infringement requires the accused whisk ball to be "physically independent" in the manner claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core novelty of the invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides a definition, stating the object is "free from any structural connection to said hand-held, shakeable container" ('032 Patent, col. 8:16-18). The specification further states that this independence "allow[s] them to access any area or level of the container where powder may aggregate" (col. 7:5-7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the object being easily removable for cleaning or use in another container, which a party could argue imports a functional aspect into the definition beyond mere structural independence ('032 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

The Term: "narrow rod-like elements" ('032 Patent, Claim 15)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the physical structure of the agitator. The infringement analysis depends on whether the wire used to form the accused whisk ball qualifies as "narrow rod-like elements."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes an embodiment formed from a "single coiled wire-like element" ('032 Patent, col. 6:37-38, Fig. 2), suggesting the term is not limited to discrete, straight rods and can encompass curved or continuous wires.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the plural "elements" requires multiple, distinct components, potentially attempting to distinguish a single, continuous wound wire. However, the patent’s description of a "grid-pattern" (Fig. 3) alongside a "coiled" version (Fig. 4) suggests flexibility in the term's meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (e.g., inducement or contributory infringement). The claims for relief focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 37, 49, 59).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and continues to be willful for all four asserted patents. This allegation is based on Defendant's alleged continued manufacturing and selling of the accused products after receiving actual notice of the asserted patents and infringement allegations in letters dated September 29, 2014, and April 9, 2019 (Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, 31, 42).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s findings on three central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of claim scope: For the '032 patent, can the term "narrow rod-like elements" be construed to read on the single, continuous coiled wire of the accused whisk ball? For the '830 patent, does the accused lid's pivot mechanism fall within the structural and functional scope of an "independently pivotable" handle and flip top as claimed?
2. A second key issue will be one of visual similarity: For the '235 and '065 design patents, are the overall ornamental designs of the accused shaker cups "substantially the same" as the patented designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer, or are the visual differences legally significant?
3. A final critical question will be one of culpability: Given that Plaintiff alleges it provided notice of infringement as early as 2014, did Defendant's subsequent and ongoing sales of the accused products constitute willful infringement, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages and attorney's fees?