McCarter v. Milkmen Design LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zevon McCarter (Florida)
  • Defendant: Milkmen Design, LLC. (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Zevon McCarter, pro se
• Case Identification: 8:25-cv-00402, M.D. Fla., 02/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because Defendant imports, markets, and sells infringing products in the district, thereby directing infringing activities and causing injury within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle condiment holder infringes a patent related to a portable device for holding condiment containers within a vehicle.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns consumer accessories for automobiles, specifically devices designed to securely hold small, disposable condiment containers to prevent spillage while a vehicle is in use.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff advised Defendant of the patent-in-suit and its infringement one day prior to filing the lawsuit, and that Defendant refused to cease its allegedly infringing sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendant falsely asserts its own product is covered by a list of its own patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,604,054 - Portable condiment holder system and device for use in a vehicle

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the lack of suitable options for holding small condiment containers in a vehicle, which can lead to spillage when consuming food on the go (’054 Patent, col. 1:17-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable holder comprising a basket-like container holder attached to a holder arm. The arm is designed with an inner part that rests on the top of a vehicle's inner door panel and an outer part that is "bent downward" to be inserted into the "gap between an inner door casing and a windowpane" (’054 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:32-37). This configuration uses friction between the door panel and window seal to stably position the holder for convenient access (’054 Patent, col. 3:48-51).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a dedicated, stable, and removable solution for a common convenience issue in vehicles, aiming to prevent spills from loosely placed condiment containers (’054 Patent, col. 1:22-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one independent claim" of the '054 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The patent contains three independent claims (1, 10, and 19).
• The essential elements of representative independent claim 1 include:
  • A portable condiment holder device comprising a container holder and a holder arm.
  • The holder arm has an inner part and an outer part, where the outer part is "bent downward relative to the inner part."
  • The inner part is connected to the container holder.
  • The outer part of the holder arm is configured to be "insertable in a gap between an inner door casing and a windowpane of a door of a vehicle."
  • The inner part is positioned over the inner door casing.
  • A condiment container with a condiment.
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims, if any, may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is identified as a "Window Adapter" (Compl. ¶18), which is sold as the "Saucemoto Dip Clip" (Compl. p. 5).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Product is a holder for sauce containers designed for use in a vehicle (Compl. p. 5). According to instructional images in the complaint, the device functions by inserting a "slanted tip of the arm into door window seal" to secure the holder (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges the product is sold on Amazon and potentially through other retailers (Compl. ¶29). One visual in the complaint depicts the product being used to hold a fast-food sauce container in a car's cup holder area, with instructions for window mounting (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'054 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "a gap between an inner door casing and a windowpane." The question is whether the "door window seal" where the Accused Product is inserted qualifies as this claimed "gap."
• Technical Questions: A second question may be whether the Accused Product's "slanted tip" meets the claim limitation that the "outer part is bent downward." The analysis may depend on whether a gradual slant is structurally and functionally the same as the "bend" described and depicted in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a gap between an inner door casing and a windowpane"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the location of attachment. The infringement case depends on whether the accused product's placement in a "door window seal" (Compl. p. 5) falls within the scope of this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the outer part as "insertable in a gap 186 between an inner door casing 184 and a windowpane 188" without further restricting the precise nature of the gap, which may support an argument that any crevice in that general area, including the window seal, is covered (’054 Patent, col. 3:32-37).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1B of the patent depicts the holder arm (140) positioned between the hard plastic door panel (inner door casing 184) and the glass of the window (188). A party could argue this specific depiction limits the term to the space between these two components, potentially excluding the flexible rubber seal.

• The Term: "bent downward"

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the Accused Product is described as having a "slanted tip" (Compl. p. 5). Whether a "slanted" structure infringes the "bent downward" limitation will be a point of dispute.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states "the outer part 148 bends downward relative to the inner part 142" (’054 Patent, col. 3:17-18). This functional language could be argued to cover any configuration that angles the outer part down, including a slant.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patent shows a distinct, curved, J-shaped bend in the outer part (148). A party might argue this specific embodiment illustrates the meaning of "bent," implying a more pronounced change in direction than a mere "slant."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges indirect infringement (Compl. ¶31-33). This allegation may be supported by the instructional diagram included in the complaint, which allegedly directs users to install the product in an infringing manner by placing the tip "into door window seal" (Compl. p. 5).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the patent and the alleged infringement on February 17, 2025, and that Defendant "refused to discontinue sale" thereafter (Compl. ¶19-20). These allegations of pre-suit notice and continued sales form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on claim construction. The central questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "gap between an inner door casing and a windowpane," as used in the patent, encompass the "door window seal" where the accused product's instructions direct users to place it?

2. A second key issue will be one of structural equivalence: Does the accused product's "slanted tip" meet the claim requirement for an outer part that is "bent downward," or does the patent's language and figures imply a more specific, curved structure that is technically distinct from a simple slant?