DCT

0:22-cv-61899

Silipint Partners LLC v. Siesta LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Silipint Partners LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Siesta LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thomas & LoCicero PL; Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner LLP
Case Identification: 0:22-cv-61899, S.D. Fla., 10/12/2022
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a limited liability company residing in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of direct infringement within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of silicone drinkware products infringes a patent related to semi-rigid beverage receptacles.
Technical Context: The technology concerns drinkware made from flexible, non-rigid materials like silicone, which offers benefits such as durability and packability over traditional glass or rigid plastic cups.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of December 14, 2020, following a notice letter from the Plaintiff. The parties subsequently engaged in unsuccessful discussions to resolve the dispute prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-01-18	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,469,225
2013-06-25	U.S. Patent No. 8,469,225 Issues
Fall 2020	Defendant allegedly begins selling accused products
2020-12-14	Defendant allegedly gains actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit
2022-10-12	Complaint Filed

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,469,225, “Semi-Rigid Beverage Receptacle,” issued June 25, 2013 (the “’225 Patent”).
The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional beverage receptacles made of glass are fragile and difficult to transport, while cheaper, semi-rigid alternatives made of thin plastic, paper, or foam are subject to fatigue, tearing, and failure after deformation (’225 Patent, col. 1:20-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a beverage receptacle made principally from a pliable material like silicone, which allows it to be foldable and compressible for storage without breaking or suffering material fatigue, yet remain rigid enough to prevent spillage during use (’225 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-58). The design aims to combine the reusability of rigid glassware with the portability and durability of flexible materials.
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a reusable, unbreakable, and easily transportable alternative to conventional drinkware, targeting markets such as outdoor recreation and craft brewing where traditional glassware is impractical (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts claims 4, 6, 8, and 14-19, with a specific focus on claims 17 and 18 (Compl. ¶21-22). The asserted independent claims are 1, 18, and 19.
- Independent Claim 1:
  - A beverage receptacle comprising a body member with:
  - a base portion,
  - at least one sidewall stretching from the base portion to the top,
  - the sidewall and base portion defining a cavity,
  - wherein the sidewall is made "substantially of silicone," and
  - the inner surface of the sidewall is "smooth" along its entire length away from the base.
- Independent Claim 18:
  - A beverage receptacle comprising a body member with:
  - a circular base portion,
  - at least one circular sidewall stretching from the base portion to the top,
  - the sidewall and base portion defining a cavity,
  - wherein the sidewall and base are made "entirely of food-grade silicone," and
  - the inner surface of the sidewall is "smooth" along its entire length away from the base.
- Independent Claim 19:
  - A beverage receptacle comprising a body member with:
  - a circular base portion with a diameter between 2.25" and 2.75",
  - a circular sidewall with a vertical height between 5" and 6" and a thickness between 1/16" and 1/2",
  - an opening defined by the distal end of the sidewall,
  - wherein the sidewall and base are made "entirely of food-grade silicone," the inner surface is "smooth," and the opening diameter is greater than the base diameter.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: The accused products are a line of "100% silicone drinkware products" sold by Siesta (Compl. ¶16). Specific products identified include the "16 oz. Silicone Drinking Cup," "14 oz. Silicone Wine Glass," "1 oz. Silicone Shot Glass," mugs, a lidded kid's cup, and alternate versions of these items (collectively, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are drinkware items made of silicone, marketed and sold through Siesta’s promotional products business (Compl. ¶16, ¶18). The complaint further alleges that Siesta markets these products to many of the same customers as Silipint (Compl. ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references product catalogs as Exhibits B and C, but these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed document.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart for claims 17 and 18 as Exhibit D, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶21). The following analysis is based on the allegations in the complaint and the language of asserted independent claim 18.

’225 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A beverage receptacle for storing and dispensing beverages, the beverage receptacle comprising: a body member having a circular base portion,	The accused products are identified as various forms of drinkware, including cups, glasses, and mugs, which inherently possess a body with a base.	¶16	col. 2:60-62
at least one circular sidewall stretching from said base portion to the top of said receptacle, the at least one sidewall and the base portion defining a cavity,	The accused products are described as cups and glasses, which necessarily have a sidewall extending from a base to form a cavity for holding liquid.	¶16	col. 2:62-65
and wherein the at least one sidewall and base portion are made entirely of food-grade silicone	The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are "100% silicone drinkware products."	¶16	col. 4:63-65
and the inner surface of said sidewall is smooth along its entire length in the direction away from said base portion.	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element.		col. 3:24-26

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of claim terms that distinguish the patented invention from the prior art. For instance, while the complaint alleges the products are "100% silicone," discovery may focus on whether this meets the "entirely of food-grade silicone" limitation, or if other additives or materials are present.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims. For example, the "smooth" inner surface limitation, which the patent specification links to the functional benefit of "easy cleaning" (’225 Patent, col. 3:25-26), will require evidentiary support showing the accused products possess this specific feature.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "made substantially of silicone" (from Claim 1) vs. "made entirely of food-grade silicone" (from Claims 18, 19)
Context and Importance: The distinction between "substantially" and "entirely" could be dispositive. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because if the accused products contain any non-silicone components (e.g., pigments, structural additives), they might infringe the broader "substantially" language of Claim 1 but not the stricter "entirely" language of Claims 18 and 19. The complaint's allegation of "100% silicone" suggests Plaintiff's belief that the stricter limitation is met (Compl. ¶16).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (of "substantially"): The use of "substantially" in Claim 1, contrasted with "entirely" in Claims 18 and 19, suggests the patentee intended "substantially" to permit the presence of some non-silicone materials. The specification also contemplates additives, such as those that make the cup phosphorescent, which could support an interpretation that is not strictly 100% silicone (’225 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (of "entirely"): The patentee’s choice to use the more restrictive term "entirely" in later independent claims (18, 19) after using "substantially" in Claim 1 creates a strong inference under the doctrine of claim differentiation that "entirely" was intended to mean 100% silicone, without other components.
The Term: "smooth"
Context and Importance: This term describes a required feature of the product's inner surface. Practitioners may focus on this term because its level of specificity is undefined in the claims. The dispute may turn on whether "smooth" implies a specific manufacturing process (e.g., polishing) or a particular surface roughness (Ra) value, or if it simply means not textured.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not qualify "smooth," which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning: a surface free from roughness or texture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides context, stating that "the inside surface of receptacle 10 is polished smooth to allow easy cleaning and improve the pour of beverages contained therein" (’225 Patent, col. 3:24-26). A defendant may argue this passage limits "smooth" to a surface that has been "polished" to achieve that specific functional outcome.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’225 Patent "at least as early December 14, 2020" from a notice letter sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶14). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant "has acted willfully, intentionally and deliberately" in its infringement (Compl. ¶23). This allegation forms the basis for Plaintiff's request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶G).

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

A core issue will be one of claim scope and differentiation: does the evidence show that the accused products are "entirely of food-grade silicone" as required by the narrow independent claims (18, 19), or do they contain other materials that might only read on the broader "substantially of silicone" limitation in Claim 1? The answer will determine which claims, if any, are infringed.
A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: can the Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused products meet qualitative limitations like a "smooth" inner surface, especially where the patent specification links that term to a specific manufacturing process ("polished smooth") and functional benefit ("easy cleaning")?
Finally, the willfulness claim will depend on knowledge and intent: what actions, if any, did the Defendant take after receiving notice of the ’225 Patent on December 14, 2020? The timeline of events between the notice date and the filing of the suit will be critical to determining whether any continuing infringement was "willful and wanton."