Clever Carre LLC v. Investxol Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Clever Carre LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Investxol Corp d/b/a Brighton Prime (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed PA
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-24077, S.D. Fla., 10/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business, and committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “XSpecial” brand meat tenderizer infringes two patents related to double-function, hand-operated meat tenderizers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical kitchen tools designed to tenderize meat by simultaneously piercing it with blades and pounding it with a textured surface.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the ’285 Patent via a letter on June 4, 2024. Plaintiff further alleges it became the exclusive assignee of both patents-in-suit on September 4, 2024, with rights to sue for past infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-07-02	’685 Patent Priority Date
2007-02-27	’685 Patent Issue Date
2013-08-26	’285 Patent Priority Date
2014-12-16	’285 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-04	Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant re: ’285 Patent
2024-07-19	Defendant’s counsel responds to notice letter
2024-09-04	Patents-in-suit assigned to Plaintiff
2024-10-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,911,285 - "Double Function, Hand Operated Meat Tenderizer With Quick Release Clip," issued December 16, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon prior art meat tenderizers by providing a main working component that is "easy to disassemble" for cleaning and maintenance (ʼ285 Patent, col. 2:3-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a tenderizer where a flat plate (containing tenderizing projections and blade slots) attaches to the handle via a sliding cylinder mechanism. The key innovation is the connection: the cylinder has a "releasably attached spigot" that fits into a seat on the plate, secured by a "swivel tie nut," allowing the plate to be quickly detached without extensive disassembly of the entire tool (ʼ285 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-14).
• Technical Importance: This design purports to reduce the time and complexity required to clean the blade segment and plate, addressing a practical concern for kitchen tools that come into contact with raw meat (ʼ285 Patent, col. 2:17-20, 31-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶13). Count I alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • a handle with a blade segment clamped inside said handle;
  • a generally flat plate attached to said handle by at least one slidably moving cylinder attached to a compressed spring, comprising at least one seat including a releasably attached spigot of the cylinder;
  • wherein an end face of said plate is provided with a plurality of projections and flow-through slots aligned in evenly spaced relation, parallel to the spring axis; and
  • wherein in a position of rest, ends of said blades are retracted in said flow-through slots.

U.S. Patent No. 7,182,685 - "Double Function-Hand Operated Meat Tenderizer," issued February 27, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies several drawbacks in prior art tenderizers, including the potential for losing meat juices, the danger posed by exposed sharp blades, and the difficulty of disassembly for cleaning or blade replacement (ʼ685 Patent, col. 1:53-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a dual-function tool featuring a "blade assembly" mounted within a handle and a separate "comb" that is "slidably movable" on columns connected to the handle. In its resting state, the blades are safely hidden within "flow-through slots" in the comb. Pressing the device onto meat causes the comb to slide up, exposing the blades to pierce the meat, while "protruding teeth" on the bottom of the comb simultaneously pound the surface (ʼ685 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:14-36). The patent also describes disassembly using locking pins to separate the components for cleaning (ʼ685 Patent, col. 4:21-38).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a single tool that combines piercing and pounding functions in a way that is safer, more effective, and more convenient for both household and restaurant use (ʼ685 Patent, col. 2:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶14). Count II alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • a handle being formed of two components;
  • a blade assembly being detachably mounted between the two components of the handle;
  • at least two columns, upper ends of the columns being movably connected to the handle; and
  • a comb being mounted on lower ends of the columns for being slidably movable toward and away from the handle, the comb having a plurality of flow-through slots and protruding teeth extending from a bottom surface of the comb.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as the "Meat Tenderizing Kitchen Tool" sold under the brand name "XSpecial" on an Amazon.com storefront operated under the alias "Brighton Prime" (Compl. ¶12, ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific technical features or method of operation. It makes the conclusory allegation that the "XSpecial Product comprises each and every claim element of the Plaintiff's Patents" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges the product is sold and offered for sale in the United States, including Florida (Compl. ¶16), and that its presence in the market has hampered the Plaintiff's ability to expand (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping the features of the accused XSpecial product to the elements of the asserted claims. It instead makes a general allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be establishing the actual technical construction of the accused XSpecial product. The complaint provides no specific evidence regarding its components, materials, or disassembly mechanism.
  • Technical Questions (ʼ285 Patent): The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether the accused product incorporates the specific "quick release" mechanism recited in Claim 1, namely a "releasably attached spigot of the cylinder." The case may turn on what evidence is presented to show the presence and operation of this specific attachment structure.
  • Technical Questions (ʼ685 Patent): The analysis will raise the question of whether the accused product is built with the distinct structural components required by Claim 1, such as a "blade assembly" that is "detachably mounted" within the handle and a separate, "slidably movable" "comb" on "columns." The complaint does not provide evidence to show that the accused product separates these functions into the claimed structural components.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from the ʼ285 Patent: "releasably attached spigot"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the purported novelty of the '285 patent's "quick release" feature. The definition will determine whether the claim covers a broad range of quick-release mechanisms or is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the plain meaning of "releasably attached" should not be confined to the examples shown, but should encompass any structure where a spigot is attached in a way that is designed to be released.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes attaching the spigot using a "swivel tie nut" that fits into a "circumferential groove" or "flattened section" on the spigot (ʼ285 Patent, col. 2:12-14, col. 3:49-51, Fig. 3-4). Practitioners may focus on whether these embodiments limit the scope of the term to a specific mechanical interlock.

• Term from the ʼ685 Patent: "comb"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the movable component that contains the tenderizing teeth and through which the blades pass. Its construction relative to the "blade assembly" is critical to the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the "comb" by its function and connections: it is "mounted on lower ends of the columns," is "slidably movable," and has "flow-through slots and protruding teeth" (ʼ685 Patent, col. 6:50-56). An argument could be made that any component meeting this functional description is a "comb".
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to and depicts the comb as a singular, "oval comb 2" (ʼ685 Patent, col. 4:60-61, Fig. 2). Practitioners may focus on whether this consistent depiction limits the term "comb" to a unitary structure, as opposed to a multi-part assembly that performs the same function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶6), but the formal counts are for direct infringement only (Compl. ¶¶22-35). No specific facts, such as the content of user manuals or advertising, are alleged to support the knowledge and intent required for an indirect infringement claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. For the ʼ285 Patent, the allegation is based on alleged actual notice provided by a letter dated June 4, 2024, and subsequent continued sales (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). For the ʼ685 Patent, the complaint makes a conclusory allegation of pre-suit knowledge without providing a specific factual basis (Compl. ¶31, ¶34).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Product Construction: Given the lack of technical detail in the pleading, a threshold issue for the case is entirely evidentiary: what is the actual mechanical structure of the accused "XSpecial" product? The viability of the infringement claims will depend on whether discovery reveals product features that can be mapped to the specific limitations of the asserted patents.
2. A Claim Scope Question of Attachment: For the '285 Patent, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "releasably attached spigot" be construed to cover the specific disassembly mechanism of the accused product, or will the claim be limited to the "swivel tie nut" embodiment disclosed in the specification?
3. A Structural Question of Component Separation: For the '685 Patent, the case may turn on a question of structural distinction: does the accused product embody the claimed architecture of a distinct "blade assembly" and a separate, slidably movable "comb", or are these functions integrated in a manner that is technically different from the structure required by the claim?