Thermos LLC v. Sully Innovations Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Thermos LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sully Innovations Inc (Ontario, Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Riley Safer Holmes Cancila
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04495, N.D. Ill., 07/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the district because Defendant is a foreign corporation, and that the court has personal jurisdiction based on Defendant placing products into the stream of commerce that are sold to consumers in Illinois through a known distribution channel.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pillowfort" brand water bottles infringe a utility patent and a design patent, and mimic the trade dress, related to Plaintiff's "FUNtainer" line of children's beverage containers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the functional and ornamental design of lids for personal beverage containers, a high-volume consumer product category where brand identity and usability features are significant market drivers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior dispute beginning in September 2021 over Canadian patents corresponding to the asserted U.S. patents. Plaintiff claims that after being confronted in Canada, Defendant made "inconsequential changes" to its product and began selling it in the United States. The complaint also references pre-suit letters sent to Defendant and its distributor, Target, in June 2023, which it alleges establish knowledge for willfulness.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-05-06	U.S. D675,060 Priority Date
2011-06-08	U.S. 8,550,269 Priority Date
c. 2012	Thermos LLC adopts FUNtainer Bottle design
2013-01-29	U.S. D675,060 Patent Issues
2013-10-08	U.S. 8,550,269 Patent Issues
2021-09-10	Thermos sends letter to Sully regarding Canadian counterpart patents
c. 2022-2023	Sully allegedly offers and sells accused bottle to Target in the U.S.
c. 2023-06-16	Thermos sends letter to Target alleging infringement
c. 2023-06-21	Sully receives notice of infringement allegations via Target
2023-06	Accused "Sully's Bottle" goes on sale to consumers in U.S. Target stores
2023-07-12	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,550,269 - "Drink Bottle and Lid with Cover for Drink Spout"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,550,269, "Drink Bottle and Lid with Cover for Drink Spout," issued October 8, 2013. (Compl. ¶21).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background notes the increasing popularity of personal beverage bottles that feature a drink spout allowing for use without removing the entire lid, along with a cover to maintain spout hygiene. (’269 Patent, col. 1:11-27). The invention summary suggests a need for a more durable bottle that can withstand being dropped by permitting components to release without breaking. (’269 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a lid with a two-part assembly: an inner lid that attaches to the bottle and an outer lid (or cover) that pivots to cover a drink spout. (’269 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is a push-button release mechanism that is enclosed within a "tunnel" on the inner lid, shielding the moving parts from damage or contamination. (’269 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:3). The hinge connecting the inner and outer lids, as well as a carrying handle, are designed to be "selectively releasable" under force and readily reattached, enhancing durability. (’269 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 1:41-50).
• Technical Importance: The design's approach of using releasable components aims to improve product longevity in a market segment (e.g., children's products) where items are frequently dropped or subjected to rough handling. (’269 Patent, col. 1:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶32).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A bottle and a removable lid with cooperating engaging structures.
  • The lid comprises an inner lid and a pivotable outer lid.
  • The inner lid defines a button tunnel with an enclosed channel for a sliding element, and a spout opening.
  • A button is mounted in the tunnel and is movable between locked and unlocked positions, with a sliding arm enclosed in the channel.
  • A locking tab extends from the outer lid to engage the button when closed.
  • A drink spout is mounted on the inner lid and covered by the outer lid when in the closed position.
  • A bail handle is mounted on the outer lid.

U.S. Patent No. D675,060 - "Lid for Drink Container"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D675060, "Lid for Drink Container," issued January 29, 2013. (Compl. ¶23).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents address aesthetics, not function. The patent sought to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for a beverage container lid.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a lid for a drink container as depicted in its six figures. (’060 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The design is characterized by its overall contours, the shape and placement of the push-button and its surrounding recess, the integrated hinge, and the shape of the top surface. (Compl. ¶23).
• Technical Importance: In the consumer goods market, a distinctive ornamental design can create a recognizable product identity, serving as a source identifier and influencing purchasing decisions. (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a lid for drink container, as shown and described." (Compl. ¶31; ’060 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are water bottles sold under the "Pillowfort" brand and described as "12oz Stainless Steel Portable Drinkware Water Bottle," "Portable Drinkware 12oz Water Bottle," or similar descriptions, collectively referred to as "Sully's Bottle." (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused "Sully's Bottle" is a children's beverage container featuring a lid with a push-button mechanism that opens a cover to reveal a drinking spout. (Compl. ¶¶25-26). The complaint includes a side-by-side photographic comparison showing the accused bottle's similar appearance and operation to the Thermos FUNtainer product. (Compl. ¶26, p. 8). The complaint alleges that the accused products are sold in the same channels of commerce as Thermos's products, such as Target stores and target.com, and are marketed for use by children at a similar price point. (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused "Sully's Bottle" to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '060 Patent. (Compl. ¶31). To support this, the complaint provides extensive side-by-side visual comparisons of the patented design figures and photographs of the accused product from multiple angles. (Compl. ¶30, pp. 11-13). This comparison shows the accused bottle lid next to Figure 1 of the '060 Patent, highlighting similarities in overall shape, button design, and surface contours. (Compl. ¶30, p. 11).

’269 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a bottle having a mouth with a lid engaging structure; a removable lid having a cooperating engaging structure...	The accused bottle has a mouth and a removable lid with cooperating engaging structures.	¶22, ¶32	col. 2:51-58
said removable lid including an inner lid and an outer lid...	The accused bottle's lid includes an inner lid and an outer lid.	¶22, ¶32	col. 2:61-63
said inner lid...defining a button tunnel and a spout opening, said button tunnel including an enclosing structure defining an enclosed channel to slidably receive a sliding element...	The inner lid of the accused bottle defines a button tunnel and spout opening, where the tunnel has an enclosing structure for a sliding element.	¶22, ¶32	col. 4:59-64
a button mounted within said button tunnel...including a sliding arm slidably mounted within said channel...said sliding arm being enclosed...to prevent contact with...a user...	A button is mounted in the accused bottle's button tunnel, and it includes a sliding arm enclosed within the channel to prevent user contact.	¶22, ¶32	col. 5:11-20
a locking tab extending from said outer lid, said locking tab engaging said button when said outer lid is in said closed position...	A locking tab on the accused bottle's outer lid engages the button to keep the lid closed.	¶22, ¶32	col. 4:52-58
a drink spout mounted in said spout opening of said inner lid...said outer lid covering said drink spout when...in said closed position...	The accused bottle has a drink spout on its inner lid that is covered by the outer lid when closed.	¶22, ¶32	col. 4:3-5
a bail handle mounted on said outer lid and pivotable between a stowed position and a deployed position.	The accused bottle has a pivotable bail handle mounted on its outer lid.	¶22, ¶32	col. 2:63-64

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: For the ’060 Patent, a central question will be the scope of the claimed design in the context of a crowded field of similar beverage containers. A court may need to determine whether the similarities between the accused product and the patented design outweigh any differences from the perspective of an ordinary observer. (Compl. ¶24).
  • Technical Questions: For the ’269 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the internal mechanisms of the accused bottle operate in a way that meets the specific claim limitations. For instance, questions may arise as to whether the button mechanism in "Sully's Bottle" contains a "sliding arm" that undergoes "translational movement" within an "enclosed channel" as required by the claim language. The complaint's assertion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents suggests there may be non-literal infringement arguments. (Compl. ¶32).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’060 Design Patent, claim construction is not focused on textual terms but on the overall visual appearance of the design as shown in the patent's figures. The scope of the claim is defined by the drawings.

For the ’269 Utility Patent:

• The Term: "enclosed channel"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and describes the housing for the button's sliding arm. The patent emphasizes that enclosing the mechanism protects it from damage and debris. (’269 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:3). The infringement analysis will depend on the degree of "enclosure" required by the claim and whether the accused product's design meets that standard.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers generally to a "tunnel structure 64" that "encloses the working parts of the locking mechanism," which could support an interpretation that does not require a hermetically sealed or fully four-sided channel. (’269 Patent, col. 4:59-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly the exploded view in Figure 5, show a distinct channel within the tunnel (64) that appears to substantially surround the sliding arms (102) of the button (22). A defendant may argue this specific embodiment limits the term to a more complete form of enclosure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Sully induced infringement by its end users. (Compl. ¶¶33-34, 50). This allegation is based on Sully allegedly providing instructions with its bottle that direct users to operate it in an infringing manner, while possessing knowledge of the patents from pre-suit correspondence. (Compl. ¶¶33-34).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint strongly alleges willful infringement, contending that Sully had pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Thermos LLC Patents and trade dress. (Compl. ¶¶35-47). The basis for this allegation includes a prior dispute over Canadian counterpart patents dating to September 2021, a June 2023 notice letter, and evidence of alleged direct copying. (Compl. ¶¶39, 42). The complaint presents a table comparing the care instructions from Thermos's product with those from Sully's product, alleging they are nearly identical, as evidence of copying. (Compl. ¶36, p. 14).

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

• A central issue will be one of visual identity and intent: Given the evidence of a prior dispute over foreign counterpart patents and the alleged copying of product features and even care instructions, did Sully willfully infringe the '060 design patent and trade dress by creating a product that is substantially the same in overall appearance to an ordinary observer, or are the designs distinguishable in the context of the consumer marketplace?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the internal push-button and hinge mechanism of the accused "Sully's Bottle" function in a way that meets the specific structural limitations of the '269 patent's claims, particularly regarding the "enclosed channel" and "sliding arm," or will the plaintiff need to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents?
• The outcome of the willfulness allegation will likely depend on a factual determination of knowledge and copying: Can Sully provide evidence of independent development and a good-faith belief of non-infringement sufficient to overcome the complaint's narrative that it knowingly copied a competitor's successful product after being put on notice in a different jurisdiction?