DCT
1:21-cv-02271
Server Products Inc v. Asept Intl Ab
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Server Products, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Asept International AB (Sweden); Asept International Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SpencePC; Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:21-cv-02271, N.D. Ill., 04/27/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Asept International Inc.'s alleged commission of infringing acts within the district and its maintenance of a regular and established place of business in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' automatic condiment dispenser and its modular lid assembly infringe a patent related to touch-free flowable food product dispensers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns sanitary, automated dispensers for food products like condiments, a market segment that gained significance following public health concerns raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states that due to the "urgency created by the pandemic," it pursued and obtained expedited prosecution for its patent application. Plaintiff also alleges sending a notice letter with infringement contentions to Defendants approximately four weeks before filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-07-23 | Provisional Patent Application Filing Date for ’105 Patent |
| 2020-07-31 | Plaintiff launches its Touchless Express™ product |
| 2020-11-13 | Defendant's partner (KraftHeinz) announces the accused Keystone Automatic Dispenser |
| 2020-12-01 | Utility Patent Application Filing Date for ’105 Patent |
| 2021-03-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,961,105 Issues |
| 2021-04-01 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendants |
| 2021-04-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,961,105 - Touch-Free Flowable Food Product Dispenser
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,961,105, issued March 30, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a sanitation problem with manual food condiment dispensers, noting that the shared pump handle "collects bacteria or viruses" from multiple users and provides a "point for possible contamination" ('105 Patent, col. 2:36-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a touch-free dispenser system featuring an "automated pump actuation unit" that is removable from the main dispenser body as a "single unit" ('105 Patent, col. 7:18-29). This modular unit contains a sensor that detects a user's hand and a mechanical actuator that automatically drives the pump, eliminating physical contact ('105 Patent, col. 2:5-18). This design allows for the conversion of existing manual dispensers into touch-free systems by replacing the manual handle assembly with the automated unit ('105 Patent, col. 7:24-34).
- Technical Importance: The invention's approach sought to eliminate a common vector for contamination in food service environments by replacing a high-touch manual component with a sensor-driven, automated alternative ('105 Patent, col. 2:44-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, and 18, and reserves the right to assert various dependent claims (Compl. ¶25).
- Independent Claim 1: A food product dispenser system comprising:
- a main body for receiving a supply of food product;
- a pump assembly supported on the main body;
- an automated pump actuation unit operable to actuate the pump;
- a cover member supporting the automated pump actuation unit;
- a sensor to detect an actuation member (e.g., a hand);
- wherein the cover member and automated pump actuation unit are "removable from the main body as a single unit."
- Independent Claim 12: A food product dispenser comprising:
- a main body for receiving a food product supply;
- a diaphragm pump supported by the main body;
- a cover member removably mounted to the main body;
- an automated pump actuation unit mounted to the cover member;
- a sensor to detect a user's hand;
- a control unit that operates the actuation unit upon detection.
- Independent Claim 18: An automated pump actuation unit itself (for use with a dispenser) comprising:
- a cover member removably mountable to a main body;
- a mechanical actuator mounted to the cover member;
- a sensor on the cover member to detect a user's hand;
- a control unit to operate the actuator upon detection.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Keystone Automatic Dispenser" and a component part identified as the "Automated Keystone Lid Assembly" (Compl. ¶¶23, 25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a touchless condiment dispenser that operates when "a user...plac[es] a hand over a sensor in the dispenser lid to power an electric actuator in the lid to operate a pump assembly in the unit base" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the accused product's sensor-based operation (Compl. ¶24).
- The product is alleged to be manufactured by Defendants for KraftHeinz and was announced as a way to "restore consumer confidence in dining on-premise" during the COVID-19 pandemic by offering a "100% touchless condiment serving experience" (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in an attached Exhibit D, which was not included in the public filing. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.
’105 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a main body having an open interior sized to receive a supply of flowable food product to be dispensed | The base of the accused Keystone Automatic Dispenser, which holds the condiment supply. | ¶24 | col. 8:51-53 |
| a pump assembly supported on the main body...including a first end in fluid communication with the supply...and a dispensing end | The pump mechanism housed within the base of the accused dispenser. | ¶24 | col. 8:54-59 |
| an automated pump actuation unit operable to actuate the pump assembly | The "Automated Keystone Lid Assembly," which contains the sensor and actuator to operate the pump. | ¶25 | col. 8:60-64 |
| a cover member supported on the main body, wherein the automated pump actuation unit is mounted to the cover member such that the cover member and the automated pump actuation unit are removable from the main body as a single unit | The accused "Automated Keystone Lid Assembly" is alleged to be a single, removable lid unit. The complaint includes a diagram showing the lid as distinct from the base. | ¶24, ¶25 | col. 8:65-col. 9:2 |
| a sensor positioned to detect the presence of an actuation member in proximity to the sensor | The accused product's lid includes a motion sensor that detects a user's hand. | ¶24 | col. 9:3-5 |
| wherein the automated pump actuation unit is operable to automatically actuate the pump assembly upon detection of the presence of the actuation member | Placing a hand over the accused product's sensor allegedly causes the pump to operate and dispense the condiment. | ¶24 | col. 9:6-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory hinges on the accused "Automated Keystone Lid Assembly" meeting the definition of the claimed "automated pump actuation unit ... removable from the main body as a single unit." A central question will be whether the accused product is in fact modular in the manner claimed, with the lid containing the necessary actuator, sensor, and control components, and being separable from the base as a self-contained unit.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides a high-level description of the accused product's operation. A factual question will be whether the specific internal components and mechanism of the accused lid assembly map onto the structures recited in the patent's claims, such as the "actuator arm" and "roller" described in various dependent claims ('105 Patent, claims 4-5). The complaint includes a patent figure depicting the claimed mechanism (Compl. ¶21) and a diagram of the accused product (Compl. ¶24), suggesting a comparison of these operational mechanics will be a focus.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "removable from the main body as a single unit" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the patent's asserted novelty of providing a modular, retrofittable automated head for existing manual dispenser bodies. Infringement by the "Automated Keystone Lid Assembly" as a standalone product (as asserted in Claim 18) depends heavily on the construction of this phrase.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention's purpose as allowing for easy conversion of manual dispensers, stating "the automated pump actuation unit 17 could be used to retrofit existing food product dispensers" because "the entire pump actuator 17...are assembled as a single unit" ('105 Patent, col. 7:24-29). This suggests the term should be read broadly to cover any self-contained, removable head unit that performs the claimed function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the "single unit" limitation requires a specific structural relationship where all actuating components are fully integrated within the cover member without reliance on the main body. The specification describes a "connector 27 that secures the cover member 18 to the main body 14" ('105 Patent, col. 3:65-67), which could be argued to imply a more complex connection than simple placement and removal.
The Term: "automated pump actuation unit" (Claims 1, 12, 18)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive component. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine which components (e.g., sensor, motor, control unit, actuator arm) must be found in the accused "Automated Keystone Lid Assembly" for a finding of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the unit functionally as being "operable to actuate the pump assembly" ('105 Patent, col. 8:60-61), potentially encompassing any combination of components that achieves this result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the unit as a combination of specific parts: "the entire pump actuator 17, including the cover member 18, mechanical actuator 48, control unit 61 and sensor 58 are assembled as a single unit" ('105 Patent, col. 7:24-27). This could support a narrower construction requiring the presence of all these elements within the accused component.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement based on Defendants' "promoting, advertising, instructing, facilitating, and supporting others" to use the accused dispensers (Compl. ¶29). This is implicitly supported by references to the product's User Manual (Compl. ¶23) and press release (Compl. ¶22).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on post-notice conduct. The complaint alleges that Defendants were made aware of the '105 patent and their alleged infringement on or about April 1-2, 2021, via a notice letter, and that infringement continued thereafter (Compl. ¶¶26, 32, 36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural and definitional scope: Can the accused "Automated Keystone Lid Assembly" be properly characterized as an "automated pump actuation unit...removable from the main body as a single unit" as that phrase is construed in light of the patent's specification? The case may turn on the degree of modularity and self-containment required by the claims.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: Does the internal mechanism of the accused dispenser—which is not detailed in the complaint—contain the specific components and operate in the manner recited by the patent's asserted claims, or is there a material difference in its technical implementation?
- A third question concerns willfulness: Given the very short timeline between the patent's issuance (March 30, 2021), the notice letter (April 1, 2021), and the filing of the suit (April 27, 2021), the viability of the willfulness claim will depend on what actions, if any, Defendants took or failed to take in response to the notice during that compressed period.