DCT

1:22-cv-05578

The Schedule A

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-05578, N.D. Ill., 01/19/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ business activities targeting consumers in Illinois via interactive commercial websites, and for Defendant Foshan Leweimei Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., a forum selection clause in a prior manufacturing agreement with the Plaintiff.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ food blenders infringe two design patents and one utility patent related to vacuum blending technology, and further brings claims for breach of contract and conversion against one of the defendants.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is vacuum blending for small kitchen appliances, a method that removes air from the blending container prior to operation to reduce oxidation and thereby improve the quality and nutrient retention of the blended food.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior contractual relationship where Plaintiff NuWave engaged Defendant Foshan Leweimei Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (LWM) as the exclusive manufacturer for its patented blenders. Plaintiff alleges that LWM breached this agreement by using tooling owned by NuWave to manufacture the accused infringing products for co-defendant ifansshop, giving LWM specific knowledge of the asserted patents before the suit was filed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-12-01 Tooling and Manufacturing Agreement between NuWave and LWM.
2017-01-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,556,208 Priority Date.
2017-06-22 U.S. Patent No. D834,878 Priority Date.
2017-06-22 U.S. Patent No. D851,444 Priority Date.
2017-07-11 Addendum to Manufacturing Agreement signed.
2018-12-04 U.S. Patent No. D834,878 Issue Date.
2019-06-18 U.S. Patent No. D851,444 Issue Date.
2020-02-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,556,208 Issue Date.
2023-01-19 First Amended Complaint Filing Date.

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D851,444 - Vaccum Blender Base, Issued June 18, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents address the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a vacuum blender base as depicted in its seven figures ('444 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Key visual features include a main body with a control dial and display on a slanted front face, which sits atop a wider pedestal, and a distinctive L-shaped arm extending upwards from the rear of the main body to overhang the blender container area ('444 Patent, Fig. 1). The design creates a specific overall visual impression.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic for a blender, distinguishing it commercially from other products in the market.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a vacuum blender base, as shown and described" ('444 Patent, CLAIM).

U.S. Design Patent No. D834,878 - Vacuum Blender Base, Issued December 4, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, this invention addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a vacuum blender base shown in its figures ('878 Patent, Figs. 1-7). This design shares a general form factor with the '444 patent, including the main body, pedestal, and an L-shaped overhead arm ('878 Patent, Fig. 1). However, it presents a distinct visual appearance, particularly in the proportions and surface contours of the base and control area, which distinguishes it as a separate ornamental design.
  • Technical Importance: This patent protects a specific aesthetic variation of a vacuum blender base, broadening the patentee's design protection in the marketplace.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a vacuum blender base, as shown and described" ('878 Patent, CLAIM).

U.S. Patent No. 10,556,208 - Vacuum Blender, Issued February 11, 2020

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem of nutrient loss and uneven blending caused by oxidation when ingredients are mixed with air at high speed ('208 Patent, col. 1:30-39). The patented solution is a blender system that integrates a motor and a vacuum system into a base unit, where the vacuum system couples to a specially designed lid to remove air from the container before blending ('208 Patent, Abstract). The invention also discloses a specific blender blade geometry intended to result in finer processing of ingredients ('208 Patent, col. 1:46-49).

Asserted Claims

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the '208 Patent" without specifying which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶48). The patent contains two independent claims (1 and 16).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the accused products incorporate the claimed elements, implicating the entire accused vacuum blender system, including its base, motor, vacuum pump, container, lid, and control system (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are food blenders sold under the "Elevarify" brand by Defendant ifansshop (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant LWM, a former exclusive manufacturer for Plaintiff NuWave, now manufactures the accused infringing products for Defendant ifansshop (Compl. ¶¶18, 36). It is further alleged that LWM used tooling created under contract and owned by NuWave to manufacture these accused products (Compl. ¶¶19, 37). The products are allegedly sold through various online marketplaces, including banggood.com, newegg.com, and walmart.com (Compl. ¶17). The complaint provides screenshots of the accused products being offered for sale on various e-commerce websites (Compl. ¶17, Ex. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits (Ex. 7A-7C) that purportedly detail the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶46-48).

For the '444 and '878 design patents, the complaint's narrative theory is that the accused products incorporate the claimed ornamental designs, making them visually confusingly similar to an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶¶46, 47, 64, 70).

For the '208 utility patent, the complaint alleges that the accused product "incorporates each of the claim elements of one or more claims" (Compl. ¶48). An analysis of the primary independent claim is presented below.

10,556,208 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a container for holding ingredients to be blended, the container being open at a top end; The complaint alleges the accused product is a blender, which by its nature includes a container for holding ingredients. ¶48 col. 4:14-22
a rotatable blade having a central body and a plurality of blending arms extending from the body, the rotatable blade being positioned at a center of a bottom surface of the container... The complaint alleges the accused product is a blender, which would include a rotatable blade assembly at the bottom of its container. ¶48 col. 5:52-59
a lid configured to completely cover the open end of the container, the lid having a first aperture on a first surface of the lid and a second aperture on a second surface of the lid, the first and second apertures being fluidly connected by an air passage through the lid; The complaint alleges infringement of the vacuum blender patent, which suggests the accused product's lid must contain the apertures and air passage necessary for the vacuum function. ¶48 col. 5:25-30
a base unit comprising: a motor housed within a first housing section... an interface positioned on an outer surface... a second housing section extending upward... a vacuum system for effecting a vacuum within the container... and a control panel having a plurality of inputs... The complaint alleges the accused product is a functional vacuum blender, which suggests it possesses a base containing a motor, vacuum system, controls, and interface for the container. ¶48 col. 4:29-47
an enclosure attached to the base and comprising a plurality of panels which together surround the container when positioned on the interface of the base, the enclosure further comprising a handle attached to at least one of the plurality of panels to move the at least one of the plurality of panels and provide access to an interior of the enclosure. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. ¶48 col. 4:8-13

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the '208 patent, a central dispute may arise over the "enclosure" limitation in independent claim 1. The claim requires an enclosure that surrounds the container, a feature typically for sound-dampening. The question will be whether the accused product includes such a structure, as the complaint provides no specific allegations on this point. The infringement analysis for claim 1 could fail if this element is found to be absent from the accused product.
  • Technical Questions: The core of the design patent infringement analysis will be a visual comparison between the patent figures and the accused products under the "ordinary observer" test. The allegation that Defendants used Plaintiff's own tooling (Compl. ¶37) suggests the possibility of a very high degree of visual similarity, which would strongly support the infringement claim if proven.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '444 and '878 design patents, the claim is defined by the drawings, and claim construction is not typically performed on verbal terms. For the '208 utility patent, the following terms may be critical.

  • The Term: "enclosure" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and requires a specific structure attached to the base that surrounds the container. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product lacks this feature, it cannot literally infringe claim 1. Its construction will determine whether a simple splash guard could meet the limitation or if a more substantial, fully surrounding structure is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the purpose is to "encase the container during blending," which could be argued to cover any surrounding structure ('208 Patent, col. 4:9-10).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a preferred embodiment where the enclosure is "comprised of a series of side panels," includes a "handle 102 attached to a pivoting front panel 104," and is "removable" ('208 Patent, col. 4:8-13). A party could argue the term is limited to this more complex, multi-part assembly depicted in Figures 2 and 3.

  • The Term: "second housing section extending upward" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the part of the base that supports the vacuum connection to the lid. Its meaning is pivotal because its shape and configuration form a key part of the product's overall structure and appearance, which is also the subject of the asserted design patents.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, potentially covering any vertical extension from the base designed to engage the lid.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently show this element as a distinct, L-shaped "upwardly extending arm 18 with a horizontally positioned end portion 20" ('208 Patent, col. 4:32-34; Fig. 1). A defendant may argue that the claim scope should be limited to the specific arm structure shown, especially in light of the corresponding design patents that claim that specific visual feature.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "jointly and severally" infringed (Compl. ¶40) and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. p. 18, ¶A.b). The factual basis for induced infringement is the alleged scheme where LWM manufactures the infringing product specifically for ifansshop to sell, with both parties allegedly acting in concert (Compl. ¶40).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was "knowing[] and willfully" (Compl. ¶41, 54). The basis for this allegation is the prior contractual relationship, under which LWM was an exclusive manufacturer for NuWave's products and allegedly "had specific knowledge of the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶35). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the patented technology is a strong basis for a willfulness claim.

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

  • A central issue will be the impact of the prior contractual relationship. The allegation that Defendant LWM was Plaintiff's exclusive manufacturer and used Plaintiff's own tooling to create the accused products raises critical questions for willfulness, damages, and the breach of contract claim, and it may significantly color the infringement analysis for the design patents.
  • A key question for the '208 utility patent will be one of claim scope and proof. Can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the "enclosure" element of claim 1, which is not described in the complaint's factual allegations? The lack of specificity in the complaint regarding which claims are asserted will need to be resolved.
  • For the design patents, the case will turn on a question of visual identity: does the allegation that Defendants used Plaintiff’s tooling mean the accused products are so visually similar to the patented designs that an ordinary observer would be deceived? Proving the use of this tooling could be a decisive factor in the design patent infringement analysis.