Aj's Nifty Products v. T Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AJ's Nifty Products (California)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A (various non-U.S. jurisdictions, including the People's Republic of China, Israel, Indonesia, Philippines, and Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-14200, N.D. Ill., 09/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Northern District of Illinois on the basis that the defendants are not residents of the United States and therefore may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that drink caddies sold by numerous foreign-based online merchants through marketplaces like Amazon.com infringe a U.S. patent for a drink carrier with adjustable securing cords.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to reusable beverage carriers designed to securely transport drinks of varying sizes, addressing a common issue of spillage from standard, fixed-size carriers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, joining numerous defendants alleged to be an interrelated group of infringers operating under fictitious names. This procedural posture is common in actions against networks of online sellers and aims to address their use of concealment tactics.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-09-16	'840 Patent Priority Date
2022-09-20	'840 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-27	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,445,840 - DRINK CADDY

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for an improved system for transporting multiple drinks, noting that conventional carriers may not secure drinks properly, leading to spillage or drinks falling out, "particularly if the drink does not fit within the compartment" ('840 Patent, col. 1:16-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a drink caddy featuring at least one compartment and a "size adjustable" cord. This cord extends into the compartment and is configured to wrap around a beverage container to hold it securely in place, thereby reducing the risk of spillage during transport ('840 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-32). Embodiments described in the patent include caddies with multiple compartments, foldable dividers, and cord locks to adjust and fix the circumference of the cord loops ('840 Patent, col. 3:15-24, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The use of adjustable cords allows a single carrier to accommodate and secure beverages of various different sizes, enhancing its versatility compared to fixed-size carriers ('840 Patent, col. 2:52-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 ('840 Patent, col. 4:26-39; Compl. ¶32).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • A drink caddy comprising: a first compartment section and a first cord extending into the first compartment section,
  • wherein the first compartment section is configured to hold a drink,
  • and wherein the first cord is size adjustable and configured to wrap around said drink to secure said drink within the first compartment section, and to reduce the risk of spilling during transport of the drink within said drink caddy.
• The complaint alleges that Defendants have infringed "each and every claim" of the '840 Patent and reserves the right to modify its infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶32-33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," identified as drink caddies offered for sale and sold by the Defendants through online marketplaces including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Alibaba.com, AliExpress.com, and eBay.com (Compl. ¶7).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Defendants sell "the same infringing products with minor variations" through various online storefronts that target consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶6, 9). The complaint does not describe the specific technical features of the accused products in detail, but instead relies on visual evidence. For example, Exhibit B to the complaint provides screenshots of Defendants' online product listings, which allegedly depict the infringing drink caddies (Compl. ¶7, Ex. B). These products are alleged to be part of a coordinated effort by an "interrelated group of infringers" who use tactics to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶¶9, 22-23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe at least Claim 1 of the '840 Patent and references an illustrative claim chart in Exhibit C, which was not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶32). The following summary is based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

U.S. Patent No. 11,445,840 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A drink caddy comprising: a first compartment section and a first cord extending into the first compartment section,	The accused products are alleged to be drink caddies that possess at least one compartment section and a cord extending into that section. The complaint's illustrative claim chart in Exhibit C purports to show these features on the accused products.	¶¶31-32, Ex. C	col. 4:27-29
wherein the first compartment section is configured to hold a drink,	The accused products are marketed and sold as drink caddies and are allegedly shown in product listings holding drinks.	¶¶7, 32	col. 4:30-31
and wherein the first cord is size adjustable and configured to wrap around said drink to secure said drink within the first compartment section, and to reduce the risk of spilling during transport of the drink within said drink caddy.	The accused products allegedly include cords that can be adjusted and wrapped around a beverage to secure it, thereby performing the claimed functions of securing the drink and reducing spill risk. Screenshots in Exhibit B allegedly depict this functionality.	¶¶7, 32, Ex. B	col. 4:32-39

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused products' cords are "size adjustable" in a manner that infringes the claim. Further, the complaint will need to provide evidence that the accused cords perform the specific function of "reduc[ing] the risk of spilling during transport," a functional limitation that may require more than visual evidence from product listings to substantiate.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the proper construction of "size adjustable." The question for the court will be whether this term requires a specific locking mechanism, as detailed in the patent's preferred embodiments, or if any means of changing the cord's effective length meets the limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "size adjustable"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted point of novelty. The scope of "size adjustable" will be critical in determining infringement, as it defines the primary mechanism for securing varied drink sizes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will dictate whether the accused products, which may use different adjustment mechanisms, fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 does not specify any particular mechanism for adjustment, stating only that the cord "is size adjustable" ('840 Patent, col. 4:32). This could support a construction that covers any feature allowing the cord's circumference to be changed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment for adjustment is a "cord lock 38, (also known as a cord fastener, spring clasp, or cord toggle)" with a "spring biased release button" ('840 Patent, col. 3:18-24, Fig. 4). Further, dependent Claim 10 explicitly recites "a bungee cord with a cord lock" ('840 Patent, col. 5:20-21). A defendant may argue that the specification's focus on a cord lock limits the scope of "size adjustable" in Claim 1, though a plaintiff would likely counter that such a reading would render Claim 10 redundant under the doctrine of claim differentiation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement, stating Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and work in "active concert" (Compl. ¶¶9, 31). The Prayer for Relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringement (Prayer ¶A.2). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how any defendant induced or contributed to the infringement of another.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offering for sale infringing products (Compl. ¶27). The complaint asserts this knowledge arises from the defendants' alleged status as an "interrelated group of infringers" who communicate about litigation and evasion tactics (Compl. ¶¶9, 25). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge via direct notice to any specific defendant.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "size adjustable" in Claim 1, which is not explicitly defined, be broadly construed to cover any method of altering a cord's length, or will it be limited by the specification's detailed description of a "cord lock" mechanism? The outcome of this question will likely control the infringement analysis for many of the accused products.
• A second key question will be one of joinder and proof: can the Plaintiff successfully argue that the numerous "Schedule A" defendants constitute an "interrelated group" whose infringing acts arise from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions" as required for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299? Success will depend on evidence showing that the defendants are not merely independent sellers of similar products.
• Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: what evidence can the Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the cords on the myriad accused products perform the claimed function of "reduc[ing] the risk of spilling"? Proving this functional limitation may require evidence beyond the product screenshots provided with the complaint, such as physical testing of purchased products.