Jetteo LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jetteo, LLC (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Jurisdiction unspecified, alleged to operate from the People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08575, N.D. Ill., 09/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' e-commerce stores directly targeting business activities and sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of sandwich makers infringe a utility patent and a design patent related to a device for creating crustless, sealed sandwiches.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical food preparation devices designed to cut the crusts from bread and simultaneously crimp the edges to seal fillings inside.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a large number of unnamed e-commerce entities listed on a "Schedule A," a common litigation strategy targeting diffuse online sellers. Plaintiff argues for joinder of all defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299, asserting that the accused products are not merely similar but are the "same in all respects relevant to the patent." No prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,409,647 - "SANDWICH MAKER FOR MAKING CRUSTLESS SEALED SANDWICH"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,409,647, "SANDWICH MAKER FOR MAKING CRUSTLESS SEALED SANDWICH," issued November 8, 2022 (’647 Patent). (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes issues with existing sandwich makers, which "often do not form a good seal, and/or form cracks on the surface of the bread upon sealing," leading to filling spillage and an "aesthetically imperfect looking sandwich." (’647 Patent, col. 1:20-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part apparatus for cutting and sealing sandwiches. It consists of a "primary cutting die" to remove crusts and a separate "sealing press" to crimp the bread. A central feature of the sealing press is a specific "oblique surface" which is claimed to compress the bread to form a seal "without creating any cracks or spillage," while also giving the sandwich a "slightly bulged shape." (’647 Patent, col. 1:41-49; FIG. 4).
• Technical Importance: The design's stated purpose is to provide a reliable method for creating a "perfectly sealed, spill proof, and aesthetically appealing sandwich with a slight dome shape." (’647 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A "primary cutting die" with a rim, sidewall, and blade.
  • A "sealing press" with a second rim, sidewall, sealing edge, and an "oblique surface."
  • Specific structural relationships, including the sidewalls being "coextensive" with the blade and sealing edge, respectively.
  • A specific geometry for the oblique surface, requiring it to be "perimetrically connected to the sealing edge" and to taper from that first edge to a second edge located between the sealing edge and the second rim. (’647 Patent, col. 5:43-6:6).
• The complaint’s phrasing "at least claim 1" suggests the right to assert dependent claims may be reserved. (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. D909,809 - "CIRCULAR SANDWICH CUTTERS"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D909,809, "CIRCULAR SANDWICH CUTTERS," issued February 9, 2021 (’809 Patent). (Compl. ¶34).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance. The complaint suggests a desire in the market for "sandwich cutters having different shapes" as context for the design. (Compl. ¶32, citing ’647 Patent, col. 1:25-27).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a set of circular sandwich cutters as depicted in its figures. (’809 Patent, Claim). The design features a two-piece, nested assembly comprising a lower cutting ring and an upper sealing ring, characterized by its particular proportions, smooth outer walls, a flanged upper rim, and a series of rounded rectangular protrusions on the bottom face of the sealing ring. (’809 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
• Design Importance: The unique combination of curves, proportions, and surface features shown in the drawings creates a distinct overall visual appearance for the article of manufacture.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in the drawings. (’809 Patent, "CLAIM").
• The infringement analysis will be a comparison of the accused product's overall appearance to the design depicted in the patent's figures. (’809 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "sandwich makers" sold by the defendants through various online storefronts, collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products." (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "have components that are the same as one another and function the same in all respects relevant to the ’647 Patent." (Compl. ¶5). It specifically alleges that each infringing product possesses the "same type of oblique surface as one another" in addition to the other claimed components. (Compl. ¶5). The complaint includes a representative figure from the ’647 Patent, showing an exploded view of the two-part sandwich maker, to illustrate the patented design. (Compl. p. 5). The products are allegedly marketed and sold to U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, via a network of e-commerce stores that use various tactics to conceal their operators' identities. (Compl. ¶2, ¶15-17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory for the ’647 Patent is based on general allegations that the accused products practice the claims.

’647 Patent Infringement Allegations

’809 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that many of the accused products infringe the ’809 Patent "by having the same aesthetic appearance as claimed." (Compl. ¶33). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The core of this allegation is a visual comparison between the accused products and the figures of the ’809 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes broad allegations that all accused products from a multitude of sellers are "the same in all respects relevant to the patent." (Compl. ¶5). A central issue will be whether discovery provides factual evidence that the accused products meet every specific structural and relational limitation of Claim 1 of the ’647 Patent.
• Joinder Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be whether joinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The court must decide if the various products are indeed the "same accused product" for joinder purposes, or if they are merely different products that all allegedly infringe the same patent, which would require separate actions.
• Design Comparison: For the ’809 Patent, the dispute will center on a factual comparison of the overall visual appearance of the accused products to the design claimed in the patent’s drawings. (Compl. ¶33).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "oblique surface"

  • Context and Importance: This term is described as a key inventive feature for achieving a proper seal without damaging the bread. (Compl. ¶10). Its construction will be critical to determining the scope of the claim.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification at one point refers to a "curved/oblique inner surface," which may suggest the term is not limited to a planar, angled surface. (’647 Patent, col. 2:20-21).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the surface to be "tapering from the first edge to the second edge," and the embodiment in Figure 4 depicts a distinctly flat, angled surface. This language and depiction could support a narrower construction limited to a specific geometry. (’647 Patent, col. 6:4-6; FIG. 4).

• The Term: "coextensive"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the spatial alignment between the sidewalls and the functional edges (the cutting blade and the sealing edge). The precision of this alignment is tied to the device's function.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted more generally to mean parallel or sharing a common boundary for a substantial portion of their length.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this feature to specific functional outcomes, stating the coextensive alignment of the first sidewall creates a "smooth cut" (’647 Patent, col. 2:49-50) and the alignment of the second sidewall creates a "seamless connection" (’647 Patent, col. 3:7-8). This functional language may be used to argue for a narrower definition that requires an alignment capable of achieving these results.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the elements of either induced infringement (e.g., specific instructions to customers to perform infringing acts) or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infringement has been "knowing[] and willful[]." (Compl. ¶21, ¶22, ¶26). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge from a notice letter or other communication. The basis appears to be the allegation that Defendants are part of a sophisticated network of infringers who trade on Plaintiff's patented design. (Compl. ¶6, ¶17-20). These allegations, coupled with the service of the complaint itself, may form a basis for post-suit willfulness.

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

1. A central issue will be one of proof and procedure: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence that the products sold by dozens of anonymous online sellers are not only infringing, but are functionally and structurally identical to a degree that satisfies the "same accused product" standard for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299?
2. A key question for the utility patent will be evidentiary: Assuming the case proceeds, does the evidence show that the accused products practice every limitation of Claim 1, including the specific geometric requirements of a "coextensive" sidewall and a tapering "oblique surface"?
3. For the design patent, the question is one of visual identity: Do the accused products create the same overall ornamental impression as the design in the ’809 Patent to an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?