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 undisclosed)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08606, N.D. Ill., 09/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendants target business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sandwich makers infringe a patent related to a specific mechanical design for creating crustless, sealed sandwiches.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld consumer kitchen devices designed to simultaneously cut the crusts from bread and crimp the edges to seal a sandwich.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has sold its own "Jetteo Products" covered by the patent since at least August 2019. The action joins numerous unidentified e-commerce operators as defendants, alleging that the accused products are the same in all respects relevant to the patent, thereby satisfying the joinder requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 299.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-08-01	Plaintiff allegedly began selling its "Jetteo Products"
2019-11-12	’647 Patent Priority Date
2022-11-08	’647 Patent Issue Date
2024-09-18	Complaint Filing Date

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of conventional sandwich makers that "often do not form a good seal, and/or form cracks on the surface of the bread upon sealing," leading to spillage of the filling or an "aesthetically imperfect looking sandwich" (’647 Patent, col. 1:20-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part apparatus, typically comprising a "primary cutting die" and a "sealing press" (’647 Patent, col. 2:29-31). The key innovation resides in the sealing press, which features an "oblique surface." This surface is designed to compress the bread "compactly, without creating any cracks or spillage of the filling," while also imparting a "slightly bulged shape" to the final sandwich (’647 Patent, col. 1:41-49).
• Technical Importance: This design purports to offer a more reliable and aesthetically pleasing method for creating a popular food item—the crustless sealed sandwich—by solving common mechanical failures of prior devices (’647 Patent, col. 1:15-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • a primary cutting die;
  • at least one sealing press;
  • the primary cutting die comprising a first rim, a first lateral sidewall, and at least one primary blade;
  • the sealing press comprising a second rim, a second lateral sidewall, a sealing edge, and an oblique surface;
  • structural relationships defining how the sidewalls connect to the rims, blades, and edges, including that the sidewalls are "positioned coextensive" to the blade and sealing edge; and
  • the oblique surface having a first edge connected to the sealing edge and tapering to a second edge positioned between the sealing edge and the second rim.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are unauthorized products that "trade upon Jetteo's patented design" (Compl. ¶6). It further 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). The core infringing feature is identified as the "same type of oblique surface as one another, in addition to the other claimed components" (Compl. ¶5). The complaint provides an exploded-view diagram from the patent, showing the two-part construction of the sandwich maker, with the sealing press (top) and primary cutting die (bottom) separated (Compl. p. 5).
• The defendants are characterized as "online infringers" who operate e-commerce stores and use tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple fictitious names and using layers of payment gateways (Compl. ¶¶6-7, 16, 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory is based on allegations that the accused products are copies of Plaintiff's patented design.

’647 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a primary cutting die; at least one sealing press;	The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are sandwich makers that infringe the patented design, which includes a cutting die and a sealing press.	¶6, ¶10	col. 2:29-31
the at least one sealing press comprising a second rim, a second lateral sidewall, a sealing edge...	The complaint alleges the Infringing Products possess the claimed components of the '647 Patent.	¶5	col. 2:60-64
...and an oblique surface;	The complaint specifically alleges that each of the Infringing Products has the "same type of oblique surface" as one another and as claimed in the patent.	¶5, ¶10	col. 2:63-64
a first edge of the oblique surface being perimetrically connected to the sealing edge;	The complaint alleges the Infringing Products have the unique patented design features of claim 1, which includes an oblique surface connected to a sealing edge to compress the sandwich compactly and prevent spillage.	¶10	col. 3:15-16
the oblique surface tapering from the first edge to the second edge.	The complaint alleges the Infringing Products have the unique patented design features of claim 1, which includes a tapering oblique surface that allows for a "perfectly sealed, spill proof, and aesthetically appealing sandwich with a slight dome shape."	¶10	col. 3:18-20

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court may be whether the defendants' products, once identified and examined, actually meet every limitation of Claim 1. The complaint's allegations are generalized across all defendants; a defense may arise if a specific product's geometry does not satisfy a limitation, such as the requirement that the "second lateral sidewall" be "positioned coextensive" to the sealing edge.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on the accused products being functionally and component-wise the "same" as the patented invention (Compl. ¶5). A key technical question will be whether discovery provides evidence that the accused products' sealing mechanism performs the specific function of compressing the bread via a "tapering" "oblique surface," or if they achieve sealing through a different, non-infringing mechanical action.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "oblique surface"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's described point of novelty and the complaint's infringement theory (Compl. ¶10). Its construction will likely determine the scope of the claim, as it defines the feature that allegedly prevents spillage and creates the unique "dome shape."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification at times uses "curved/oblique inner surface" interchangeably, suggesting the term may not be limited to a flat, planar surface and could encompass a range of non-perpendicular surfaces (’647 Patent, col. 2:20-22).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the surface to be "tapering from the first edge to the second edge." This, combined with functional language in the specification describing how the surface "enables the present invention to compress the sandwich compactly without creating any cracks" (’647 Patent, col. 3:19-22), may support a narrower construction tied to both a specific geometry and a functional outcome.

• The Term: "coextensive"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears twice in Claim 1 to define the alignment between the sidewalls and the operative edges (the blade and the sealing edge). Practitioners may focus on this term because it imposes a precise geometric constraint that could be a point of non-infringement if an accused device's components are merely adjacent but not "coextensive."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term simply means the components share the same general length or boundary without requiring perfect alignment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the term to a functional result, stating the coextensive positioning "forms a smooth cut on the bread, without any imperfections along the perimeter" (’647 Patent, col. 2:47-51). This could support a narrower definition requiring precise alignment of the components' boundaries to achieve that smooth cut.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing acts (Prayer for Relief, ¶A(2)). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support a claim of induced or contributory infringement, such as references to instructional materials provided by the defendants.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants have "knowingly and willfully" infringed the ’647 Patent (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). The basis appears to be the defendants' alleged status as intentional counterfeiters rather than any specific pre-suit knowledge or notice of the patent.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the joinder of numerous, unidentified e-commerce sellers, the case will depend on Plaintiff's ability to demonstrate that each accused product is, in fact, "the same in all respects relevant to the patent" (Compl. ¶5). This raises the question of whether a product-by-product analysis will reveal variations that negate infringement of one or more claim limitations.
• The outcome may also turn on a question of claim construction: can the term "oblique surface", which the patent ties to the function of creating a "dome shape" without spillage, be construed to read on the specific design of the defendants' products? The resolution of this and other terms like "coextensive" will be critical in determining the ultimate question of infringement.