DCT

1:25-cv-01380

Jetteo LLC v. entity

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Jetteo, LLC (Pennsylvania)
    • Defendant: The Entity Identified on Schedule A (People's Republic of China)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01380, N.D. Ill., 02/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s operation of a fully interactive e-commerce store that targets business activities and sales toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sandwich makers infringe a utility patent and a design patent related to devices 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 a sandwich.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Jetteo, LLC is the lawful assignee of the patents-in-suit. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-05-20 U.S. Patent No. D909,809 Priority Date
2019-08 Plaintiff began marketing Jetteo Products
2019-11-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,490,647 Priority Date
2021-02-09 U.S. Patent No. D909,809 Issued
2022-11-08 U.S. Patent No. 11,490,647 Issued
2025-02-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,490,647 - "SANDWICH MAKER FOR MAKING CRUSTLESS SEALED SANDWICH"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,490,647, "SANDWICH MAKER FOR MAKING CRUSTLESS SEALED SANDWICH," issued November 8, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies that many commercially available sandwich makers "often do not form a good seal, and/or form cracks on the surface of the bread upon sealing," which can lead to spillage or an "aesthetically imperfect looking sandwich" (’647 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part apparatus designed to both cut and seal a sandwich. Its key component is a "sealing press" featuring a "specific curved/oblique inner surface" (’647 Patent, col. 2:20-21). This surface is engineered to compress the bread compactly, creating a "perfectly sealed, spill proof, and aesthetically appealing sandwich with a slight dome shape" without causing cracks or spillage (’647 Patent, col. 1:45-49; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to overcome common points of failure in prior art devices by providing a structure that simultaneously achieves a robust seal and an aesthetically pleasing domed shape (’647 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 1 requires, among other elements:
    • A "primary cutting die" with a rim, sidewall, and blade.
    • "at least one sealing press" with a second rim, second sidewall, a "sealing edge," and an "oblique surface."
    • A specific geometric arrangement where the first sidewall is "coextensive" with the blade, and the second sidewall is "coextensive" with the sealing edge.
    • The "oblique surface" must have a first edge "perimetrically connected to the sealing edge" and a second edge located between the sealing edge and the second rim, with the surface "tapering from the first edge to the second edge."
  • The complaint’s use of "at least claim 1" suggests it may reserve the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶23).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D909,809, "CIRCULAR SANDWICH CUTTERS," issued February 9, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint notes that it is "desirable to provide sandwich cutters having different shapes" (Compl. ¶28, citing ’647 Patent, col. 1:25-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The D’809 Patent claims "the ornamental design for a circular sandwich cutters, as shown and described" (’809 Patent, Claim). The figures depict a three-piece, nested circular device, including an outer cutting ring, a middle pressing piece with protrusions on its lower edge, and an inner ring (’809 Patent, Figs. 7-8). The claim protects the specific visual appearance of this assembly.
  • Technical Importance: The patent protects a specific aesthetic appearance for a sandwich cutter, distinguishing it visually from other products on the market (Compl. ¶29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim covering the ornamental design as depicted in its drawings (’809 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "sandwich makers" sold by the Defendant, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are unauthorized sandwich makers that incorporate the patented designs from both the ’647 and D’809 patents (Compl. ¶3, ¶29). These products are allegedly sold through at least one interactive e-commerce store that targets consumers in the United States and accepts payment in U.S. dollars (Compl. ¶2, ¶14). The complaint alleges that products with a "round configuration" infringe the D’809 Patent (Compl. ¶29). The complaint provides a representative figure from the '647 patent, an exploded perspective view showing the device's primary cutting die and sealing press (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts and images in Schedule A-1 and Schedule A-2 to support its infringement allegations; however, these schedules were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶23, ¶29). Therefore, the analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the body of the complaint.

'647 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement theory for the ’647 patent centers on the structure and function of the sealing mechanism. It specifically alleges that the accused products include the features of Claim 1, highlighting the "sealing press having an oblique surface between a sealing edge and a rim" (Compl. ¶8). This surface is alleged to taper in a specific manner that "may compress the upper piece of the sandwich compactly, without creating any cracks or spillage...while giving a slightly bulged shape" (Compl. ¶8). The core of the allegation is that Defendant’s products replicate this patented structure to achieve the same functional result (Compl. ¶3, ¶22).

'809 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement allegation for the D’809 patent is based on overall visual appearance. The complaint asserts that the accused products with a "round configuration" have the "same aesthetic appearance as claimed in the '809 Design Patent" (Compl. ¶29). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint alleges that this standard is met (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’647 patent, a central dispute may involve the interpretation of structural limitations. For example, a question is whether the accused product's components meet the specific geometric and positional requirements of Claim 1, such as the "coextensive" relationship between the sidewalls and the blade/sealing edge.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the ’647 patent will be whether the accused product's sealing component has an "oblique surface" that "tapers" in the manner required by the claim and performs the functions described in the patent's specification. For the D’809 patent, the dispositive question will be factual: does a side-by-side visual comparison of the accused product and the patent figures support a finding that the designs are substantially the same from the perspective of an ordinary observer?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "oblique surface" (’647 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the central functional element of the invention, which allegedly creates the unique domed, sealed sandwich. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a wide or narrow range of angled or curved surfaces fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the term structurally as a surface that "tapers from the first edge to the second edge," without specifying a particular angle or degree of curvature (’647 Patent, col. 6:2-5). This may support an interpretation covering any sloped surface meeting the positional requirements.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links this surface to a specific function: creating a "slight dome shape" and compressing the bread "without creating any cracks or spillage" (’647 Patent, col. 1:43-49). A party could argue that these functional descriptions limit the term to only those surfaces that achieve this specific outcome, as depicted in the patent's figures (e.g., Fig. 4).

  • The Term: "coextensive" (’647 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the required alignment between the device's sidewalls and its cutting blade or sealing edge. The construction of "coextensive" will be important for determining the necessary precision of the accused device's assembly to constitute infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "coextensive," which may support applying its plain and ordinary meaning, such as having the same extent or boundaries. This could allow for minor manufacturing tolerances.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the coextensive positioning of the first sidewall and primary blade "forms a smooth cut on the bread, without any imperfections" (’647 Patent, col. 2:47-51). This functional language could be used to argue that "coextensive" implies a specific, precise alignment sufficient to achieve a "smooth cut," thereby narrowing its scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing the patents (Compl. ¶22, ¶33). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations related to user instructions or the sale of non-staple components.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for infringement of both patents (Compl. ¶19, ¶33). The complaint alleges this is based on Defendant knowingly and willfully offering the infringing products for sale (Compl. ¶18, ¶22). The factual basis appears to be circumstantial, including allegations that Defendant participates in online groups where tactics for evading enforcement are discussed and uses such tactics to operate its e-commerce business (Compl. ¶15-17). These allegations may support post-suit willfulness and could potentially form the basis for a pre-suit willfulness claim if prior knowledge can be established.

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

  1. Evidentiary Question (Factual Comparison): As the complaint's exhibits containing images and claim charts of the accused product are not publicly available, a threshold issue will be factual. Does the Defendant’s product actually contain the specific structures recited in Claim 1 of the ’647 patent, and is its overall visual appearance substantially the same as the design claimed in the D’809 patent?
  2. Claim Construction (Scope of "oblique surface"): A core legal issue will be one of claim construction for the ’647 patent. Can the term "oblique surface," which is described in the patent as creating a "dome shape," be construed to cover any tapering surface, or is it limited by this functional language to only those surfaces that produce the specific aesthetic and structural result described in the specification?
  3. Design Infringement (Ordinary Observer Test): The viability of the D’809 patent claim will depend entirely on the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The central question will be whether the accused product's design is similar enough to the patented design to deceive an ordinary consumer into purchasing one instead of the other, a determination that will require a direct visual comparison.