DCT
1:25-cv-03739
Pizza Pack LLC v. Brumis Imports Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pizza Pack LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Brumis Imports, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Flener IP Law, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03739, N.D. Ill., 04/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district, ships infringing products into the district through established distribution channels, and has transacted business at trade shows in Chicago.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Collapsible Pizza Storage Container" infringes a utility patent and a design patent related to expandable, triangular food storage containers, and also infringes Plaintiff's trade dress for the same product.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns collapsible food storage containers specifically configured for triangular pizza slices, aiming to provide a space-efficient and convenient solution for storing and reheating leftovers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-04-22 | Priority Date for ’935 Patent |
| 2022-04-22 | Priority Date for ’109 Patent |
| 2022-01-01 (approx.) | Plaintiff's product first introduced "at least as early as 2022" |
| 2023-08-29 | ’935 Patent Issued |
| 2024-07-09 | ’109 Patent Issued |
| 2025-03-02 | Defendant allegedly transacted business at Chicago trade show |
| 2025-04-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,738,935 - Expandable Pizza Container
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,738,935, “Expandable Pizza Container,” issued August 29, 2023. (Compl. ¶ 15; ’935 Patent, p. 1).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the inconvenience of storing leftover pizza slices, which are typically triangular, in conventional square or round containers that occupy unnecessary refrigerator space and require a separate plate for reheating. (’935 Patent, col. 2:20-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a vertically expandable, triangular storage container made from a flexible polymer. The container body features accordion-style pleats that allow it to collapse for storage of fewer slices, thereby saving space. (’935 Patent, col. 3:26-36). The system includes separate, microwave-safe triangular trays that both separate the pizza slices and double as serving plates. (’935 Patent, col. 4:24-38). A rigid, lockable lid with a vent is designed to ensure freshness. (’935 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a dedicated, all-in-one solution for a common food storage issue by combining space-saving collapsibility, slice separation, and reheating functionality into a single device. (’935 Patent, col. 2:34-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 39).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A flexible, generally triangular container body with three sides joined at rounded corners and a planar bottom face, with the sides being "pleat folded" to form concentrically nested upper and lower pleats.
- A rigid seal ring "bonded" to the top edge of the sides.
- A rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove around its periphery.
- A compressible, removable gasket "frictionally retained" within the gasket groove.
- A microwave-safe triangular tray with a peripheral lip and a finger tab.
- The lid resides on the container body with the gasket contacting the seal ring, and the tray resides inside the container body.
- The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of infringement of "at least one of the claims" of the ’935 Patent. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ A.a).
U.S. Patent No. D1,034,109 - Expandable Pizza Container
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,034,109, “Expandable Pizza Container,” issued July 9, 2024. (Compl. ¶ 16; ’109 Patent, p. 1).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff developed products with "distinctive patented designs" and a "unique appearance" to signify the product’s source to consumers. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 19).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for the top of an expandable pizza container lid. The claimed design, as illustrated in the patent’s figures, consists of a generally triangular shape with rounded corners, four locking wing tabs positioned on the sides, and a central triangular vent. (’109 Patent, Figs. 1-2). The patent explicitly disclaims the collapsible body of the container, which is depicted in broken lines for illustrative purposes only. (’109 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: In the context of a design patent, the importance is commercial rather than technical. The design provides a distinct visual appearance intended to be recognizable to consumers and associated with a single source. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- As a design patent, the ’109 Patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for an expandable pizza container, as shown and described." (’109 Patent, Claim).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is Defendant’s “Collapsible Pizza Storage Container,” sold under at least the CORE HOME and CORE KITCHEN brands. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a collapsible food container shaped to hold triangular pizza slices. (Compl. ¶ 39). The complaint includes photographs depicting a product with a flexible, pleated body, a rigid top rim, and a translucent lid with locking tabs, which appears functionally analogous to the Plaintiff’s product. (Compl. ¶ 26, p. 8). A screenshot from a retailer’s website describes the product as a "Collapsible Silicone Pizza Storage Container." (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges the product is sold at wholesale to retailers such as Meijer and marketed online. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’935 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible, generally triangular container body having three sides joined at rounded corners, and a planar bottom face extending perpendicularly from a bottom edge of said sides, wherein said sides are pleat folded so as to form an upper pleat and a lower pleat that are concentrically nested | The accused product is a collapsible container with a triangular shape, rounded corners, a flat bottom, and two concentrically nested pleats. An annotated photograph shows these features. | ¶39 | col. 3:26-36 |
| a rigid seal ring bonded to a top edge of said sides | The accused product has a rigid seal ring at its top edge. An annotated photograph points to this "Seal ring." | ¶39 | col. 3:40-42 |
| a rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove formed about a periphery edge of a bottom side of said lid | The accused product has a rigid, triangular lid. An annotated photo shows a "Gasket groove" on the lid. | ¶39 | col. 4:63-65 |
| a compressible, removeable gasket frictionally retained within said gasket groove | A gasket is shown situated within the groove on the accused product's lid. | ¶39 | col. 4:62-63 |
| a microwave safe triangular tray with a peripheral lip formed there about a tray top face and a finger tab extending from said triangular tray | The accused product includes a triangular tray with a peripheral lip and finger tab, and is described as "microwave safe" in its packaging. | ¶39 | col. 4:24-35 |
| wherein said lid resides upon said container body with said gasket in contact with said seal ring, and said tray resides within said container body | A photograph shows the assembled accused product with the lid on the body and implies the tray fits inside. | ¶39 | col. 6:1-3 |
’109 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element | Alleged Infringing Ornamentality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for an expandable pizza container, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges the accused product's overall appearance is "substantially the same, if not identical" to the claimed design. It provides a side-by-side comparison of the patent's Figure 1 and a photograph of the accused product's lid, showing a similar triangular shape, rounded corners, four locking tabs, and a central triangular vent. | ¶40, ¶41 | Figs. 1-2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- ’935 Patent - Technical Questions: The complaint's evidence is photographic. A key question will be whether the accused product meets the specific functional requirements of the claim language upon physical inspection. For example, is the accused seal ring "bonded" to the flexible body in a manner contemplated by the patent, or is it attached differently (e.g., via a simple friction fit)? Likewise, is the accused gasket "frictionally retained" in its groove in the specific manner required by the claim?
- ’109 Patent - Scope Questions: The central issue for the design patent will be the "ordinary observer" test. While the visual similarity is high, a potential point of contention is whether the shared design elements (e.g., triangular shape, locking tabs, vent) are primarily functional rather than ornamental. The defense may argue that these features are dictated by the utilitarian purpose of a collapsible, sealable, triangular container, which could limit the scope of design patent protection.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bonded" (from Claim 1 of the ’935 Patent)
Context and Importance: This term defines how the rigid "seal ring" attaches to the "flexible" container body. Its construction is critical because the method of manufacture (e.g., adhesive, co-molding, overmolding, simple press-fit) could be a point of non-infringement if the accused product uses a method outside the scope of "bonded." Practitioners may focus on this term because photographic evidence alone cannot confirm the specific attachment method used in the accused product.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition for "bonded," which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any method of secure attachment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification is silent on specific bonding methods. A party could argue that in the context of polymer manufacturing, the term implies a more permanent connection like co-molding or chemical adhesion, as distinguished from a purely mechanical interlock or friction fit.
The Term: "pleat folded" (from Claim 1 of the ’935 Patent)
Context and Importance: This term describes the structure of the collapsible walls. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused product's accordion-like walls fall within this definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the general phrase "in the style of an accordion" to describe the structure, suggesting the term could cover a variety of collapsible, folded configurations. (’935 Patent, col. 3:29).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes and depicts a specific embodiment with "an upper pleat 10 and a lower pleat 12" that are "concentrically nested." (’935 Patent, col. 3:30-31; Fig. 2). This could support an argument that "pleat folded" is limited to the specific concentric, nested structure shown, rather than any accordion-style wall.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes claims for induced and contributory infringement. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ A.a). However, the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts to support these theories, such as identifying specific acts of encouragement or providing a component with no substantial non-infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. (Compl. ¶ 42). The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s purported knowledge of Plaintiff’s intellectual property and its alleged "intention of passing off its goods" as Plaintiff's. (Compl. ¶ 31). The complaint asserts this knowledge existed "since before the acts complained of herein" but does not plead specific facts establishing when or how Defendant became aware of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶ 32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical satisfaction: does the accused product, upon physical inspection, meet every specific limitation of Claim 1 of the ’935 patent, particularly regarding how the seal ring is "bonded" to the body and how the gasket is "frictionally retained" in its groove? The photographic evidence in the complaint suggests strong similarity, but infringement will turn on these and other technical details.
- For the design patent claim, a central issue will be ornamental vs. functional design: applying the ordinary observer test, a court will have to determine whether the substantial visual similarities in the lids are protectable as ornamental design, or whether those similarities are dictated by the functional requirements of a sealable, stackable, triangular container, which would weigh against a finding of infringement.
- A critical question for willfulness and potential enhanced damages will be one of knowledge and intent: can the Plaintiff produce evidence to substantiate its allegations that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit and acted with deliberate intent to copy, moving beyond the general assertion of copying based on product similarity alone?