DCT

1:18-cv-02427

Taylor Precision Products Inc v. Double A Concepts LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02427, S.D. Ind., 08/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Indiana on the basis that the Defendants reside in the District and have committed acts of infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ herb stripping kitchen tool infringes a utility patent and a design patent related to tools for removing foliage from leafy vegetables and herbs.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of kitchen gadgets, specifically tools designed to simplify the preparation of fresh herbs and leafy greens, such as kale or rosemary, by stripping leaves from their stems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-09-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D776,991
2014-09-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,718,198
2017-01-24 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D776,991
2017-08-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,718,198
2018-08-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,718,198: Stripping Tool for Leafy Vegetables and Herbs (Issued Aug. 1, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for specialized kitchen tools to strip foliage from the stalks of leafy vegetables and herbs (e.g., kale, rosemary) for culinary preparation (’971 Patent, col. 1:12-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, hand-held device that combines two functions. It features a body with a series of differently sized apertures through which a user can pull an herb stem, stripping the leaves off. It also incorporates a convexly curved, sharpened edge on the body that can be used as a blade to chop the collected foliage by rocking the tool (’971 Patent, col. 1:21-36, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The design integrates two distinct food preparation steps—stripping and chopping—into one ergonomic, non-mechanical tool, aiming to improve efficiency and convenience in the kitchen (’971 Patent, col. 2:17-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 (Compl. ¶15).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A hand-operated device for removing foliage from a stem.
    • A unitary, elongated body with no moving parts, sized for comfortable hand-holding, and having opposing, convexly curved edges.
    • One convexly curved edge is formed as a sharp edge, while the opposite convexly curved edge is a dull edge.
    • A plurality of apertures of different sizes extending through the body, positioned to allow a stem to pass through but not its foliage.
    • A method of use whereby a user first strips foliage by pulling a stem through an aperture, and then cuts the foliage by rocking the sharp edge over it while holding the dull edge.

U.S. Design Patent No. D776,991: Stripping Tool for Leafy Vegetable and Herbs (Issued Jan. 24, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '991 Patent addresses the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for an herb stripping tool.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of the tool. Key visual features include its overall leaf-like, asymmetrical shape; the arrangement, sizing, and spacing of the circular apertures along its curved edges; and the defined contour of the body as depicted in the patent's figures (D’991 Patent, Figs. 1, 6). The claim covers the visual design shown in solid lines in the drawings.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the patent (Compl. ¶19-20).
  • The claim is for "The ornamental design for a stripping tool for leafy vegetables and herbs, as shown and described" (D’991 Patent, Claim). Infringement is determined by comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product to the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is identified as the "Defendants' Herb Stripping Tool," which is sold online as part of a "3 Piece Clip on Strainer Set" and a "4 Piece Spatula Set" through the "Friendly Cooking" store and its website (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused product as an "herb stripping tool" (Compl. ¶11). A visual provided in the complaint shows a device with a leaf-like shape and multiple apertures, which suggests its function is to strip foliage from herb stems (Compl. p. 5). The complaint does not provide further detail on the technical operation or market position of the accused product, other than that it is sold as part of a set of kitchen products (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’198 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the infringement allegations for the ’198 Patent. Instead, the complaint alleges that the "Defendants' Herb Stripping Tool includes each and every limitation recited in at least independent claim 1" (Compl. ¶15). It quotes claim 1 in its entirety and asserts that photographs of the accused tool, annexed as Exhibit C (but not provided with the complaint), make it "evident" that the tool literally infringes (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint also pleads infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as an alternative theory (Compl. ¶18).

’991 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Herb Stripping Tool is substantially the same as the design of the '991 Patent" from the perspective of an "ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶19). To support this, the complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison showing a top plan view from the '991 Patent alongside a photograph of the accused product (Compl. p. 5). This side-by-side visual shows the patented design drawing on the left and a photograph of the green, leaf-shaped accused product on the right, inviting a direct comparison of their ornamental features (Compl. p. 5).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions (’198 Patent): A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused product meets every limitation of claim 1. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused tool possesses both a "convexly curved sharp edge" and an opposing "convexly curved dull edge" as specifically required by the claim? The complaint's allegations are conclusory on this point.
    • Scope Questions (’991 Patent): For the design patent, the dispute will focus on the "ordinary observer" test. The question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused tool is "substantially the same" as the claimed design, such that a purchaser would be deceived. The analysis will turn on the holistic impression created by the designs, not merely a checklist of similarities and differences.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "unitary...body" (from claim 1 of the ’198 Patent)
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction may be critical because the patent specification discloses an embodiment constructed from two different materials: a "base portion" and an "overmolded portion" that "collectively form[] the unitary body" (’971 Patent, col. 2:5-8). Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue that a multi-material or overmolded product is not "unitary," potentially avoiding infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "unitary" simply means the device is a single, integrated piece with "no moving parts," as stated in the claim itself. The specification's language that the two portions "collectively form[] the unitary body" could be cited to support the view that a multi-material object can still be considered "unitary" (’971 Patent, col. 2:7-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "unitary" implies a body made of a single, homogenous material. The patent’s explicit description of constructing the body from a distinct "base portion" and an "overmolded portion" could be used to argue that the inventor understood "unitary" to be distinct from such a two-part construction (’971 Patent, col. 2:5-7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement. The allegations are focused on direct infringement through acts of "using, offering to sell, and selling" the accused product (Compl. ¶24).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges a "conscious, systematic, and willful pattern of patent infringement" and seeks a declaration that the infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶2, Prayer for Relief ¶6-7). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support this allegation, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents or evidence of copying.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiffs factually establish that the accused product embodies every limitation of claim 1 of the ’198 patent, particularly the claimed configuration of opposing "sharp" and "dull" convexly curved edges, given the absence of specific factual mapping in the complaint?
  2. The case will also present a classic question of design patent scope: From the viewpoint of an ordinary purchaser, are the ornamental features of the accused product "substantially the same" as the patented design in the ’991 Patent? The resolution will depend on a holistic comparison of the overall visual appearances, for which the side-by-side comparison in the complaint will be a central piece of evidence (Compl. p. 5).