DCT
3:23-cv-00279
Luv N Care Ltd v. Numnum LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Luv n' Care, Ltd. (Louisiana)
- Defendant: NumNum, LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Breithaupt, DuBos, & Wolleson, LLC
- Case Identification: Luv n' Care, Ltd. v. NumNum, LLC, 3:23-cv-00279, W.D. La., 03/01/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, and a substantial part of the property at issue is located there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its redesigned "dipper spoon" products do not infringe Defendant's utility and design patents covering infant feeding utensils, and further seeks to have those patents declared invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns infant feeding utensils designed to enable self-feeding by toddlers who lack the fine motor skills to use conventional spoons.
- Key Procedural History: This action for declaratory judgment was precipitated by a cease-and-desist letter sent by Defendant NumNum to Plaintiff Luv n' Care (LNC). The complaint alleges that after LNC redesigned its products to avoid infringement and disclosed the new designs, NumNum continued to assert infringement and caused LNC's products to be removed from Amazon.com, prompting LNC to file this suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-11-09 | Priority Date for ’407 and ’515 Patents |
| 2017-10-24 | U.S. Design Patent D800,515 Issues |
| 2022-09-27 | U.S. Patent 11,452,407 Issues |
| 2022-10-17 | NumNum sends infringement accusation letter to LNC |
| 2023-02-08 | NumNum allegedly causes Amazon.com takedown of LNC products |
| 2023-03-01 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,452,407, Personal Food Delivery Apparatus, issued September 27, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a problem for infants transitioning to solid foods who lack the fine motor skills to use traditional utensils. Specifically, conventional spoons with smooth, concave surfaces require a user to balance the food, often resulting in spillage (’407 Patent, col. 1:21-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a utensil, sized for an infant, with a "non-curved, flat surface" at the food end instead of a traditional concave bowl. This surface is equipped with a "food retaining device," which can be a series of projections, depressions, or, as featured in the claims, a "hole" created by "interior extending arms" that trap and hold food, eliminating the need for balancing (’407 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4, col. 4:26-32).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to enable infants and others with limited motor skills to self-feed more effectively and with less mess, thereby fostering earlier development of self-feeding skills with a normally shaped utensil (’407 Patent, col. 4:39-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a judgment of non-infringement of all valid claims (Compl. ¶30). The patent contains three independent claims (1, 10, and 17).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a utensil comprising:
- a rounded handle end;
- a food end consisting of an exterior edge and a non-concave surface having interior extending arms;
- the utensil being approximately four inches long;
- the food end being adapted to enter a person's mouth; and
- the arms and portions of the non-concave surface defining a food retaining edge that, in turn, defines a hole.
- Independent Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 but omits the "approximately four inches long" limitation.
- Independent Claim 17 is similar to claim 1 but specifically requires "six interior extending arms" and adds geometric limitations regarding the relative widths of the hole and the food end.
U.S. Design Patent No. D800,515, Personal Food Delivery Apparatus, issued October 24, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a member of the same patent family, the ’515 Patent addresses the same functional problem as the ’407 Patent: creating an effective self-feeding utensil for infants (’515 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific "ornamental design for a personal food delivery apparatus, as shown and described" (’515 Patent, Claim). The design, depicted in figures such as FIG. 1, consists of the visual characteristics of the utensil, including the shape of its handle and the distinctive pattern of openings on its food-end. The claim protects the overall visual appearance, not the utilitarian function.
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a unique aesthetic for an infant feeding utensil, which may serve as a point of differentiation in a market where the parties are direct competitors (Compl. ¶39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim.
- Claim 1 recites: "The ornamental design for a personal food delivery apparatus, as shown and described."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: LNC’s "dipper spoons," and more specifically its "new non-infringing dipper spoon designs" that were created after NumNum's initial infringement allegations (Compl. ¶8, ¶13, ¶18).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint characterizes the accused new designs by what they allegedly lack compared to the patented technology. LNC alleges its new spoons have "flat, not rounded, handles," feature "concave and convex surfaces," and, crucially, "do not include holes in those surfaces" (Compl. ¶18).
- With respect to the ’515 Design Patent, LNC alleges its new spoons do not incorporate "any of the specific shapes disclosed" in the patent (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint establishes that LNC and NumNum are "competitors in the dipper spoon business" and that LNC sells its products on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶15, ¶39). NumNum’s alleged infringement reports to Amazon.com resulted in the removal of LNC's products, indicating the commercial significance of the dispute (Compl. ¶16).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a declaratory judgment action, the analysis is based on LNC’s stated grounds for non-infringement.
’407 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart, but its allegations of non-infringement can be mapped to the elements of the independent claims. The following table summarizes LNC's position with respect to a representative independent claim.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per LNC) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rounded handle end | The new dipper spoons have "flat, not rounded, handles." | ¶18 | col. 5:56 |
| a food end consisting of ... a non-concave surface | The new dipper spoons have "concave and convex surfaces." | ¶18 | col. 5:58 |
| wherein the arms in combination with portions of the non-concave surface ... define ... a hole | The new dipper spoons "do not include holes in those surfaces." | ¶18 | col. 6:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises key claim construction questions. Does the term "rounded handle" preclude a handle that is described as "flat"? What is the scope of "non-concave surface," and can a product with any concave features still meet this limitation? LNC’s characterization of its product directly challenges the scope of these terms.
- Technical Questions: The most direct technical dispute is factual: do LNC’s new dipper spoons contain a structure that meets the "hole" limitation? The complaint alleges they do not, which, if true, would appear to be a dispositive defense against infringement of any of the asserted independent claims, as all require a "hole."
’515 Patent Infringement Allegations
- For the design patent, the legal test for infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. LNC's basis for non-infringement is its assertion that its "new dipper spoon designs ... do not include any of the specific shapes disclosed in Num's '515 Patent" (Compl. ¶20).
- Identified Points of Contention: The central question is one of overall visual appearance. Without a visual of the accused product, the analysis is hypothetical. However, LNC's allegations that its products have "concave and convex surfaces" and "do not include holes" (Compl. ¶20) suggest that LNC will argue its products have a substantially different overall visual impression from the flat, perforated design claimed in the ’515 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"non-concave surface" (’407 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term is central because LNC's primary argument for non-infringement of this element is that its products possess "concave and convex surfaces" (Compl. ¶18). The construction of this term may therefore be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the invention from prior art "spoons with concave surfaces that require a user to balance the food" (’407 Patent, col. 1:43-45). A party could argue this context means "non-concave" should be interpreted functionally to mean "not having a traditional spoon bowl for balancing," potentially allowing for some minor concave topographical features.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the food end surface as "flat" (’407 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2; col. 3:46). The patent figures also consistently depict a flat food end. This evidence may support an interpretation that the term requires a generally flat plane and excludes any significant concavity.
"rounded handle end" (’407 Patent)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because LNC makes a specific factual claim that its handles are "flat, not rounded," creating a direct point of conflict with the claim language (Compl. ¶18).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined. A party might argue it simply means the handle lacks sharp, angular corners and has a generally smooth profile suitable for an infant's grip, which could potentially encompass a handle with flat faces and rounded edges.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "rounded" itself suggests a curved or cylindrical profile. The side-view drawing in FIG. 4 depicts a handle with a continuously curved edge profile, which may support a narrower construction that excludes "flat" handles.
VI. Other Allegations
- Allegations of Bad Faith Enforcement: This declaratory judgment action does not contain traditional allegations of indirect or willful infringement. Instead, LNC makes allegations concerning NumNum's enforcement conduct. The complaint alleges that NumNum knowingly made "false and malicious claims" of infringement to Amazon.com regarding LNC's redesigned, allegedly non-infringing products (Compl. ¶23-24). These allegations form the basis for LNC’s state law claims for Unfair Trade Practices and Fraud (Compl. ¶35-50) and its request for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., p. 9, ¶D). The complaint alleges NumNum had "express knowledge" of non-infringement from LNC's disclosures, suggesting its subsequent enforcement actions were taken in bad faith (Compl. ¶21, ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the claim terms "non-concave surface" and "rounded handle"? The viability of NumNum's infringement case against LNC's redesigned products, as described in the complaint, may depend entirely on whether these terms can be interpreted broadly enough to read on a product with "flat" handles and "concave" surfaces.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: Do LNC's new dipper spoons, in fact, contain a structure that constitutes a "hole" as required by all independent claims of the '407 patent? LNC's categorical denial suggests this will be a central and potentially dispositive factual dispute.
- For the design patent, the case will turn on visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer be likely to confuse LNC's product with the specific ornamental design of the '515 patent? The answer will depend on the actual appearance of LNC's spoon and whether its alleged lack of holes and different surface contours create a sufficiently distinct overall visual impression.