DCT

1:17-cv-12166

Global Strategies Inc v. InterBulk USA LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-12166, D. Mass., 11/03/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because the defendant has a principal place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s reusable construction refuse bag infringes a patent related to high-strength, ribbon-woven bags for containing refuse.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns durable, lightweight, puncture-resistant bags for heavy construction and demolition debris, designed as an alternative to both standard-duty plastic bags and heavy, non-disposable barrels.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant received a demand letter on or about August 30, 2017, providing actual notice of the patent prior to the lawsuit's filing. A post-filing disclaimer, recorded on the patent, disclaimed all method claims (17-20), which may focus the dispute on the remaining apparatus claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004 (Late) Plaintiff begins selling its "Demo Bags" product
2005-03-14 '327 Patent Priority Date
2009-03-31 '327 Patent Issue Date
2017-08-30 Alleged date of demand letter to Defendant
2017-11-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,510,327 - HIGH STRENGTH RIBBON-WOVEN DISPOSABLE BAG FOR CONTAINING REFUSE, issued March 31, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inadequacy of typical polyethylene film bags, which easily tear or puncture when used for heavy or sharp construction refuse like bricks, glass, or wood with nails. It also notes that traditional alternatives, such as rubberized barrels, are expensive, heavy, and difficult to store (ʼ327 Patent, col. 1:12-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "ultra-strong" bag made from woven ribbons of flat polypropylene sheet. This ribbon-woven structure is described as providing high tear, cut, and puncture resistance, capable of holding heavy refuse without failure even if pierced, because the woven nature of the material prevents rips from propagating (ʼ327 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:61-64). The bag is formed by weaving the material into a cylinder, cutting it to length, and then stitching one end closed (ʼ327 Patent, col. 2:26-30).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a lightweight and disposable bag with strength properties sufficient for demanding industrial or construction site cleanup, combining the convenience of a bag with the durability needed for heavy, sharp materials (ʼ327 Patent, col. 1:53-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more of the claims" without specification (Compl. ¶15). The following analysis focuses on independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • An ultra strong, tear-resistant, puncture-resistant bag having a high tear strength, comprising:
    • a ribbon-woven bag having crossed woven ribbons of flat polypropylene sheet
    • devoid of low melting temperature bonding layers between the crossed ribbons,
    • said bag formed in a cylinder and stitched at one end to complete the bag,
    • wherein the stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its broad allegation of infringing "one or more" claims preserves this option.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Ox Demolition Clean Up Bag" or "Ox Demo Bag" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused Ox Bag as a "durable, tear resistant, reusable bags intended to carry construction/demolition waste and other similar material" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the Ox Bag's material composition, weave structure, or manufacturing process, focusing instead on its advertised purpose and characteristics, which are alleged to be similar to Plaintiff's "Demo Bags" product (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory or include a claim chart. The allegations are made at a high level, stating that the accused "Ox Bag" products are "durable, tear-resistant, reusable construction bags... that are covered by one or more of the claims of the ʼ327 Patent" (Compl. ¶15). Given the lack of specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements, a claim chart cannot be constructed from the complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The complaint's lack of technical detail raises several evidentiary questions. A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused Ox Bag possesses the specific structural characteristics required by the claims. This includes demonstrating that the bag is made from "woven ribbons of flat polypropylene sheet", that it is "devoid of low melting temperature bonding layers", and, most critically, that it meets the precise numerical limitation of a "stitch count" of "100 per inch" (ʼ327 Patent, col. 5:32-37).
  • Scope Questions: The complaint describes the accused product as "reusable" (Compl. ¶13), while the patent is titled as a "disposable" bag ('327 Patent, Title). While the term "disposable" does not appear in the asserted independent claim, this difference in characterization may be raised in arguments concerning the overall context and scope of the invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "devoid of low melting temperature bonding layers between the crossed ribbons"

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from materials where woven strands are bonded together, for instance by lamination or heat. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will require the plaintiff to affirmatively prove the absence of such bonding layers in the accused product's core structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim itself broadly excludes any such bonding layers within the weave structure ('327 Patent, col. 5:32-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a separate, optional embodiment where a polypropylene film is laminated to the exterior of the finished bag to make it liquid-tight (ʼ327 Patent, col. 4:26-33). A party could argue this reinforces that the core "ribbon-woven bag" itself, as claimed, must be strictly free of any internal bonding agents.

The Term: "stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch"

  • Context and Importance: This is a precise numerical limitation that appears to set a clear, objective standard for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a dispositive technical question: either the accused bag meets this specific density, or it does not. The method of measuring this count could become a point of contention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: There is little intrinsic evidence to support a broader reading (e.g., "approximately 100 per inch"). A party seeking a broader scope might argue it is a representative value, though this is a difficult position without further support in the specification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites the value "100" without any qualifying language like "about" or "approximately" ('327 Patent, col. 5:36-37). The specification also recites the value "100 per inch" without qualification, suggesting it is a specific, intended characteristic of the invention (ʼ327 Patent, col. 2:14-15).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint includes a general allegation of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶15). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as alleging that Defendant provides instructions or user manuals that encourage an infringing use. The allegations rest on the act of manufacturing and selling the bags.

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on both constructive notice (Compl. ¶16) and alleged actual knowledge of the ʼ327 Patent. The complaint specifically alleges that a demand letter was sent to the Defendant on or about August 30, 2017, which, if proven, would support a claim of willful infringement for any infringing conduct after that date (Compl. ¶17).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the Plaintiff, through discovery and expert analysis, demonstrate that the accused "Ox Bag" meets the highly specific and technical limitations of Claim 1? The case will likely turn on factual evidence regarding the bag's material composition, its manufacturing process, and, most pointedly, whether it can be shown to have a "stitch count" of exactly "100 per inch".
  • A second key question will be one of claim construction: how will the court interpret the term "devoid of low melting temperature bonding layers"? The outcome of this construction could significantly impact the infringement analysis, as it defines a key structural difference between the claimed invention and other types of woven materials.