0:17-cv-04915
Post Consumer Brands LLC v. General Mills Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Post Consumer Brands, LLC (Jurisdiction not specified)
- Defendant: General Mills, Inc. and General Mills Sales, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN; Registered Agent in Dover, DE)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thompson Coburn LLP
- Case Identification: 0:17-cv-04915, E.D. Mo., 09/26/2017
- Venue Allegations: The provided documents do not contain the complaint, so the basis for venue allegations cannot be analyzed.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a design patent related to a shelf divider for displaying bagged food items.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of retail shelf dividers used for organizing and displaying packaged goods, such as bagged cereals or snacks, in a commercial setting.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on the same day that the patent-in-suit was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D798,091 |
| 2017-09-26 | U.S. Design Patent No. D798,091 Issues |
| 2017-09-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D798,091 - "SHELF DIVIDER FOR DISPLAY OF BAGGED FOOD ITEMS"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the patent does not contain a background section that explicitly describes a technical problem; its purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D’091 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a shelf divider, as depicted in the figures (D’091 Patent, Claim). The core visual characteristics, shown in solid lines in the figures, include a main vertical panel with a distinctively curved top edge and a notched-out lower front corner, connected to a base element (D’091 Patent, FIG. 1). The patent specifies that portions of the article shown in broken lines represent the environment and do not form part of the claimed design (D’091 Patent, col. 1).
- Technical Importance: The patent is directed to the specific ornamental appearance of a device used to organize and present bagged food items in a retail environment, suggesting a perceived value in a distinct visual design for product merchandising (D’091 Patent, Title).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a shelf divider for display of bagged food items, as shown and described" (D’091 Patent, col. 1).
- Unlike utility patents, design patent claims are not comprised of discrete text-based elements. The claim protects the overall visual impression of the design as depicted in the patent's drawings, viewed from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The provided documents do not contain the complaint and therefore do not identify any accused product(s), method(s), or service(s).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint was not provided, so no information is available regarding the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As the complaint was not provided, the specific infringement allegations are unknown. Therefore, a claim chart summarizing the allegations cannot be constructed.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention: The complaint was not provided, so no specific points of contention regarding infringement can be identified from the pleadings.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The provided documents do not contain the complaint's infringement allegations, which would be necessary to identify any design features likely to be central to the dispute. In design patent cases, the analysis typically focuses on a comparison of the overall ornamental designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer, rather than construction of specific text-based claim terms. The primary legal question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint was not provided; therefore, the basis for any allegations of indirect infringement is unknown (Compl. Not Provided).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint was not provided; therefore, the basis for any allegations of willful infringement is unknown. The filing of the complaint on the same day the '091 Patent issued is a fact that may be relevant to the timeline of any potential knowledge allegations (Compl. Not Provided).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the nature of the asserted design patent, the litigation will likely center on the following questions:
- A central question will be one of visual similarity: from the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused General Mills shelf divider substantially the same as the design claimed in the '091 Patent?
- A secondary question may concern functionality: to what extent are the visual features of the patented design dictated by their function? The court may need to determine which aspects of the design are ornamental and protected, versus those that are purely functional and therefore unprotectable by a design patent.