Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jabez Baker LLC (Ohio/New Jersey), Al "Bubba" Baker (Florida), and Brittani Bo Baker (California)
  • Defendant: Rastelli Foods LLC (New Jersey), Rastelli Partners LLC (New Jersey), Rastelli Brothers Inc. (New Jersey), et al.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08882, D.N.J., 08/30/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the Defendants conduct substantial business in the district and a substantial part of the events, including the unauthorized commercialization and sale of the accused product, occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' "Rastelli's Boneless Ribs" product, and the process used to make it, infringe two patents related to a method for deboning ribs while keeping the meat slab intact.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the food processing industry, addressing the consumer difficulty of eating bone-in ribs by providing a product with the texture of a real rib slab but without the bones.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history between the parties, including a 2019 licensing and settlement agreement. This history is central to the allegations of willfulness, as it suggests Defendants had pre-existing knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs also reference a June 2023 injunction hearing and a pending motion to appoint a receiver related to alleged financial misconduct.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,666,075 - "RIB MEAT PRODUCT AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING SAME" (Issued Feb. 23, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the experience of eating traditional bone-in barbecue ribs as "time consuming, embarrassing, and messy" (’075 Patent, col. 1:45-47). It further notes that previous attempts to create boneless rib products involved restructuring meat paste, resulting in products that "lack the natural appearance and consistency of an unprocessed slab of rib meat" (’075 Patent, col. 2:16-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a final meat product—a "cooked and de-boned substantially intact slab of rib meat"—and the process for making it (’075 Patent, Abstract). The process involves cooking a slab of ribs with the bones still embedded for a sufficient time and at a specific temperature to break down the connective tissues, allowing the bones to be removed easily while the slab of meat itself remains whole and retains its natural texture (’075 Patent, col. 3:4-10; col. 4:50-58).
• Technical Importance: The process created a novel food product that offered the convenience of boneless meat while preserving the desirable, natural texture of a traditional slab of ribs, thereby overcoming a key drawback of prior art "restructured" products (’075 Patent, col. 2:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted. Independent claim 1 is a representative product claim.
• Independent Claim 1: A product comprising:
  • A cooked and de-boned
  • substantially intact
  • length of rib meat
• The complaint alleges infringement generally, which may encompass dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,959,500 - "PROCESS FOR PREPARING RIB MEAT PRODUCT" (Issued June 14, 2011)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with its parent, the ’500 Patent addresses the difficulty and messiness of eating bone-in ribs and the poor quality of existing restructured boneless alternatives (’500 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
• The Patented Solution: This patent focuses specifically on the process. It claims a method of preparing de-boned ribs by first cooking a bone-in slab of meat and then removing the bones (’500 Patent, Abstract). The specification details multi-stage cooking regimens and recommends enclosing the meat in a "moisture loss preventive environment" (e.g., a cooking bag) to maintain juiciness and facilitate the breakdown of tissue connecting meat to bone (’500 Patent, col. 5:1-10; col. 6:35-42).
• Technical Importance: The claimed process provides a systematic, repeatable method for creating a high-quality, intact, de-boned rib product, suitable for commercial scaling in restaurants or for retail sale (’500 Patent, col. 7:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted. Independent claim 1 is a representative process claim.
• Independent Claim 1: A process comprising:
  • cooking a length of rib meat having at least one rib bone at least partially embedded therein at a temperature and for a time sufficient to enable the removal of at least one of said rib bones from said length of rib meat, while maintaining a substantially intact length of rib meat; and
  • removing at least one of said rib bones from said length of rib meat.
• The complaint alleges infringement generally, which may encompass dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the "Rastelli's Boneless Ribs" product, which is allegedly made, marketed, and sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that "Rastelli's Boneless Ribs" are made using Plaintiffs' patented process and are sold as a food product to consumers (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 44). The product was allegedly sold on the QVC television shopping platform, where Defendants generated approximately $237,500 in sales across two segments in April 2024 (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 34). A screenshot from a QVC broadcast shows the "Rastelli's Boneless Ribs" product being offered for sale (Compl. ¶13, Ex. 7). The complaint alleges these sales were unauthorized and occurred under a brand name that directly competes with Plaintiffs' "Bubba's-Q" brand, causing market confusion and brand dilution (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’075 Patent Infringement Allegations

’500 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions (Process): A primary point of contention for the ’500 patent will be proving that the specific process Defendants use to manufacture their product is the same as the one claimed. The complaint relies on Defendants' own public statements on QVC, but the case may require discovery into Defendants' actual manufacturing methods to confirm the specific cooking steps and conditions.
  • Scope Questions (Product): For the ’075 patent, a potential dispute could arise over the meaning of "substantially intact." The court will need to determine how much, if any, tearing or separation is permissible for a de-boned slab to still fall within the scope of this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "substantially intact"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and is fundamental to distinguishing the invention from prior art restructured meat products. The definition of "substantially intact" will be critical for determining whether Defendants' product infringes the product claims of the ’075 Patent and whether their process infringes the process claims of the ’500 Patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that after the process, "the rib meat substantially retains its natural consistency, texture, and shape it held prior to the bones being removed" (’500 Patent, col. 4:8-11). Plaintiffs may argue this supports a functional definition where any product that is not re-formed from a paste and still looks like a natural slab is "substantially intact."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes the result as a "continuous length of natural rib meat" (’500 Patent, col. 3:32). Defendants may argue this language requires a completely unbroken, single piece of meat, and that any significant separation during de-boning places their product outside the claim scope.

• The Term: "cooking... at a temperature and for a time sufficient to enable the removal of... rib bones"

  • Context and Importance: This is a key functional limitation in the process claims of the ’500 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether infringement requires practicing the specific two-stage cooking regimens detailed in the patent's embodiments, or if any cooking method that achieves the stated result of enabling bone removal would infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, defining the cooking step by its result ("sufficient to enable removal") rather than by specific temperatures or times. Plaintiffs may argue that this covers any cooking process that achieves this functional outcome.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of two-stage cooking processes with specific temperature ranges and times (e.g., a first stage at 100-300°F followed by a second stage at 200-400°F) (’500 Patent, cl. 5). Defendants may argue that the claims should be limited to these disclosed embodiments, and that their own process, if different, does not infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement by the Defendant entities who are alleged to manufacture and sell the accused product (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint contains extensive allegations that could support a finding of willful infringement. It alleges that Defendants had actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit through prior business dealings, including a 2019 licensing and settlement agreement (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 28). The subsequent alleged unauthorized sale of a competing product under a different brand is presented as a deliberate violation of Plaintiffs' rights (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 28). Plaintiffs explicitly seek treble damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. p. 26).

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

• A central issue will be one of process verification: can Plaintiffs produce evidence from discovery to prove that Defendants' confidential manufacturing process for "Rastelli's Boneless Ribs" includes the specific cooking and de-boning steps required by the claims of the ’500 patent, beyond the marketing statements made on QVC?
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "substantially intact"? The answer will determine whether Defendants' final product, as sold, literally meets this core limitation of the product claims in the ’075 patent.
• A key factor shaping the litigation's trajectory will be the relevance of the parties' history: how will the alleged prior licensing agreement and settlement impact the analysis of willfulness and damages, should infringement be established? The complaint frames the dispute not as an accidental infringement but as a deliberate and bad-faith business act.