DCT
2:19-cv-05582
Maverick Industries Inc v. Apption Labs Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Maverick Industries, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Apption Labs, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Doherty IP Law Group LLC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05582, D.N.J., 02/13/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant advertises, sells, and ships its products into the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Meater line of wireless food thermometers infringes a patent related to methods and systems for predicting the cooking completion time of food.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns smart cooking devices that monitor the internal temperature of food and use the rate of temperature change to predict when it will be fully cooked.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a letter on September 7, 2018. Defendant, through counsel, responded on September 20, 2018, asserting that its products do not infringe. This pre-suit exchange is cited as the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-08-20 | ’107 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2006-09-05 | ’107 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-09-07 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2018-09-20 | Defendant denies infringement in response letter |
| 2019-02-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,102,107 - "Method, Apparatus and System for Predicting Cooking Completion Time of Food"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,102,107, "Method, Apparatus and System for Predicting Cooking Completion Time of Food," issued September 5, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of inaccurate cooking times provided in recipes, which can lead to undercooked or overcooked food and requires a cook to inefficiently and constantly monitor the cooking process. (’107 Patent, col. 1:28-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that acquires multiple internal temperature readings of food over time, calculates the rate of temperature change based on those readings, and uses that rate to predict the remaining time needed to reach a user-specified final temperature. (’107 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-58). The logic is depicted in the flowchart of Figure 2, which shows steps for acquiring temperature (T_k), computing a difference (ΔT_k), and calculating a remaining time (t_c). (’107 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide cooks with a more accurate and reliable prediction of cooking completion time, allowing for better management of meal preparation. (’107 Patent, col. 1:48-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them. (Compl. ¶19). Independent claim 1 is representative of the apparatus described.
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
- A housing including a processor, a user input interface, a display providing information about the food being cooked to a user and a receptacle for receiving internal temperature readings of the food being cooked,
- said processor being programmed to:
- acquire the received internal food temperature readings;
- calculate a difference between at least two of the acquired internal food temperature readings to produce a calculated difference,
- compute a rate of change of the internal food temperature based on the calculated difference; and
- determine the food cooking completion time based on the rate of the change and a user inputted desired internal food temperature.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the broad allegation of infringing "one or more claims" preserves this option. (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are sold under the name "Meater" and include wireless temperature probes. (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as wireless temperature monitoring systems that include probes to be inserted into food. (Compl. ¶13, ¶19). These probes transmit temperature data to "remote monitoring units." (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges that these products "use a method of predicting a cooking completion time" and directly compete with the plaintiff's products. (Compl. ¶19-20).
- The complaint includes a visual depicting the "MEATER+" product, which consists of a wireless probe, a wooden block that appears to function as a charger and signal repeater, and a smartphone displaying the associated application. (Compl. p. 5). This image shows a user interface with options to "Setup Cook," indicating the system's predictive cooking functionality.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 7,102,107 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A housing including a processor, a user input interface, a display providing information about the food being cooked... and a receptacle... | The Meater system consists of a probe and a remote monitoring unit (e.g., a smartphone app), which collectively provide a processor, display, and user input. The image provided shows the app as the display and interface. | ¶19; p. 5 | col. 4:30-40 |
| said processor being programmed to: acquire the received internal food temperature readings; | The Meater probe is a wireless temperature probe that is inserted into food to sense its internal temperature and transmit temperature readings. | ¶13, ¶19 | col. 5:29-35 |
| calculate a difference between at least two of the acquired internal food temperature readings... compute a rate of change... | The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the Accused Products "use a method of predicting a cooking completion time that is covered by one or more claims of the ‘107 patent." This implies the underlying software performs these computational steps. | ¶14, ¶19 | col. 6:26-55 |
| determine the food cooking completion time based on the rate of the change and a user inputted desired internal food temperature. | The complaint alleges the Accused Products predict a cooking completion time based upon a computed difference and a predetermined internal food cooking temperature. | ¶14, ¶19 | col. 6:56-62; col. 7:1-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A question arises as to whether the term "a housing" in Claim 1 can be construed to cover the distributed architecture of the accused system, which combines a probe with a general-purpose smartphone running an application. The patent does disclose embodiments with separate transmitter and receiver units, which may support the plaintiff's interpretation. (’107 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused product predicts completion time but provides no specific evidence on how that prediction is calculated. A central technical question will be whether the Meater software algorithm actually "compute[s] a rate of change" from two or more discrete temperature readings, as required by the claim, or if it uses a different predictive model (e.g., a pre-set curve, a machine-learning model) that does not map onto the claimed steps.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rate of change"
Context and Importance: This term is the technical core of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether Defendant's predictive algorithm calculates a "rate of change" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could exclude alternative predictive methods that do not rely on a simple rate calculation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The claims do not appear to be limited to a single mathematical formula, which may support an interpretation covering any calculation that determines how fast temperature is rising over a time interval.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific formula for this calculation: R_k = ΔT_k / (t_k - t_k-1). (’107 Patent, col. 6:56-62). A party could argue that the claims should be limited to this or a similar linear extrapolation, potentially excluding more complex, non-linear predictive algorithms.
The Term: "a housing including a processor, a user input interface, a display"
Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the accused distributed system (probe + smartphone) infringes an apparatus claim seemingly directed to a more integrated device. The outcome could determine whether the claim reads on modern smart-device ecosystems.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses a "system" with a first unit (transmitter) and a second unit (receiver with display), suggesting the inventor contemplated a distributed architecture where the claimed components are not all in a single physical box. (’107 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 7:17-48).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiment in Figure 1 shows all components within a single main unit 110. (’107 Patent, Fig. 1). A party might argue that "a housing" implies a single, self-contained apparatus, not a combination of a dedicated sensor and a general-purpose computing device like a smartphone.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests an injunction against contributory infringement and active inducement. (Compl. p. 7, ¶E). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support these allegations, such as identifying specific instructions in user manuals that would encourage infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving notice of the ’107 patent in a letter dated September 7, 2018. (Compl. ¶23, ¶27). The complaint cites Defendant's post-notice sales as evidence of willful conduct. (Compl. ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "a housing," as used in Claim 1, be construed to read on a distributed system comprising a standalone sensor probe and a general-purpose smartphone executing an application, or is its meaning limited to a single, integrated device?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what proof can be presented to show that the Meater software's proprietary algorithm performs the specific steps of the claimed method—namely, calculating a "rate of change" from two or more discrete temperature readings to predict a completion time—as opposed to employing an alternative, non-infringing predictive model?
- A final question will relate to damages and willfulness: assuming infringement is found, the dispute will turn on the extent of damages and whether Plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's infringement was willful, which would require showing its post-notice conduct was egregious, justifying enhanced damages.