DCT

2:20-cv-02204

Reynolds Presto Products Inc v. Quark Distribution Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-02204, D.N.J., 02/28/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Quark maintains its principal place of business and therefore resides within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s child-resistant packaging products infringe its patent on a "false flange" closure system, while simultaneously seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity concerning three of Defendant’s own patents in the same technology space.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves child-resistant closure mechanisms for flexible, recloseable pouches, a critical safety feature for packaging consumer goods, medicines, and other potentially hazardous substances.
  • Key Procedural History: This lawsuit appears to have been initiated in response to a cease and desist letter sent by Defendant Quark on February 19, 2020, to a customer of Plaintiff Presto, which alleged infringement of Quark's patents. The complaint also alleges that Presto provided Quark with actual notice of infringement of its own patent as early as October 2018, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-03-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,029,826 Priority Date
2017-02-23 U.S. Patent Nos. 10,011,403, 10,011,404, & 10,507,959 Priority Date
2018-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,011,403 Issue Date
2018-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,011,404 Issue Date
2018-07-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,029,826 Issue Date
2018-10-01 Plaintiff alleges it first notified Defendant of infringement of the ’826 Patent
2019-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,507,959 Issue Date
2020-02-19 Defendant sends cease and desist letter to Plaintiff's customer
2020-02-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,029,826 - False Flange Child Resistant Closure For Recloseable Pouch And Methods

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of conventional press-to-close zipper pouches being too easy for children to open, creating a hazard when the contents are potentially harmful ('826 Patent, col. 1:20-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "false flange" that extends from one side of the pouch opening and covers the actual gripping area needed to pull the zipper apart. This structure acts as a decoy; a user who pulls on the obvious "false flange" will not open the bag. An adult, however, is expected to recognize the decoy, move it aside, and grip the true opening flanges underneath to open the pouch, thus creating a child-resistant feature that remains accessible to adults. ('826 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide effective child resistance for flexible packaging without overly complex mechanisms, while aiming to remain easy for adults and senior citizens to operate ('826 Patent, col. 2:62-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6–8 and 12–14 (Compl. ¶49).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A recloseable zipper pouch with opposing wall panels and an open mouth.
    • A recloseable zipper closure below the mouth with interlocking first and second zipper profile members.
    • A "flange" extending from the second wall panel toward the first, in "covering relation" to a portion of the first wall panel between the zipper and the mouth.
    • The flange has a fixed end at the second wall panel and a free end adjacent to the mouth.
    • The flange is "angled at a non-perpendicular angle" relative to the second wall panel and extends from its fixed end to be "flush with a terminal tip of the first wall panel."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but this is standard practice in litigation.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "child resistant packages," which include products identified as "Child Resistant Exit Bags" and "Child Resistant Pouches," sold under brand names such as "SAFETYSACK" or "SECURESACK" and the trademark Dymapak™ (collectively, the "Quark Package") (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the structure or operation of the Quark Package. It makes a conclusory allegation that the "Quark Package and manufacture thereof practices at least claims 1, 6–8, 12–14 of the ’826 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). No allegations are made regarding the products' specific market position or commercial importance, beyond their general description as child-resistant packaging.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed narrative theory of infringement. Instead, it alleges in a conclusory manner that the Quark Package infringes specific claims of the ’826 Patent (Compl. ¶13). Without a more detailed breakdown of the infringement theory, a direct mapping of product features to claim elements is not possible from the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the claim language, the infringement analysis will likely raise several technical and legal questions.

Scope Questions

A central question may be whether any feature of the Quark Package can be properly characterized as a "flange" that is "in covering relation" to the pouch's opening mechanism, as those terms are used in the patent. The analysis will likely depend on the degree of structural separation and visual obstruction provided by the accused feature.

Technical Questions

Claim 1 requires a precise geometric relationship, alleging the flange is "angled at a non-perpendicular angle" and terminates "flush with a terminal tip of the first wall panel" ('826 Patent, col. 6:45-49). A key factual question will be whether the accused Quark Package meets these specific dimensional and positional limitations. Evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused product's geometry matches that recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "flange"

Context and Importance

This term is the central element of the invention, described functionally as a "decoy" ('826 Patent, col. 4:40-41). The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether a feature of the accused product constitutes a "flange" within the meaning of the claims.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

The patent does not provide a formal definition of "flange," which could support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as a projecting rim or edge.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

The specification consistently describes the flange's purpose as a "decoy or false opening flange" that "will appear to be a mechanism for opening the pouch... when in reality, it will instead hide a flange that the consumer will actually need" ('826 Patent, col. 4:40-49). This functional description could support a narrower construction that requires the accused element to perform this specific decoy function.

The Term: "in covering relation to"

Context and Importance

This phrase defines the spatial relationship between the "flange" and the operative part of the pouch opening. Its construction is critical for determining if the accused product is arranged in an infringing manner.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

A party could argue this only requires some degree of overlap from a specific viewpoint, as the claim states the relationship exists "when viewed from the open mouth" ('826 Patent, col. 6:3-7).

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

The patent's figures, particularly Figure 2, depict the flange (60) substantially obscuring the underlying opening portion (62) of the wall panel. This could support an argument that "in covering relation to" requires more than incidental overlap and implies a degree of concealment.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Quark is liable for direct and indirect infringement, including "contributing to or inducing infringement by, inter alia, its customers" (Compl. ¶49). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for indirect infringement, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use.

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit, actual knowledge of the ’826 Patent. The complaint asserts that "Presto informed Quark that its Quark Package infringes one or more claims of the ’826 Patent at least as early as October 2018, both in person and in writing" (Compl. ¶14, ¶52).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural and functional correspondence: Can Plaintiff prove that the accused Quark Package contains a distinct physical element that not only functions as the "decoy flange" described in the ’826 patent specification but also meets the precise geometric and positional limitations recited in claim 1?
  • A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can substantiate its infringement allegations, which are pleaded in a conclusory fashion. The viability of the infringement claim will depend on the evidence developed during discovery to map specific features of the Quark Package onto the elements of the asserted claims.
  • The case presents a dual-front dispute involving both an offensive infringement claim by Presto and a defensive request for a declaratory judgment concerning Quark's patents. The central conflict will require the court to adjudicate the parties' competing intellectual property rights in the same narrow technological field, raising questions of priority, validity, and infringement for both sets of patents.