Quark Distribution Inc v. Epac Holdings LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: Quark Distribution, Inc. v. ePAC, Holdings, LLC, et al.
• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Quark Distribution, Inc. (New York)
  • Defendant: ePAC, Holdings, LLC; Advanced Converting Works Holdings, LLC; Advanced Converting Works, Inc.; and Advanced Converting Works LLC (Delaware / Wisconsin / Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, PA.
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-04163, D. Del., 03/10/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because all Defendant entities are incorporated or formed under the laws of Delaware, conduct business in the district, and allegedly committed acts of patent infringement with consequences in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ lines of child-resistant flexible pouches infringe two patents directed to child-resistant sealing systems for bags.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to flexible packaging with integrated child-safety features, a field of significant commercial importance for regulated products such as pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, and cannabis.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent formal notice letters regarding the asserted patents to Defendant ePac in February 2020 and to Defendant ACW in February 2020, prior to filing the lawsuit. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a Certificate of Correction for the ’403 Patent in October 2019 to correct an error in claim 1. U.S. Patent No. 10,011,404 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 10,011,403.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-02-23	Priority Date for ’403 and ’404 Patents
2018-07-03	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,011,403
2018-07-03	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,011,404
2020-02-19	Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter to Defendant ePac
2020-02-20	Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter to Defendant ACW
2020-03-10	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,011,403 (the ’403 Patent) - "Child Resistant Sealing System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,011,403, "Child Resistant Sealing System," issued July 3, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that many conventional resealable plastic bags are easily opened and therefore not "child resistant," which limits their suitability for containing medicines or other potentially hazardous substances (’403 Patent, col. 1:11-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "directional" sealing system for a flexible pouch built from a specific multi-layer construction. It comprises a pair of interlocking closure strips (a "zipper") and at least three layers of sheet material attached to the strips at different vertical positions—some above the interlock, some below (’403 Patent, col. 5:26-54). This specific construction creates distinct pull-flaps. The system is designed so that pulling on one specific pair of flaps (the "first and second flaps," both originating from below the interlocking strips) allows the user to disengage the seal, while pulling on other combinations of flaps prevents the seal from opening (’403 Patent, col. 5:55-65; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to integrate a child-resistance mechanism directly into the structure of the bag itself, without requiring separate sliders or tools, by leveraging the geometry of the film layers and closure strips (’403 Patent, col. 1:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 16-17 (Compl. ¶32).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A container with a first side formed by a "first layer of sheet material" and a second side formed by "at least a second and third layer of sheet material."
  • A pair of closure strips with interlocking profiles.
  • One closure strip has extensions both above and below the interlock; the other strip has an extension only below the interlock.
  • The second layer is attached below the interlock on one strip to form a "first upward extending flap."
  • The first layer is attached below the interlock on the other strip to form a "second upward extending flap." (Note: This element was corrected from "second layer" via a Certificate of Correction).
  • The third layer is attached above the interlock to form a "third upward extending flap."
  • The container is configured to be opened by pulling the "first and second flaps apart."
  • The configuration prevents release of the interlock when "any of the flaps other than the first and second flaps" are pulled apart.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 10,011,404 (the ’404 Patent) - "Child Resistant Sealing System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,011,404, "Child Resistant Sealing System," issued July 3, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same need for improved child-resistant sealing systems for flexible bags as the ’403 Patent (’404 Patent, col. 1:16-21).
• The Patented Solution: As a continuation of the ’403 Patent's application, the ’404 Patent describes the same core technology: a multi-layer pouch structure with precisely attached flaps creating a directional opening mechanism (’404 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:8-23). The claims again define the invention by the specific attachment points of three distinct sheet material layers relative to the interlocking strips, which creates the intended child-resistant function where only a specific pair of flaps can open the container (’404 Patent, col. 5:25-61).
• Technical Importance: The technical contribution is identical to that of the ’403 Patent, focusing on an integrated, structural solution for child resistance in flexible packaging (’404 Patent, col. 1:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 and 6 (Compl. ¶41).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A container with a first side formed by a "first layer of sheet material" and a second side formed by "at least a second and third layer of sheet material."
  • A pair of closure strips with an interlocking profile.
  • One closure strip has extensions above and below the interlock; the other strip has an extension only below the interlock.
  • The mechanism is configured to be released by "pulling the extensions below the linear interlocking strips apart."
  • The "second layer" is attached to the "first" closure strip below the interlock (forming a "first upward extending flap").
  • The "first layer" is attached to the "second" closure strip below the interlock (forming a "second upward extending flap").
  • The "third layer" is attached to the "first" closure strip above the interlock (forming a "third upward extending flap").
  • The configuration prevents release of the interlock when "any of the flaps other than the first and second flaps" are pulled apart.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "ePac Accused Products" and "ACW Accused Products" are identified as a "line of flat and stand up child resistant pouches" (Compl. ¶¶18, 24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are marketed and sold as "child resistant packaging" throughout the United States via Defendants' websites (Compl. ¶¶19, 25). The complaint includes an image of opening instructions from an ePac accused product, which depicts a two-step process requiring a user to separate and pull on specific flaps to open the pouch (Compl. ¶23, Fig. A). A similar image is provided for an ACW accused product (Compl. ¶29, Fig. C). The complaint further alleges that the accused products use zippers supplied by a third party, Reynolds Presto Products, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶20, 26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, F, G) that were not included with the filed complaint document. Therefore, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that the accused ePac and ACW pouches infringe the asserted patents because they embody the patented inventions, including, at a minimum, all limitations of claim 1 of both the ’403 and ’404 Patents (Compl. ¶¶32-33, 41-42, 55-56, 63-64). The core infringement theory is that the accused pouches are constructed with a multi-layer film structure and an interlocking zipper that replicates the claimed "directional" opening mechanism. The instructional diagrams provided in the complaint for the accused products, which show a user peeling back an outer flap to access and pull an inner flap to open the bag, are offered as evidence of this infringing functionality (Compl. ¶¶23, 29, Figs. A & C). The plaintiff alleges that this operation corresponds to the patented method of pulling the specific "first and second flaps" to open the seal, while other attempts to open the bag would be ineffective, thus meeting key limitations of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: The central dispute will likely focus on whether the physical construction of the accused pouches literally meets the claim requirements for "a first layer," a "second and third layer," and the precise attachment points of these layers to the "extension above" and "extension below" the interlocking strips. The defense may argue that their products use a different number of layers or a different attachment configuration.
  • Functional Questions: A related question is whether the accused pouches function as claimed. For instance, does pulling on flaps other than the designated opening flaps actually "prevent[] the interlocking strips from being released," as required by claim 1 of both patents? The outcome may depend on physical testing and expert testimony regarding the mechanical behavior of the accused pouches compared to the claimed functionality. The Certificate of Correction for the ’403 Patent, which changed a key detail of the physical structure in claim 1, may become a focal point of the infringement analysis for that patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a first layer of sheet material forming the first side of the container and at least a second and third layer of sheet material forming the second side of the container" (’403 Patent, cl. 1).

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the fundamental three-layer structure upon which the entire invention is built. The infringement analysis for both patents will depend on whether the accused products can be shown to possess this specific arrangement of layers. Practitioners may focus on this term because a different physical construction, such as one using two layers or a folded single layer that does not create three functionally distinct layers, could support a non-infringement defense.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that two of the layers "may be a single continuous sheet folded to form a pair of opposing layers" (’403 Patent, col. 4:57-59), which might support an argument that the "layers" need not be physically separate, discrete sheets of material.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims consistently recite three distinct layers ("first," "second," and "third"), each attached at a specific location to create three distinct flaps. A party could argue that this requires three structurally identifiable and functionally different portions of film, regardless of whether they originate from a single sheet.

• The Term: "attached to the... pair of closure strip at the extension [above/below] the respective linear interlocking strip" (’403 Patent, cl. 1).

  • Context and Importance: The location of these attachment points is what creates the "directional" opening mechanism. The definition of "attached" and the precise location of that attachment relative to the interlocking profile is critical to defining the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "attached" is not explicitly defined, potentially allowing for any method of joining (e.g., heat sealing, adhesive) anywhere along the relevant extension that achieves the claimed function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures provide specific visual examples of how the layers are attached to the closure strip extensions (e.g., ’403 Patent, Fig. 3). A party could argue that the term "attached" should be construed in a manner consistent with these embodiments to achieve the claimed child-resistant result.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by asserting that Defendants’ instructions, such as those depicted in Figures A and C, direct end-users to operate the pouches in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶34, 57). It alleges contributory infringement by claiming the accused pouches are a material component of the invention, are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and are especially adapted for infringing the patents (Compl. ¶¶35, 58).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after receiving pre-suit notice of the asserted patents via letters sent in February 2020 (Compl. ¶¶21-22, 27-28, 36, 45).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Can Plaintiff prove, likely through dissection and expert analysis of the accused products, that the pouches possess the exact three-layer construction and the specific layer-to-zipper attachment points recited in the asserted claims of the ’403 and ’404 patents?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Does the accused pouches' closure mechanism operate in the "directional" manner claimed, where attempting to pull open the bag using non-designated flaps is actively resisted or prevented by the design, as the claims require?
• Finally, the willfulness and indirect infringement claims may turn on knowledge and intent: What was the precise content of the February 2020 notice letters, and do the instructional diagrams on the accused products provide sufficient evidence of an intent to induce infringement by end-users?