DCT
2:25-cv-03718
Halsted Corp v. Global Strategies Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Halsted Corporation (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Global Strategies, Inc. (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03718, D.N.J., 05/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because it is where Plaintiff resides and has a regular and established place of business, and because Defendant conducts business in the district and directed its enforcement threats there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe Defendant’s patent and/or that the patent is invalid, in response to Defendant’s threats of litigation concerning high-strength woven polypropylene bags.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns durable, woven plastic bags designed to hold heavy and sharp construction debris, competing with traditional film-based trash bags and reusable barrels.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant previously asserted the same patent against a third party (Interbulk USA, LLC), where a court denied a preliminary injunction after finding a "substantial question" of the patent's validity based on prior art sales. Plaintiff claims it provided Defendant with evidence of its own invalidating prior art sales before filing this suit, but Defendant continued to threaten Plaintiff's customers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Alleged start of Plaintiff's U.S. sales of products with accused features |
| 2003 | Date of Plaintiff's invoices for bags with allegedly infringing features |
| 2003-2004 | Alleged sales by third-party Interbulk of products with accused features |
| 2005-03-14 | '327 Patent Priority / Filing Date |
| 2009-03-31 | '327 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-01-12 | Court order in GSI v. Interbulk finding substantial question of validity |
| 2024-12-02 | Defendant sends cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff |
| 2024-12-23 | Plaintiff's counsel sends letter to Defendant with evidence of prior art sales |
| 2025-02-20 | Defendant sends cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff's customer, Ace Hardware |
| 2025-05-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,510,327 - "High Strength Ribbon-Woven Disposable Bag for Containing Refuse," issued March 31, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the failure of typical 3-mil polyethylene film bags when used for heavy or sharp-edged construction refuse like bricks, wood with nails, or glass shards. Such bags are said to tear or puncture easily, while more durable alternatives like rubberized barrels are expensive, bulky, and subject to theft on jobsites (’327 Patent, col. 1:13-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a disposable bag constructed from woven ribbons of flat polypropylene sheet, rather than film or simple strands (’327 Patent, Abstract). This woven-ribbon structure is described as providing high tear, puncture, and cut resistance, allowing the bag to safely hold over 100 pounds of refuse without the risk of a puncture propagating into a larger tear (’327 Patent, col. 2:54-67). The bag is formed from a woven cylinder of this material, which is then cut and stitched at one end to form the bottom (’327 Patent, col. 2:26-30).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide the strength of a durable container in the form factor of an inexpensive, lightweight, and disposable bag, solving a practical problem in the construction and demolition industries (’327 Patent, col. 1:53-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses on infringement allegations regarding independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15, 19).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- An ultra strong, tear-resistant, puncture-resistant bag having a high tear strength, comprising:
- a ribbon-woven bag having crossed woven ribbons of flat polypropylene sheet devoid of low melting temperature bonding layers between the crossed ribbons,
- said bag formed in a cylinder and stitched at one end to complete the bag,
- wherein the stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but seeks a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement for "each of the claims" and "any claims" of the '327 patent (Compl. ¶37, 40).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is Plaintiff's "DURASACK Heavy Duty Contractor Bag" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The DURASACK bag is a woven polypropylene bag used for dry goods, including debris and building materials, and is sold for retail purchase (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that the key features at issue—the cylindrical shape, stitched end, and stitch count—have been present in Plaintiff's products sold wholesale for agricultural and other applications for decades (Compl. ¶13). The product is sold through major retailers including Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, and Ace Hardware (Compl. ¶22, 25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the infringement allegations made by Defendant GSI in its pre-suit communications, as described by Plaintiff Halsted in the complaint.
'327 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a ribbon-woven bag having crossed woven ribbons of flat polypropylene sheet... | The DuraSack Bag is a ribbon-woven bag. | ¶19 | col. 5:32-34 |
| said bag formed in a cylinder and stitched at one end to complete the bag, | The DuraSack Bag is described as a "bag formed in a cylinder and stitched at one end to complete the bag," as shown in a website image provided in Defendant's cease-and-desist letter. | ¶20 | col. 5:35-36 |
| wherein the stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch. | The DuraSack Bag purportedly has a "stitch count of 100 per square inch," as allegedly demonstrated by a picture of the bag's weave with an overlaid measurement grid in Defendant's cease-and-desist letter. | ¶20 | col. 5:36-37 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Invalidity as a Defense: The primary point of contention is Plaintiff's assertion that even if its product meets the claim limitations, the claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by prior art, including Plaintiff's own products sold in the U.S. as early as 1996 (Compl. ¶24, 29, 31). The complaint cites a court ruling in a separate case that found a "substantial question" of the '327 patent's validity on similar grounds (Compl. ¶28).
- Technical Questions: A key question arises from the complaint's description of Defendant's evidence. The complaint alleges Defendant's letter refers to a "stitch count of 100 per square inch" based on a picture of the bag's weave (Compl. ¶20). Claim 1, however, requires a "stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch" (’327 Patent, col. 5:37). This raises the question of whether Defendant’s infringement theory, as presented, maps to the specific language of the claim, and whether the term refers to the weave density or the closing seam.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "the stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the central point of novelty and was allegedly added during prosecution to secure the patent's allowance (Compl. ¶16). Its definition will be critical for both infringement and validity analyses. Practitioners may focus on the ambiguity of whether this limitation refers to the density of the stitches used to sew the bottom of the bag closed, or the density of the woven polypropylene ribbons that make up the fabric of the bag itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Weave Density): The specification describes the weave of the fabric, stating that "in one embodiment, the polypropylene ribbons...are woven in an over and under pattern having a stitch count of 100 per inch" (’327 Patent, col. 2:13-15). Parties arguing this interpretation may contend that "stitch count" is a term of art for weave density in this context. The visual evidence supplied by Defendant, as described in the complaint, allegedly shows a measurement of the weave, not the closing seam (Compl. ¶20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Closing Stitch Density): The limitation appears in the claim immediately following the phrase "stitched at one end to complete the bag" (’327 Patent, col. 5:35-36). A party could argue that standard rules of claim construction suggest the "stitch count" modifier applies to the nearest antecedent, which is the closing stitch. The patent specification, however, does not appear to provide a specific density for the closing stitch (stitching 34), potentially leaving this interpretation unsupported by the written description.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Halsted denies inducing or contributorily infringing any claims of the '327 patent (Compl. ¶40). It does not provide further details on any specific allegations of indirect infringement made by the Defendant.
- Willful Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action, so there is no allegation of willful infringement against the Plaintiff. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct warrants a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to attorney's fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief F). The basis for this allegation is that Defendant continued to assert its patent against Plaintiff and its customers even after a court in a prior case found a "substantial question" of validity and after Plaintiff provided Defendant with evidence of its own allegedly invalidating prior art sales (Compl. ¶26, 28, 32-33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive question of fact: Can Halsted produce clear and convincing evidence that products containing all limitations of the asserted claim—specifically a woven polypropylene bag with a "stitch count of 100 per inch"—were publicly used or on sale in the United States before the critical date of March 14, 2004? The complaint's references to its own 1996 sales, 2003 invoices, and the prior Interbulk litigation suggest this will be the central battleground.
- A core issue of claim construction: What is the proper construction of the term "stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch"? The case may turn on whether this limitation defines the density of the bag's woven fabric or the density of the seam used to stitch the bag closed. The resolution of this ambiguity will directly impact both the infringement analysis and the scope of relevant prior art.