DCT

2:16-cv-02529

SUNDESA LLC v. 4 Dimension Nutrition Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-02-18 '032 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2002-04-30 '032 Patent Issue Date
2015-09-19 Earliest alleged infringing activity (distribution at Mr. Olympia competition)
2015-11-11 First pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant
2016-04-12 Second pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant
2016-11-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032 - Flow-Through Agitator

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,379,032, "Flow-Through Agitator," issued April 30, 2002.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of mixing powdered compositions, such as dietary supplements or baby formulas, into liquids to form a smooth suspension. Such powders tend to form clumps that resist mixing, float on the surface, or stick to container walls, and existing agitators were described as often being fixed to the container, difficult to clean, and inefficient. (’032 Patent, col. 1:55-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "physically independent" agitator that is not attached to the container and is free to move throughout the mixture. It is constructed as a "wire-frame" object with openings, or "interstitial spaces," that allow both liquid and powder to flow through it. As the container is shaken, the agitator moves through the mixture, creating turbulence and a "chopping action" that breaks up clumps and promotes a homogeneous suspension. (’032 Patent, col. 2:7-27; col. 3:7-15).
  • Technical Importance: The patented design sought to provide a reusable, easily cleanable, and more effective mixing device for the consumer nutrition market compared to prior art agitators that were either fixed, disposable, or less effective at dispersing clumps throughout the container. (’032 Patent, col. 1:40-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (a mixer apparatus) and independent claim 18 (a method of mixing).
  • Independent Claim 15 (Apparatus - Mixer):
    • A hand-held, shakeable container for holding a liquid/powder mixture;
    • A lid removably coupled to the container to form a completely enclosed mixing area; and
    • A physically independent agitator object removably placed within the container, being free from any structural connection to the container;
    • The agitator object has "narrow rod-like elements defining a shape with interstitial spaces" and a hollow interior space.
  • Independent Claim 18 (Method):
    • Placing a composition of ingredients into a hand-held, shakeable container;
    • Placing a physically independent agitator (which is free of structural connection and has a framework with voids) into the container;
    • Securing a removable lid to form a completely enclosed mixing area; and
    • Shaking the container to propel the agitator through the ingredients, causing the ingredients to flow through the agitator's voids.
  • The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment of infringement of "one or more of the claims," suggesting the possibility that other claims may be asserted later in the litigation (Compl. p. 5, ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is identified as "shaker cups with a whisk type ball" sold and offered for sale by Defendant 4 Dimension Nutrition (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused product is a shaker cup used for mixing ingredients, which includes a "whisk type ball" that functions as an agitator (Compl. ¶12). The product is sold as part of Defendant's business in "sports supplements and accessories" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint asserts that the product's design allows users to perform the methods claimed in the ’032 patent and that Defendant instructs its customers to use the product in such a way (Compl. ¶¶12-13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'032 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 15)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a hand-held, shakeable container for holding a liquid/powder mixture; The accused product is a "shaker cup" (Compl. ¶12). ¶12 col. 8:6-7
a lid removably coupled to said hand-held shakeable container... The accused product is a shaker cup that presumably includes a lid, as is standard for such products (Compl. ¶12). ¶12 col. 8:8-11
a physically independent agitator object removably placed within said hand-held, shakeable container, said physically independent agitator object being free from any structural connection to said hand-held, shakeable container... The product includes a "whisk type ball" that is not attached to the container (Compl. ¶12). ¶12 col. 8:12-16
...and having narrow rod-like elements defining a shape with interstitial spaces between said elements and a hollow interior space within said shape... The "whisk type ball" is alleged to embody this structure (Compl. ¶12). ¶12 col. 8:16-18

'032 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 18)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
placing a composition of ingredients into a hand-held, shakeable container; Defendant allegedly instructs customers to place ingredients in the accused shaker cup (Compl. ¶13). ¶13 col. 8:40-41
placing a physically independent agitator into said hand-held, shakeable container, said physically independent agitator object being free of any structural connection to said hand-held, shakeable container, said physically independent agitator comprising an object having a framework with a plurality of significant voids therein; The accused product is sold with the "whisk type ball" inside the shaker cup, which is alleged to be a physically independent agitator with voids (Compl. ¶12). ¶12 col. 8:42-46
securing a removable lid to said hand-held, shakeable container... Defendant allegedly instructs customers to secure the lid on the shaker cup (Compl. ¶13). ¶13 col. 8:47-51
shaking said container in a manner that propels said agitator through said composition of ingredients, wherein said composition of ingredients flows into and out of said voids... Defendant allegedly instructs customers to shake the cup to mix ingredients, which causes the whisk ball to move through the mixture (Compl. ¶13). ¶13 col. 8:52-56
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "narrow rod-like elements," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the specific physical structure of the accused "whisk type ball." The definition of "narrow" and "rod-like" will be central.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific details or images of the accused "whisk type ball." A key factual question will be what the actual construction of the ball is, and what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that this construction meets the structural limitations of the claims, such as having "interstitial spaces" and a "hollow interior space" in the manner claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "physically independent agitator object"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the invention, distinguishing it from agitators that are fixed or integral to a container. Infringement requires the accused "whisk type ball" to be "physically independent."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims state the object is "free of any structural connection to said hand-held, shakeable container," a straightforward functional definition that could encompass any unattached object. (’032 Patent, col. 8:44-45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the object is "allowed to move freely to every location within said enclosed mixing area." (’032 Patent, col. 8:22-25). A party could argue this implies a size and shape relationship to the container that allows for unrestricted movement, potentially narrowing the scope to exclude objects that might become trapped or limited in their movement.

  • The Term: "narrow rod-like elements"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the constituent parts of the agitator's framework. Whether the accused "whisk type ball" is made of such elements will be a critical infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a specific structural limitation that may distinguish the patented invention from other unattached mixing objects.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the "wire-frame" can be constructed from a variety of materials, including "wound metal wire" and "molded plastic materials," suggesting flexibility in the precise form of the elements. (’032 Patent, col. 2:13-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself, along with figures showing coiled wire (Fig. 2) and grids (Fig. 1), could be argued to require slender, elongated components, potentially excluding agitators constructed from thicker or flatter structures, even if perforated.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant "instructs its customers or users of the Accused Product to use it to mix ingredients according to the claimed methods" (Compl. ¶¶13, 23). It further alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), asserting the accused product is "especially made to be used" in an infringing way and has "no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶15, 26-27).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’032 Patent. The basis for this knowledge is Defendant's receipt of notice letters from Plaintiff's counsel dated November 11, 2015 and April 12, 2016, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶16-20, 31).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "narrow rod-like elements" be construed to cover the specific geometry and construction of the accused "whisk type ball"? The outcome of this claim construction will likely be dispositive for the infringement analysis.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural proof: given the complaint's lack of technical detail on the accused product, the case will turn on factual evidence developed during discovery that establishes the precise structure of the "whisk type ball" and demonstrates whether it meets the claim limitations of having a "hollow interior space" and "interstitial spaces" created by the "narrow rod-like elements".