DCT

2:22-cv-00030

Dae Sung Hi Tech Co Ltd v. D&B Sales Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00030, D. Nev., 02/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside in Nevada, conduct business in the state, and have committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ sale of bag sealing devices infringes a patent related to a pack sealing method and device.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable devices for creating an airtight seal on flexible bags, a common consumer product category for food storage and preservation.
  • Key Procedural History: The document is an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs allege a licensing chain wherein patent owner Sehyang Industrial Co., Ltd. licensed the patent-in-suit to Dae Sung Hi Tech Co., Ltd., and First 2 Market Products, LLC is the exclusive U.S. distributor.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-11-13 '696 Patent Priority Date
2005-04-27 '696 Patent Application Filing Date
2009-03-17 '696 Patent Issue Date
2009-05-01 First2Market becomes exclusive U.S. distributor
2011-03-07 Sehyang licenses '696 Patent to Dae Sung
2017-01-01 Defendants allegedly identify accused product as "Gripstixs"
2018-01-01 Defendants allegedly identify accused product as "Grip Sticks"
2019-01-01 Defendants allegedly identify accused product as "Lock and Seal Sticks"
2024-02-29 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 - “PACK SEALING METHOD AND DEVICE” (issued Mar. 17, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings with prior art bag sealing technologies, including the potential for zipper-style seals to collapse under pressure, the unreliability of hinged clamping devices, and the tendency of simple vinyl bags to lack the rigidity to stay open for filling ('696 Patent, col. 1:21-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part sealing device composed of an inner “rod member” and an outer “slit tubular member.” To seal a bag, the user wraps the bag’s opening around the rod member. The tubular member is then slid over the rod, with the bag material captured in a “squeeze gap” between the two components, creating a firm seal along the length of the opening ('696 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-6). Figures 1 and 11 illustrate this core mechanism of wrapping the pack (8) around the rod member (14) and securing it with the tubular member (16) ('696 Patent, Fig. 1, 11).
  • Technical Importance: This design offers a reusable and mechanically simple method for achieving a reliable seal on inexpensive, flexible bags, addressing the distinct failure modes of both integrated zippers and external hinged clips ('696 Patent, col. 1:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the "invention claimed in the ‘696 patent" without specifying claims (Compl. ¶28). The following analysis focuses on representative independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
    • A pack sealing device comprising a rod member and a slidably fitted tubular member.
    • A "squeeze gap" defined between the rod and tubular members.
    • A longitudinal "slit" formed at the tubular member.
    • An "inclined guide" at one end of the rod member and another at one end of the tubular member.
    • A requirement that the tubular member has a "circular cross-sectional shape."
    • A requirement that the rod member is formed with a "bent portion extending inclinedly toward the slit," a "horizontal extension," and a "semicircular protrusion." ('696 Patent, col. 17:57-18:11).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "bag sealing devices" that Defendants purchase and re-sell (Compl. ¶26). It is also alleged that Defendants have referred to these products by names including "Gripstixs," "Grip Sticks," and "Lock and Seal Sticks" (Compl. ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants sell the accused bag sealing devices throughout the United States, including at state and county fairs (Compl. ¶¶9, 28). The complaint further alleges that Defendants have admitted to sales in excess of $4,000.00 and have documented sales exceeding $100,000.00 (Compl. ¶29). Exhibit D to the complaint provides photographs of the bag sealing devices Defendants are accused of re-selling (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed infringement theory or claim chart mapping specific elements of the accused device to the patent’s claim limitations. The allegations are framed generally, stating that Defendants "are purchasing and re-selling a bag sealing device that infringes the ‘696 patent" (Compl. ¶26) and "practice the invention claimed in the ‘696 patent" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not include or reference a claim chart exhibit.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The central issue will be factual and evidentiary. What evidence will Plaintiffs present to demonstrate that the accused devices, pictured in Exhibit D, contain every element of an asserted independent claim? For example, what evidence will show the presence of the specific "bent portion," "horizontal extension," and "semicircular protrusion" recited in Claim 1?
  • Scope Questions: Without a specific infringement read, potential mismatches are speculative. However, a likely area of dispute will concern the precise geometric and structural limitations of the claims. The infringement analysis will question whether the physical structure of the accused devices can be read upon by the specific language of the claims, particularly the detailed features recited at the end of Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"squeeze gap"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the sealing function of the invention. Its construction will determine the required relationship and spacing between the inner rod and outer tube, which is central to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the gap functionally, stating it "has a width corresponding to 2 to 10 times the thickness of the pack" ('696 Patent, col. 6:20-22). This functional language may support a construction that is not limited to a specific geometry.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the gap as a specific, curved space created by the interaction of a circular-like rod within a circular tube (e.g., '696 Patent, Fig. 11). This could support an argument that the term is implicitly limited to the illustrated shape.

"bent portion extending inclinedly toward the slit"

  • Context and Importance: This is a highly specific geometric limitation recited in Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement of this claim will depend entirely on whether the accused device possesses this exact structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that this language should be interpreted functionally to cover any non-linear guide structure at the end of the rod that directs the bag opening into the device.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself is structural, not functional. Figure 19 shows a distinct "bent portion (14k)" with a clear angle ('696 Patent, Fig. 19). An opposing party may argue the term is limited to such an explicitly angled structure, as described in the specification text accompanying the figure ('696 Patent, col. 11:18-23).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges Defendants are "contributing to infringement, and/or [inducing] others to infringe" (Compl. ¶28). The factual basis alleged for the required knowledge and intent includes the assertion that Defendants purchased products "with the intention of reselling infringing bag sealing devices knowingly, willingly, and intentionally" (Compl. ¶25).

Willful Infringement

Plaintiffs seek enhanced damages for willful infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶4). The complaint alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly, willingly, and intentionally in violation of Plaintiffs' patent rights" (Compl. ¶25). It is also alleged that Defendants used names for their products ("Gripstixs," "Grip Sticks") that are similar to Plaintiffs' GRIPSTIC® brand, which may be presented as evidence of knowledge of Plaintiffs' product and, by extension, the associated patent (Compl. ¶35).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of a detailed claim chart, can Plaintiffs produce sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that the accused devices meet every specific structural limitation of an asserted claim, such as the "bent portion," "horizontal extension," and "semicircular protrusion" required by Claim 1?
  • The case will also involve a question of claim construction: Can the specific geometric term "bent portion extending inclinedly toward the slit" be construed broadly to cover various guide mechanisms, or will it be narrowly limited to the angular structure depicted in the patent's figures, potentially creating a path for a non-infringement defense?
  • A key factual question for willfulness will be one of scienter: Can Plaintiffs establish that Defendants' alleged marketing of their products under names similar to Plaintiffs' brand is sufficient to prove pre-suit knowledge of the '696 patent itself, as required to support a finding of willful infringement?