Stock Your Home LLC v. Lifted Ltd LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stock Your Home LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Lifted Limited, LLC (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David Fink
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-05829, E.D.N.Y., 09/29/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because it is located there, Defendant directed enforcement actions there, Defendant has substantial sales in the district, and Defendant implied a willingness to litigate there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to a multi-function smoking accessory, and that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld combination tools for pipe smokers, integrating a lighter holder with tools like a tamper and a poker.
• Key Procedural History: The dispute arose from a patent infringement assertion made by Defendant against Plaintiff via the Amazon.com marketplace notification system. The complaint notes a subsequent disagreement over the findings of an Amazon-appointed "Patent Evaluator," whose process Plaintiff contests.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-02-06	'779 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2020-06-30	'779 Patent Issue Date
2022-06-17	Defendant (Lifted) asserts infringement of '779 Patent against Plaintiff (SYH) via Amazon.com
2022-08-15	Plaintiff sends legal analysis to Defendant's counsel
2022-09-29	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,694,779 - "Pipe lighter holder and tool"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience faced by pipe smokers who traditionally must carry three separate items: a lighter, a tobacco stuffer (tamper), and a pipe poker for cleaning or mixing (’779 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, pocket-sized device, described as a "plastic case" or "sheath," designed to hold a standard disposable lighter. The base of the sheath incorporates a "hammer shaped" protrusion to serve as a tamper, while the other side of the base features a foldable metal rod that acts as a poker (’779 Patent, col. 1:32-37, Fig. 1). This consolidates the three necessary tools into one unit.
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a more convenient, integrated solution for pipe smokers by combining commonly used accessories into a single, portable tool (’779 Patent, col. 1:12-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity for "each and every patent claim" (Compl. ¶24). Independent claim 1 is central to the patent.
• Independent Claim 1: The essential elements include:
  • A "sheath" with an interior and exterior surface extending along a longitudinal axis.
  • A "central recess" within the sheath, sized to hold a lighter.
  • A "pipe bowl tamper" on the sheath, sized to be insertable into a pipe bowl.
  • A "slot" extending along a length of the sheath.
  • An "elongated poker" that moves between a closed position (disposed in the slot) and an open position (insertable into a pipe bowl).
• The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but makes a blanket assertion against all claims (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "certain products sold by SYH on Amazon.com" by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs): BO7SJ94R68 and BO87NCXT7S (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment, does not provide a technical description of the functionality of Plaintiff's products. It notes that the products are sold on Amazon.com and that their removal from the platform has caused "continuing economic harm" to the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶2, ¶13).
  No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement. As a declaratory judgment action, it asserts non-infringement rather than pleading facts to support infringement (Compl. ¶25). The complaint states that Defendant accused Plaintiff's products of infringement but provides no claim chart or specific theory of infringement from the Defendant (Compl. ¶4, ¶6).

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the nature of the technology, future infringement disputes may center on the following questions:
  • Scope Questions: Does the Plaintiff's product possess a feature that meets the definition of a "pipe bowl tamper" as claimed? Similarly, does it include both a "slot" and a distinct "elongated poker" that operates in the manner described by the claim, moving from a closed position within the slot to an open, usable position?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks any technical description of the accused products. A central question for the court will be to determine the actual structure and mechanism of the Plaintiff's products and compare them to the specific limitations of the '779 Patent's claims, such as the means by which a poker-like tool is stored and deployed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "pipe bowl tamper"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is a core functional element of the invention. The scope of this term will be critical, as it defines one of the key features that distinguishes the claimed multi-tool. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if any protrusion on the accused device, regardless of its shape or primary purpose, can be considered a "tamper."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself describes the tamper as "sized to be insertable into a pipe bowl" (’779 Patent, col. 2:60-61), which is a functional definition that could be read broadly.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes this element with more specific structure, referring to it as a "hammer like protrusion" or "hammer shaped base" (’779 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:33). Figure 10 shows the tamper (6) being used to "stuff down" material in a pipe bowl, which may limit the term to structures suitable for that specific action (’779 Patent, col. 2:39-41).

• The Term: "slot"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "slot" for holding the "elongated poker" in its closed position. The relationship between the poker and the slot is a key structural limitation. A dispute may arise over whether a simple groove, recess, or channel in the accused product meets the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "slot."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "slot" is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering a range of openings or channels.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the poker "folds in direction C into slot 9 in the passive mode" and that the slot receives the poker such that "a user must pry on the elongated poker to remove" it (’779 Patent, col. 2:18-19; col. 3:45-49). This suggests the slot is a distinct feature that actively constrains or holds the poker, not merely a coincidental surface feature.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general statement seeking a judicial determination that it has not "directly or indirectly infringed" the '779 Patent, but does not contain any specific factual allegations regarding indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: This allegation is not made. However, the Plaintiff requests that the court find this to be an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling it to attorney's fees. The basis for this request is Defendant's alleged "unsubstantiated claim of patent infringement" sent to Amazon.com and subsequent failure to provide a legal basis for its infringement conclusion (Compl. ¶18, Prayer for Relief C).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "pipe bowl tamper," described in the patent's specification as a "hammer like" structure, be construed broadly enough to read on the specific structure of Plaintiff's accused products? The resolution of this and other term constructions will likely be dispositive of the non-infringement claim.
• The case will also turn on validity, an issue Plaintiff raises repeatedly (Compl. ¶6, ¶24). The central question will be whether prior art exists that discloses the combination of a lighter sheath with an integrated, foldable poker and a tamper, as claimed in the '779 Patent.
• An initial procedural question will be the sufficiency of Plaintiff's basis for declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The court will need to assess whether Defendant's infringement notice through Amazon's system created a controversy of "sufficient immediacy and reality" to warrant the court's intervention.