DCT
1:24-cv-03227
Lovepop Inc v. Paper Love LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lovepop, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Paper Love LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Polsinelli PC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03227, E.D.N.Y., 04/30/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's residence and regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of New York, where acts of infringement are alleged to have occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pop-up greeting cards infringe four patents—three utility and one design—related to the construction, attachment, and appearance of three-dimensional slice-form pop-up elements.
- Technical Context: The technology lies in the field of paper engineering for pop-up greeting cards, a market where novel mechanical structures and aesthetic designs are key competitive differentiators.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant regarding the ’033 and ’448 patents on May 12, 2021, and August 26, 2021. Defendant allegedly refused to cease its activities after each communication, which forms the basis for Plaintiff's willful infringement allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-16 | Earliest Priority Date for '033 and '021 Patents |
| 2016-10-11 | Earliest Priority Date for '448 Patent |
| 2017-03-21 | '033 Patent Issued |
| 2018-09-05 | Earliest Priority Date for '254 Patent |
| 2019-11-19 | '448 Design Patent Issued |
| 2021-05-12 | Plaintiff's first cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2021-08-26 | Plaintiff's second cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2023-07-18 | '021 Patent Issued |
| 2024-04-23 | '254 Patent Issued |
| 2024-04-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,601,033 - “POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT”
- Issued: March 21, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional pop-up cards as being costly and complex to manufacture, often requiring multiple pieces of paper for the base or strings to raise the pop-up element, which limits design possibilities (’033 Patent, col. 2:1-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses a "sliceform" pop-up element, constructed from interlocking planar pieces, which is attached to a card base made from a single sheet of paper. The attachment mechanism is key: "distal tabs" on the outermost sliceform pieces fold perpendicularly to the element and are coupled to the left and right panels of the card, allowing the three-dimensional structure to erect upon opening and collapse flat upon closing (’033 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:55-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify manufacturing and reduce costs by eliminating the need for multi-part bases or mechanical strings, thereby expanding the creative freedom for designers (’033 Patent, col. 3:36-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶58).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An article comprising a pop-up card, which itself comprises a single sheet of paper with a single crease separating a left and right panel.
- A pop-up sliceform element with a first plurality of sliceform elements perpendicular to a second plurality.
- The first plurality of sliceform elements includes a first element with a distal tab coupled to the left panel and a last element with a distal tab coupled to the right panel.
- The second plurality of sliceform elements includes a first element with a distal tab coupled to the right panel and a last element with a distal tab coupled to the left panel.
- The pop-up element is displayed in a three-dimensional configuration when open and folds into a flat configuration when closed.
U.S. Patent No. 11,705,021 - “POP-UP GREETING CARD WITH TAB SUPPORT OF A LASER-CUT, SLICE-FORM POP-UP ELEMENT”
- Issued: July 18, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the family that includes the ’033 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of creating complex, reliable, and cost-effective pop-up card mechanisms (’021 Patent, col. 2:1-16).
- The Patented Solution: This invention refines the sliceform attachment method. It claims a "self-erecting pop-up display structure" anchored to the card via a specific arrangement of four tabs. Two tabs originate from a "first set of slice-form elements" and secure to the card's first and second sections, respectively. Two additional tabs from a "second set of slice-form elements" also secure to the first and second sections, creating a distinct four-point anchoring system that facilitates the transition between collapsed and erected states (’021 Patent, col. 8:10-29).
- Technical Importance: The specified four-tab configuration provides a particularly robust and precisely defined method for securing a sliceform structure to a foldable card, ensuring reliable erection and collapse (’021 Patent, col. 8:10-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶75).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A pop-up card foldable along a crease line defining a first and second section.
- A self-erecting pop-up display structure with a first and second set of slice-form elements.
- A first tab from the first set securing the structure to the first section.
- A second tab from the first set securing the structure to the second section.
- A third tab from the second set securing the structure to the first section.
- A fourth tab from the second set securing the structure to the second section.
- The structure is in a collapsed state when the card is folded and an erected state when the card is opened.
U.S. Patent No. 11,967,254 - “POP-UP DISPLAY STRUCTURE”
- Issued: April 23, 2024 (Compl. ¶18)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a pop-up display structure with its own foldable base, comprising intersecting slice-form elements. This design allows the entire pop-up element to be a self-contained unit that can be mounted on a foldable surface, like a card, and is movable between a flattened state and an erected 3D state (’254 Patent, Abstract). The complaint indicates this structure may also be removable from the card (’254 Patent, col. 1:21-26; Compl. ¶93).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶92).
- Accused Features: The "HugePop Happy Flower Bouquet Pop Up With Detachable Flowers" card is identified as a representative infringing product (Compl. ¶93).
U.S. Design Patent No. D867,448 - “ROSE BOUQUET POP-UP CARD”
- Issued: November 19, 2019 (Compl. ¶22)
- Technology Synopsis: This is a design patent that protects the specific, non-functional ornamental appearance of a pop-up card featuring a rose bouquet. The claim covers the visual aesthetic of the assembled bouquet and its base as depicted in the patent's figures (’448 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim of the design patent (Compl. ¶109).
- Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of Defendant's "Lovely Roses Valentines Day Pop Up Card" and other products are alleged to be "remarkably similar" to the patented design (Compl. ¶¶110-111). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and an accused product to illustrate the alleged similarity (Compl. p. 48).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s line of three-dimensional pop-up greeting cards, including but not limited to the "Poppy Flowers Popup Card," "HugePop Happy Flower Bouquet Pop Up With Detachable Flowers," and "Lovely Roses Valentines Day Pop Up Card" (Compl. ¶¶43-45).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are greeting cards that feature a three-dimensional paper sculpture that erects when the card is opened and collapses when it is closed (Compl. ¶43). The complaint alleges these cards are formed using interlocking "slice-form" paper elements to create complex structures like floral bouquets and trees (Compl. ¶¶59, 76). The complaint provides visual evidence showing the accused "Poppy Flowers Popup Card" in both its open, three-dimensional state and its closed, flat state (Compl. p. 19). The extensive list of accused products suggests Defendant has a significant presence in the pop-up greeting card market (Compl. ¶¶44-45).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'033 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An article comprising a pop-up card, the pop-up card comprising: a single sheet of paper including a single crease and separating the sheet of paper into a left panel and a right panel... | The accused "Poppy Flowers" card is a pop-up card made from a single folded sheet of paper with a central crease separating it into two panels. | ¶59, p. 19 | col. 3:41-44 |
| a pop-up sliceform element coupled to said sheet, wherein the sliceform includes a first plurality of sliceform elements perpendicular to a second plurality of slice-form elements when in the open position; | The card contains a pop-up flower structure made of intersecting, perpendicular paper elements. | ¶59, p. 20 | col. 3:50-53 |
| wherein the first plurality of sliceform elements comprises: a) a first sliceform element with a distal tab... coupled to the left panel, and b) a last sliceform element with a distal tab... coupled to the right panel; | The complaint shows photos allegedly depicting tabs on the outermost sliceform elements of one orientation being attached to the left and right panels of the card base. | ¶59, p. 21 | col. 4:55-65 |
| wherein the second plurality of sliceform elements comprises: a) a first sliceform element with a distal tab... coupled to the right panel, and b) a last sliceform element with a distal tab... coupled to the left panel; | Photos allegedly show tabs on the outermost sliceform elements of the perpendicular orientation also being attached to the right and left panels of the card base, respectively. | ¶59, p. 23 | col. 4:55-65 |
| wherein the open position the pop-up sliceform element is displayed as a three-dimensional configuration, and in the closed position said pop-up sliceform element folds together into a flat configuration. | The pop-up flower structure is shown as a 3D object when the card is open and folds flat when the card is closed. | ¶59, p. 24 | col. 4:48-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by a wide variety of card designs (Compl. ¶¶61, 78). A question for the court will be whether the specific tab-based attachment structure described in the claims is present across all accused products or only a subset.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires distinct "first" and "last" sliceform elements in two different pluralities, each with a "distal tab" coupled to a specific panel. The court will need to determine from the physical evidence whether the accused products possess this precise, multi-point attachment architecture, a question that the complaint's photographs, such as the close-up of the accused product's base, aim to address (Compl. p. 21).
'021 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pop-up card, comprising: a card foldable along a crease line defining a first section and a second section; | The accused "Poppy Flowers" card is depicted as having a central crease line and two sections that fold. | ¶76, p. 30 | col. 8:11-13 |
| a self-erecting pop-up display structure including a first set of slice-form elements and a second set of slice-form elements; | The card includes a pop-up flower structure alleged to be self-erecting and made of two sets of interlocking paper elements. | ¶76, p. 31 | col. 8:14-17 |
| a first tab of the first set of slice-form elements securing the... structure to the card at the first section; | The complaint alleges that a tab from one set of elements secures the structure to the first side of the card. | ¶76, p. 32 | col. 8:18-20 |
| a second tab of the first set of slice-form elements securing the... structure to the card at the second section; | A second tab from the same set of elements allegedly secures the structure to the second side of the card. | ¶76, p. 32 | col. 8:21-23 |
| a third tab of the second set of slice-form elements securing the... structure to the card at the first section; | A tab from the second set of elements allegedly secures the structure to the first side of the card. | ¶76, p. 33 | col. 8:24-26 |
| a fourth tab of the second set of slice-form elements securing the... structure to the card at the second section... | A fourth tab from the second set allegedly secures the structure to the second side, allowing it to be collapsed when folded and erected when opened. | ¶76, p. 33 | col. 8:27-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The claim requires a very specific four-point attachment system, with two tabs from a "first set" of elements and two tabs from a "second set." A central factual question will be whether the accused products, like the "Poppy Flowers" card, can be technically mapped to this precise structure. Evidence may require deconstruction of the accused cards. The complaint's comparison of the '254 patent's Figure 10 to an accused product attempts to show a similar structure, though it is for a different patent (Compl. p. 43).
- Scope Questions: Does the term "set of slice-form elements" imply a physical grouping, or can it be defined functionally based on orientation? The interpretation of this term could be critical to determining if the accused products meet this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sliceform element" ('033 and '021 Patents)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental building block of the patented pop-up structures. Its construction will determine whether the defendant's paper sculptures fall within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition, stating sliceforms are "geometric models constructed from interlocking sets of planar pieces" (’033 Patent, col. 3:50-53). This supports an interpretation covering any structure made of interlocking planes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents consistently depict sliceform elements that create naturalistic or organic shapes like trees and gardens (’033 Patent, Figs. 1A, 2A). A party could argue the term should be limited by these exemplary embodiments.
The Term: "distal tab" ('033 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the specific part of the sliceform that attaches to the card base. The existence and properties of this feature are central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the tab functionally: it must be "perpendicular to the first sliceform element when in the open position." This suggests any structure performing this function could qualify.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states, "a tab is located on the farthest end, or distally, of the slice-form element on which it is located" (’033 Patent, col. 5:1-4). This, combined with the specific shapes shown in Figure 3C, could support a narrower definition requiring the tab to be at the physical extremity of the sliceform element.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant actively encouraging customers to use the infringing products (Compl. ¶¶64, 81, 98, 115). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant knows its products are especially made to infringe and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶65, 82, 99, 116).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents. For the ’033 and ’448 patents, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge from cease-and-desist letters sent in May and August 2021 (Compl. ¶¶49-52, 70, 120). For the more recently issued ’021 and ’254 patents, the allegation of willfulness appears to be based on knowledge acquired from the filing of the lawsuit itself (Compl. ¶¶80, 87, 97, 104).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the accused pop-up cards, upon close technical inspection, actually contain the specific multi-tab anchoring systems recited in the independent claims of the '033 and '021 patents? This will be a fact-intensive inquiry turning on the precise number, origin (i.e., from which "set" of sliceforms), and connection points of the attachment tabs.
- A second key question will be one of claim construction: Can the term "distal tab" from the '033 patent, which is described in the specification as being on the "farthest end" of a sliceform, be construed to read on the attachment mechanisms used in the accused products? Similarly, how the court defines a "set of slice-form elements" will be critical to the analysis of the '021 patent.
- For the '448 design patent, the dispute will center on the "ordinary observer" test: Is the overall ornamental design of Defendant's accused rose bouquet cards substantially the same as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing one thinking it was the other? This will depend on a visual comparison that factors in the prior art.