DCT

3:18-cv-01751

Dae Sunghi Tech Co Ltd v. Sarasota Stamps

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-01751, N.D. Ohio, 07/30/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendants do business in Ohio, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and have a regular and established business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ bag sealing devices, sold under the SEAL STICK trademark, infringe a patent related to a method and device for sealing plastic bags.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical clips used to create an airtight seal on flexible bags, commonly used for food storage to maintain freshness.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff First 2 Market Products, LLC is the exclusive distributor of devices covered by the patent-in-suit in the United States, with the right and obligation to enforce the patent pursuant to an Exclusive Distribution Agreement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-11-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 Priority Date
2005-04-27 Non-provisional application for ’696 Patent filed
2009-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 Issued
2009-05-01 First 2 Market becomes exclusive U.S. distributor (approx.)
2018-07-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696 - "Pack Sealing Method and Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,503,696, "Pack Sealing Method and Device", issued March 17, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes deficiencies with prior art bag sealing technologies, noting that conventional zipper packs can have seals that "may be easily collapsed by external pressure" and that hinged clamping devices often provide an unreliable seal, particularly in the middle portion of the device (’696 Patent, col. 1:22-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-piece sealing device. It consists of a solid inner "rod member" and an outer "slit tubular member." To seal a bag, a portion of the bag's opening is wrapped around the rod member, and the tubular member is then slid over the rod, creating a "squeeze gap" that firmly and reliably holds the bag material in a sealed state (’696 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-7). Figures 1, 2, and 11 illustrate this core interaction between the bag (8), the rod member (14), and the tubular member (16) (’696 Patent, Fig. 1, 2, 11).
  • Technical Importance: This mechanical approach aims to provide a more robust and reliable seal than zipper-style bags by using compressive force along the entire length of the seal, addressing weaknesses in prior designs (’696 Patent, col. 2:41-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but makes a general allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶23). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • A pack sealing device including a rod member and a tubular member adapted to be slidably fitted around the rod member.
    • A squeeze gap defined between the rod and tubular members.
    • A slit formed at the tubular member extending in a longitudinal direction.
    • An inclined guide at one end of the rod member and another at one end of the tubular member.
    • The tubular member has a circular cross-sectional shape.
    • The rod member is formed at one end with a specific three-part structure: a "bent portion," a "horizontal extension," and a "semicircular protrusion."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "bag sealing devices sold under the SEAL STICK trademark" as the infringing products (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are "bag sealing device[s] that infringe[] the '696 patent" (Compl. ¶19). While the complaint does not describe the specific mechanism of the SEAL STICK products, it provides photographs of the accused devices in Exhibit D, which are alleged to show the infringing conduct (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges that Defendants "manufacture or have manufactured on its behalf, offers for sale, sells, and/or uses in the United States bag sealing devices" (Compl. ¶3). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' sales have resulted in lost sales of their own patented sealing devices (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations mapping product features to claim elements. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for representative Claim 1 based on the general allegations in the complaint.

’696 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A pack sealing device including a rod member, a tubular member adapted to be slidably fitted around the rod member, a squeeze gap defined between the rod member and the tubular member, a slit formed at the tubular member to extend in a longitudinal direction... The complaint alleges the accused SEAL STICK products are bag sealing devices that practice the invention claimed in the patent. ¶19, ¶23 col. 5:1-7; col. 17:56-62
an inclined guide formed at one end of the rod member, and another inclined guide formed at one end of the tubular member... The complaint alleges the accused SEAL STICK products practice the invention claimed in the patent. ¶19, ¶23 col. 17:63-65
the tubular member has a circular cross-sectional shape; and... The complaint alleges the accused SEAL STICK products practice the invention claimed in the patent. ¶19, ¶23 col. 18:1-2
the rod member is formed, at one end thereof, with a bent portion...a horizontal extension formed to extend horizontally from an end of the bent portion...and a semicircular protrusion formed at an end of the horizontal extension... The complaint alleges the accused SEAL STICK products practice the invention claimed in the patent. ¶19, ¶23 col. 18:3-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused SEAL STICK products incorporate the highly specific geometric features required by Claim 1, such as the three-part structure at the end of the rod member comprising a "bent portion," a "horizontal extension," and a "semicircular protrusion." The complaint provides no evidence or specific allegation that the accused products meet these precise structural limitations.
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory. A key question is what evidence Plaintiffs will produce during discovery to demonstrate that the accused SEAL STICK products practice each and every element of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a bent portion... a horizontal extension... and a semicircular protrusion"
  • Context and Importance: This composite term defines a very specific geometry at the tip of the rod member. Its construction will be critical because if the accused device lacks any one of these three distinct, sequentially arranged features, it would not infringe Claim 1 literally. Practitioners may focus on this term as a primary non-infringement argument, questioning whether an allegedly similar structure in the accused device meets this precise tripartite definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains the function of these features is to "more easily achieve the coupling of the pack" and to prevent the bag's seam from being "caught by the front end of the rod member" during insertion (’696 Patent, col. 11:17-29). A party could argue that any structure performing this guiding function should be considered equivalent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is structurally precise, using three distinct nouns ("portion," "extension," "protrusion"). Furthermore, Figures 19, 22, and 23 clearly depict these three elements (14k, 14h, and 15, respectively) as physically distinct and sequentially arranged structures (’696 Patent, Figs. 19, 22, 23). This provides strong support for a narrow interpretation requiring three separate structural features.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "contributing to infringement" (Compl. ¶23) and asks the court to declare that Defendants have "induced others to infringe, and/or committed acts of contributory infringement" (Prayer for Relief, A). However, the complaint pleads no specific facts to support the requisite knowledge or intent for either form of indirect infringement beyond a general allegation that Defendants acted "knowingly, willingly, and intentionally" (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiffs seek treble damages for willful infringement (Prayer for Relief, D). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly, willingly, and intentionally in violation of Dae Sung's and First 2 Market's rights" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not allege any facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the ’696 patent.

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural limitation: Does the accused "SEAL STICK" product contain the specific three-part tip geometry—a "bent portion," followed by a "horizontal extension," terminating in a "semicircular protrusion"—as explicitly recited in Claim 1, or has the defendant designed around this precise feature? The case may heavily depend on the court's construction of this claim language.
  • A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the conclusory nature of the infringement allegations, the case will turn on whether discovery yields evidence that the accused device meets every limitation of the asserted claims. The initial complaint provides the court with minimal factual basis to assess the plausibility of the infringement claim beyond the existence of a patent and a competing product in the same market space.