DCT
3:25-cv-00418
Sanastar Inc v. Fresh Products LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sanastar, Inc., d/b/a WizKid Products (Florida)
- Defendant: Fresh Products LLC (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Concept Law Group, P.A. (Lead Counsel); Renner Otto (Local Counsel)
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00418, N.D. Ohio, 03/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Ohio because Defendant resides there, with its principal place of business in Perrysburg, Ohio.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Tsunami" anti-splash urinal screen infringes two patents related to urinal anti-splash devices that cover a urinal's back wall and drain area.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns sanitary products for public restrooms, specifically devices designed to mitigate urine splash-back from both the vertical and horizontal surfaces within a urinal.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a unique history between the parties, stating that Defendant previously served as the contract manufacturer for Plaintiff's patented "Splash Hog" product. During this relationship, Defendant was allegedly directed to mark the products with one of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff alleges that after the business relationship terminated, Defendant developed and launched the accused "Tsunami" product as a "knock-off." The complaint also notes that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter, including a detailed claim chart, to Defendant approximately 16 months before filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-01-01 | WizKid contacts Fresh Products regarding manufacturing (approximate date) |
| 2016-04-20 | Parties execute a manufacturing agreement |
| 2016-11-03 | Earliest Priority Date for ’154 and ’649 Patents |
| 2017-01-01 | WizKid’s "Splash Hog" product becomes publicly available (approximate date) |
| 2018-07-31 | U.S. Patent No. 10,036,154 Issues |
| 2018-12-01 | Parties execute a new manufacturing agreement |
| 2019-05-21 | U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649 Issues |
| 2021-01-01 | Parties’ manufacturing relationship terminates (approximate date) |
| 2023-01-01 | Fresh Products introduces the accused "Tsunami" device (approximate date) |
| 2023-10-26 | WizKid sends cease-and-desist letter to Fresh Products |
| 2025-03-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,036,154 - "Urinal Anti-Splash Device," issued July 31, 2018 (’154 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that conventional urinal screens are often inadequate, as they typically cover only the drain or the back wall, but not both, leaving significant areas exposed to urine splashing. It also notes that some designs with dense protrusions can trap urine, leading to unpleasant odors. (’154 Patent, col. 1:31-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, integrated urinal anti-splash device comprising two main components: an elongated "anti-splash body" designed to be placed against the vertical back wall of a urinal, and a "base" that is couplable to the body and oriented to cover the horizontal drain area. (’154 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-62). The two parts are connected by a flexible or perforated region that allows the base to be positioned "substantially perpendicular" to the body, conforming to the L-shape of a typical urinal. (’154 Patent, col. 7:29-43). The surfaces are covered with protrusions that break up the urine stream without blocking its flow toward the drain. (’154 Patent, col. 6:31-36).
- Technical Importance: The design offers a comprehensive solution to reduce splash-back from the primary impact surfaces of a urinal within a single, conformable product. (’154 Patent, col. 5:6-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 18, with a focus on claim 1. (Compl. ¶41, 49).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A urinal anti-splash device comprising: an anti-splash body sized and shaped to couple to at least a portion of a urinal, with a first portion, an opposite second portion, a length, and an upper surface.
- A base couplable to the first portion and configured to extend in a direction substantially perpendicular from the first portion.
- A first plurality of protrusions extending from the upper surface of the anti-splash body, which taper downwardly.
- A second plurality of protrusions extending from the base, configured to extend in a direction substantially perpendicular from the first portion of the anti-splash body.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649 - "Urinal Anti-Splash Device," issued May 21, 2019 (’649 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’154 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of reducing urine splash-back from multiple urinal surfaces. (’649 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
- The Patented Solution: The ’649 Patent claims a similar physical device but describes it with different claim language. The focus is on an "anti-splash body" for vertical mounting on a urinal wall, attached to a "base" at a "coupling region." This coupling region is a key feature, as it is configured to allow the base to move between a first position (parallel to the body, for shipping or packaging) and a second position (substantially perpendicular, for installation). (’649 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-21).
- Technical Importance: This patent provides a different scope of protection for the same core technology, focusing on the structural relationship and movability between the body and base components via a coupling region. (’649 Patent, col. 2:5-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 18, with a focus on claim 1. (Compl. ¶44, 60).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A urinal anti-splash device comprising: an anti-splash body configured to be mounted vertically on a back wall of a urinal and having a plurality of protrusions extending from its front surface.
- A base attached to the anti-splash body at a coupling region, where the base is configured to cover at least a portion of a urinal drain and has its own plurality of protrusions.
- The coupling region is configured to allow the base to move between a first position (oriented parallel to the anti-splash body) and a second position (oriented substantially perpendicular from the base).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "Tsunami" anti-splash device. (Compl. ¶37).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Tsunami is a "knock-off version of the Splash Hog" and that it is "identical to the Splash Hog" in all relevant respects. (Compl. ¶36-37). Alleged features include a design that extends vertically up a urinal wall, couples to a bottom portion covering the drain area, and has a mechanism for mounting. (Compl. ¶37). The complaint includes side-by-side images to support the allegation of drastic resemblance between Plaintiff's product and the accused Tsunami device. (Compl. ¶37). The Tsunami is positioned in the market as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's product, allegedly developed by Defendant to "capture WizKid's clientele" after the termination of a prior contract manufacturing relationship between the two parties. (Compl. ¶36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’154 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an anti-splash body sized and shaped to couple to at least a portion of a urinal, the anti-splash body including: a first portion; a second portion opposite the first portion; a length extending from the first portion to the second portion; and an upper surface extending the length | The Tsunami product includes an anti-splash body with these features, as depicted in an annotated photograph showing its first and second portions, length, and upper surface. (Visual evidence referenced in Compl. ¶52). | ¶51, 52 | col. 10:52-59 |
| a base couplable to the first portion and configured to extend in a direction substantially perpendicular from the first portion | The Tsunami contains a base that is couplable to its first portion and, as shown in an annotated photograph, extends substantially perpendicularly from it. (Visual evidence referenced in Compl. ¶53). | ¶53 | col. 11:1-4 |
| a first plurality of protrusions extending outwardly from the upper surface of the anti-splash body and which taper downwardly in a direction toward the upper surface of the anti-splash body | The Tsunami contains a first plurality of protrusions on its main body. An annotated photograph purports to show these protrusions and a detailed view illustrates their "Downward Taper." (Visual evidence referenced in Compl. ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 11:5-8 |
| a second plurality of protrusions extending outwardly from the base, the second plurality of protrusions configured to extend in the direction substantially perpendicular from the first portion of the anti-splash body | The Tsunami contains a second plurality of protrusions on its base, which are shown extending in a direction perpendicular to the main body. (Visual evidence referenced in Compl. ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 11:9-13 |
’649 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an anti-splash body configured to be mounted vertically on a back wall of a urinal and having a plurality of protrusions that extend from a front surface of the anti-splash body | The Tsunami product is alleged to have an anti-splash body with protrusions and is shown in an annotated image mounted vertically on a urinal's back wall. (Visual evidence referenced in Compl. ¶62). | ¶62 | col. 11:22-26 |
| a base attached to the anti-splash body at a coupling region formed between the base and the anti-splash body, the base being configured to cover at least a portion of a urinal drain and having a plurality of protrusions extending away from the base on a surface of the base that is contiguous with the front surface of the anti-splash body | The Tsunami product is alleged to have a base with protrusions attached at a coupling region, and an annotated image shows it is sized to cover the urinal drain. (Visual evidence referenced in Compl. ¶63). | ¶63 | col. 11:27-34 |
| the coupling region is configured allow the base to move between a first position including the base oriented in a direction parallel to the anti-splash body and a second position including the base oriented in a direction substantially perpendicular from the base | The complaint alleges the Tsunami's coupling region allows for this movement, referencing screenshots from a marketing video that depict the product in both a "Base Parallel" state and a "Base Substantially Perpendicular" state. (Visual evidence referenced in Compl. ¶64). | ¶64 | col. 11:35-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the proper construction of "substantially perpendicular." While the term suggests some deviation from 90 degrees is permissible, the specification of the parent ’154 Patent provides a specific range of "approximate 90 orientation (+/-15-20°)" (’154 Patent, col. 8:34-39). The litigation will likely focus on whether the Tsunami product's geometry, when installed, falls within this defined angular range.
- Technical Questions: For the ’649 Patent, the analysis may focus on the "coupling region." The claims require this region to be "configured to allow" movement between parallel and perpendicular states. The question for the court will be what structural features of the accused product constitute this "coupling region" and whether a simple flexible fold meets the claimed requirements, especially in light of specification disclosures of a "perforated coupling region." (’649 Patent, col. 12:12-16).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substantially perpendicular" (asserted in ’154 Claim 1 and ’649 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the core functionality of the claimed invention, defining the spatial relationship between the wall-mounted body and the drain-covering base. Infringement of both asserted patents hinges on whether the accused Tsunami product achieves this orientation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "substantially" in the claims themselves suggests that the patentee did not intend to limit the term to a precise 90-degree angle. (e.g., ’154 Patent, col. 11:3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the ’154 Patent provides an explicit definition, stating the term means "being disposed at an approximate 90 orientation (+/-15-20°) with respect to the first portion". (’154 Patent, col. 8:34-39). This express definition from the intrinsic record may significantly guide, or even control, the court’s construction.
The Term: "coupling region" (asserted in ’649 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The structure and function of the connection between the device's body and base are central to the ’649 Patent's claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple flexible section on the accused product is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring a region "configured [to] allow the base to move." (’649 Patent, col. 11:35-36). This could be argued to encompass any structure that performs this function, such as an integrated, flexible hinge or fold.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses embodiments like a "perforated coupling region" that facilitates not only bending but also the complete separation of the base from the body. (’154 Patent, col. 7:12-28, incorporated by the ’649 patent). A party could argue that the term should be construed to require more than a mere fold, potentially pointing to these more specific examples.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by alleging Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and imports the accused Tsunami device. (Compl. ¶49, 60). No separate counts for indirect infringement are pleaded.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement. The asserted basis includes alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from the parties’ prior contract manufacturing relationship, during which Defendant allegedly had direct access to the patented technology and was directed to mark Plaintiff's products with the ’154 patent number. (Compl. ¶32, 56, 66). The allegations are further supported by Plaintiff’s pre-suit cease-and-desist letter, which included a detailed claim chart and was sent over a year before the complaint was filed. (Compl. ¶46, 56, 66).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of willfulness: given the detailed allegations of a prior manufacturing relationship where Defendant was allegedly aware of and even marked products with the ’154 patent, the key question is not just whether the infringement was knowing, but what evidence Defendant can produce to rebut the strong inference of deliberate copying alleged in the complaint.
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: while the term "substantially perpendicular" appears open-ended, the patentee provided a specific angular range in the specification. A dispositive question will therefore be an evidentiary one: does the accused Tsunami product, when installed as intended, orient its base within the patent's explicitly defined range of 90 degrees +/- 20 degrees?
- Finally, a key question is one of technical differentiation: the complaint alleges the accused product is a "knock-off" and "identical" to Plaintiff's commercial embodiment. A crucial task for the court will be to look past the alleged visual similarities and determine if any actual technical differences exist between the accused product and the specific limitations recited in the asserted claims, which could provide a basis for a non-infringement defense.