Zinganything LLC v. Adjmi Apparel Group

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zinganything, LLC, and Brighteye Innovations, LLC (Ohio)
  • Defendant: Adjmi Apparel Group and Innovative Fashion Group (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Choken Welling LLP
• Case Identification: 5:17-cv-01017, N.D. Ohio, 05/15/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's alleged sales, transaction of business, and contracts to supply goods within the Northern District of Ohio, including sales through interactive websites and to large retailers.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s beverage bottles infringe two patents related to drinking vessels with integrated food essence extractors.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to personal beverage containers that allow users to infuse liquids with flavors from fresh ingredients, such as fruit, by using a built-in grinder or press mechanism.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that U.S. Patent No. 8,740,116 has been assigned to Plaintiff Brighteye Innovations, LLC, and U.S. Patent No. 8,613,402 has been assigned to Plaintiff Zinganything, LLC. No other procedural history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,740,116 - "Essence Extracting Drinking Vessel," issued June 3, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a simple and efficient way to create single servings of citrus-infused beverages, noting that conventional hand-held citrus presses are cumbersome for this purpose and electronic juicers are "overkill" and create excessive cleanup ('116 Patent, col. 1:20-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention combines a hand-operated citrus press directly with a liquid drinking vessel ('116 Patent, col. 2:50-56). This integrated design allows the juice and oils from a fruit to "steep directly with the beverage" in the container, creating a "refreshingly flavored" drink in a single, portable unit ('116 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4). The removable connection between the press and vessel facilitates both infusion and cleaning.
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a portable, all-in-one apparatus for the purpose of creating freshly infused beverages, aiming to simplify a process that otherwise required separate tools for extraction and consumption ('116 Patent, col. 1:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the patent generally without identifying specific claims (Compl. ¶31). Independent Claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • An essence extractor and liquid container comprising a citrus press and a liquid drinking vessel.
  • The drinking vessel forms a "leak proof, integrated storage and dispensing volume."
  • The vessel is in "fluid communication" with foodstuffs and oils "discharged from said citrus press."
  • This configuration allows for "direct, continuous blending" of the extracted essence with the liquid in the vessel for drinking.

U.S. Patent No. 8,613,402 - "Essence Extractor," issued December 24, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a lack of hand-held food comminuting (e.g., grinding) tools that are "specifically adapted to be used in conjunction with the infusion of essences released from the comminuted materials into an edible solvent" ('402 Patent, col. 2:57-61). Existing tools did not effectively integrate grinding with infusion while controlling the mixture of solids and liquids.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable "essence extractor" that combines a comminuting chamber with a liquid container ('402 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is a "separation mechanism," such as a screen or mesh, positioned between the grinder and the liquid ('402 Patent, col. 4:56-62). This mechanism allows liquids and extracted oils to mix while preventing "the intrusion of pulp or solids into the liquid container," thereby creating an "infused liquid, rather than an emulsion or colloidal suspension" ('402 Patent, col. 3:12-17).
• Technical Importance: The technology enabled the creation of clarified infused liquids, as opposed to pulpy suspensions, within a single, self-contained portable device ('402 Patent, col. 3:12-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the patent generally without identifying specific claims (Compl. ¶38). Independent Claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • An essence extractor for comminuting foodstuffs.
  • A portable liquid dispensing container that is removably connected to the essence extractor.
  • The container forms a "leak proof" volume in "continuous fluid communication" with the extractor.
  • A "separation mechanism" is located between the extractor and the container, which is "adapted to obstruct communication of solids... while permitting fluid communication."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as "infringing bottles" (Compl. ¶26).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant sources these bottles from China and sells them to large retailers in the U.S., including TJMaxx and Nordstroms (Compl. ¶26). The complaint does not provide a technical description of the accused products' functionality, instead referencing "Defendant's allegedly infringing bottle .pdf attached as 'Exhibit 3'" (Compl. ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement in general terms without providing a claim chart or mapping specific product features to claim limitations. The following summary is based on the complaint's overarching theory that the accused bottles embody the patented inventions.

'116 Patent Infringement Allegations

'402 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof will be offered that the accused bottles perform the functions required by the claims? For the '402 patent, does the accused product contain a structure that meets the specific functional requirements of a "separation mechanism" by obstructing solids while permitting fluid flow? For the '116 patent, what is the evidence that the accused product achieves the "direct, continuous blending" recited in the claim?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise questions about the scope of the claims. For instance, does the accused product's mechanism for processing fruit fall within the ordinary meaning of a "citrus press" ('116 patent) or a "comminuting mechanism" ('402 patent)? The functionality of the accused product's sealing and connection points will be compared to the "leak proof" and "removably connected" limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "separation mechanism" ('402 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the '402 patent's asserted novelty over prior art that simply mixed all components together. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '402 patent may depend on whether the accused product’s filtering feature, if any, falls within the construed scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the mechanism in functional terms as something that "obstruct[s] communication of solids... while permitting fluid communication" and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including "a mesh, screen, net, web or other semi permeable barrier" ('402 Patent, col. 11:1-3; col. 4:57-59). This language may support a broad construction covering various types of filters.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict this element as a distinct, screen-like component with a grid or mesh pattern (e.g., '402 Patent, Fig. 7, item 30; Fig. 12A, item 62). A defendant could argue that the term should be limited to these specific embodiments, rather than any structure that incidentally filters some solids.

• Term: "in fluid communication with comminuted foodstuffs and freshly extracted... oils discharged from said citrus press" ('116 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core functional relationship between the press and the vessel. Whether the accused product infringes will depend on how its internal structure facilitates the mixing of liquid and extracted juice, and whether that interaction meets the definition of "fluid communication" as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the goal as allowing "all natural ingredients to steep directly with the beverage" ('116 Patent, col. 2:1-3). This broad, purpose-oriented language could support a construction that does not require a specific flow path or structure, but rather any configuration that allows for general mixing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification mentions the potential use of a "retention or separation sieve or separation mechanism" to be "affixed between the citrus press 12 and drinking vessel 14" ('116 Patent, col. 3:4-6). This suggests that the claimed "fluid communication" might be understood in the context of a controlled interaction via such a separating element.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement, based on the theory that Defendant offers and sells the accused products to dealers and wholesalers, who then sell them to end-users (Compl. ¶34, ¶41). The complaint alleges this provides the means and instruction for end-users to infringe.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that infringement has been "deliberate, willful, with full knowledge of the Plaintiffs' rights" (Compl. ¶35, ¶42). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support this assertion, such as prior correspondence or pre-suit notification of the patents.

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

• A key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency. The complaint's allegations are conclusory. The case will depend on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused bottles, sourced from China, contain the specific mechanisms (a "citrus press," a "comminuting mechanism," a "separation mechanism") and perform the precise functions (e.g., "direct, continuous blending") required by each element of the asserted patent claims.
• The dispute will likely involve a central question of definitional scope during claim construction. The viability of the infringement case may turn on the breadth of key terms like "separation mechanism." Can the term be construed broadly to cover any structure that filters solids, or will it be narrowed to the more specific screen-like embodiments disclosed in the patent, potentially placing the accused product outside its scope?