DCT
3:19-cv-01626
Leanpath Inc v. Winnow Solutions Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Leanpath, Inc. (Oregon)
- Defendant: Winnow Solutions Limited (United Kingdom)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
- Case Identification: 3:19-cv-01626, D. Or., 10/10/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper in the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), which governs actions against foreign defendants.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Leanpath seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe Defendant Winnow's patent related to systems for monitoring commercial food waste.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated systems for weighing and categorizing food waste in commercial kitchens to reduce operational costs and environmental impact.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in 2016, Defendant Winnow asserted to both Plaintiff Leanpath and its customer, IKEA, that Leanpath's products would infringe claims of Winnow's then-pending patent applications, which ultimately led to the patent-in-suit. This history establishes the basis for the declaratory judgment action, indicating an actual controversy between the parties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-04-21 | '226 Patent Priority Date (from Provisional Application 61/982,012) |
| 2015-04-21 | Defendant files PCT Application PCT/GB2015/051184 |
| 2016 | Defendant asserts pending applications cover Plaintiff's products |
| 2016-10-21 | Defendant files U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15/305,840 |
| 2019-03-28 | Defendant files U.S. Continuation Application Ser. No. 16/367,571 |
| 2019-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 10,290,226 issues |
| 2019-10-10 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,290,226 - System and Method for Monitoring Food Waste (Issued May 14, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies prior art food waste monitoring systems as "onerous to implement for a busy food service operation," leading to "low compliance" and "erroneous analysis." (’226 Patent, col. 1:45-54). Specifically, it describes a system (attributed to Leanpath, the plaintiff in this case) where users must fill a separate container, place it on a weigh station, record details, and then empty it into a main receptacle, a process considered cumbersome. (’226 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more integrated system where a primary waste receptacle rests continuously on a weight mechanism. The system automatically detects the incremental weight added during each "disposal event" without requiring the receptacle to be emptied. (’226 Patent, Abstract). A processor calculates the weight of the newly added waste by measuring the difference between the current total weight and the previous total weight, and a user interface then prompts the user to categorize that specific disposal. (’226 Patent, col. 2:1-10; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve data accuracy and user compliance in busy kitchen environments by automating the weight capture and integrating it into the natural workflow of waste disposal. (’226 Patent, col. 6:56-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are at issue, referring generally to "claims reciting a system for monitoring food waste" (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claims.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A system for monitoring food waste, including:
- a weight mechanism configured for weighing a waste receptacle, wherein the waste receptacle is configured for receiving food waste from a plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying the waste receptacle;
- a processor configured for measuring differences in weight of the waste receptacle between consecutive disposal events...and calculating the weight for the disposal events...based upon the measured differences; and
- a user interface configured to receive, for each of the calculated weights, at least one indication categorising the food waste in a disposal event by a user.
- The complaint does not reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a complaint for noninfringement.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products as "Leanpath’s food waste prevention systems with incremental floor scales" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint provides minimal technical detail about the accused products, describing them only as "food waste prevention systems" that utilize "incremental floor scales." (Compl. ¶13). The complaint notes that these products are sold to customers in the food service industry, such as IKEA, for the purpose of preventing food waste. (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action in which Leanpath, the plaintiff, alleges its products do not infringe. The complaint states that Winnow, the defendant, previously asserted that the Accused Products would be covered by the claims of its pending patent applications (Compl. ¶13). The following analysis outlines the likely points of dispute based on those assertions. The complaint itself does not provide an element-by-element infringement or non-infringement analysis. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'226 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a weight mechanism configured for weighing a waste receptacle, wherein the waste receptacle is configured for receiving food waste from a plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying the waste receptacle | The "incremental floor scales" component of the Accused Products. | ¶13 | col. 2:6-8 |
| a processor configured for measuring differences in weight of the waste receptacle between consecutive disposal events ... and calculating the weight for the disposal events ... based upon the measured differences | The processing components within the "food waste prevention systems" that interpret data from the "incremental floor scales." | ¶13 | col. 2:2-6 |
| a user interface configured to receive, for each of the calculated weights, at least one indication categorising the food waste in a disposal event by a user | The user-facing component of the "food waste prevention systems" that allows for data input related to the measured waste. | ¶13 | col. 2:8-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be how Leanpath's "incremental floor scales" actually function. The complaint lacks sufficient detail to determine if they operate by "measuring differences in weight between consecutive disposal events" as claimed, or if they operate on a different technical principle. The evidence will need to show whether the system isolates and measures discrete, sequential additions of waste to a single receptacle.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of key claim terms. For instance, the case raises the question of whether Leanpath's system, as it operates in practice, meets the limitation of tracking a "plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying." The definition of a "disposal event" and how the system technologically distinguishes one "consecutive" event from the next will be critical.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent's description and the general nature of the technology, the following terms are likely to be central.
"a plurality of consecutive disposal events before emptying the waste receptacle"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is the core of the asserted invention, distinguishing it from prior art that required weighing a container and then immediately emptying it. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the Accused Products' "incremental floor scales" are found to measure distinct "consecutive disposal events" in a single, continuously used receptacle as defined by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term simply means more than one instance of adding waste to a bin before it is emptied, without a strict requirement for how the system must delineate between those instances. The specification repeatedly refers to the benefit of not having to empty the bin after each use, suggesting the focus is on the overall workflow rather than a specific technical method of event separation. (’226 Patent, col. 1:45-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "consecutive disposal events" requires a specific technological capability to identify and individually process discrete additions of waste in a sequential manner. The patent's flowcharts and description of calculating a "difference in weight between each disposal event" suggest a system that actively demarcates one event ending and the next beginning. (’226 Patent, col. 3:23-29; Fig. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a blanket statement that "Leanpath does not infringe, either directly or indirectly" but offers no specific facts or arguments regarding indirect infringement theories like inducement or contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement; willfulness is not alleged by the patentee in this document.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
- A fundamental evidentiary question of operation: How do Leanpath’s "food waste prevention systems with incremental floor scales" technically function? The court will require a detailed understanding of whether they measure and process weight changes in a manner that aligns with the specific steps recited in the '226 patent’s claims.
- A critical question of claim scope: Can the phrase "measuring differences in weight ... between consecutive disposal events" be construed to read on the method of operation used by Leanpath’s accused systems? The outcome will hinge on whether the patent requires a specific method of detecting and separating "events" that is absent from the accused technology.