DCT
3:24-cv-01764
Pizza Pack LLC v. Target Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pizza Pack LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hitt Hiller Monfils Williams LLP; Mark S. Hubert, PC
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01764, D. Or., 10/18/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Oregon because Defendant conducts substantial business in the state through its retail stores and website, has purposefully availed itself of the district, and Plaintiff is headquartered there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Food Storage Pizza" container infringes two utility patents and one design patent related to an expandable, triangular food storage container.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns food storage containers specifically designed to solve the problem of efficiently storing and reheating triangular slices of leftover pizza.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has other patents issued and pending related to its "Pizza Pack" product, suggesting a broader intellectual property portfolio around this technology. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff's product has been sold since "late 2020," a date which precedes the priority dates of the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-Q4 | Plaintiff begins selling its Pizza Pack product |
| 2022-04-22 | Earliest Priority Date for ’935 and ’109 Patents |
| 2022-04-22 | Earliest Priority Date for ’260 Patent |
| 2023-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 11,661,260 Issues |
| 2023-08-29 | U.S. Patent No. 11,738,935 Issues |
| 2024-07-09 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,109 Issues |
| 2024-10-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,661,260 - “Expandable Pizza Container”
Issued May 30, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of storing generally triangular pizza slices in conventional square or round containers, which wastes refrigerator space. It also notes the inconvenience of needing a separate plate for microwaving and subsequent washing. (’260 Patent, col. 1:30-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a collapsible, triangular food container with accordion-style sidewalls that allow it to expand to hold multiple pizza slices or collapse for compact storage. The solution includes a vented, locking lid to maintain freshness and separable, microwave-safe trays that both keep slices from sticking together and double as serving plates. (’260 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-58). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates the expandable container body with its upper and lower pleats. (’260 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The patent asserts that a dedicated container adapted for storing and reheating multiple pizza slices would "fulfill a long felt need in food storage industry." (’260 Patent, col. 1:41-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶Prayer for Relief, A). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 Elements:
- A flexible, generally triangular container body with three sides, rounded corners, and a planar bottom face, where the sides are "pleat folded" to form an upper and lower pleat that are "concentrically nested."
- A rigid seal ring bonded to the top edge of the sides.
- A rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove.
- A compressible, removable gasket retained in the gasket groove.
- A triangular tray with a top face, a bottom face, a peripheral lip, and a finger tab.
- The lid resides on the container body with the gasket contacting the seal ring, and the tray resides within the container body.
U.S. Patent No. 11,738,935 - “Expandable Pizza Container”
Issued August 29, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’935 Patent addresses the same problem as the ’260 Patent: the inefficient storage and reheating of leftover pizza slices in conventional containers. (’935 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that of the ’260 Patent, describing a triangular, expandable container with a locking lid and separable trays. The ’935 Patent provides additional detail on the trays, such as a "grid of raised bars" on the bottom to minimize contact with the pizza slice, potentially aiding in reheating. (’935 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-44).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a single, purpose-built device for the storage, separation, and microwave reheating of individual pizza slices. (’935 Patent, col. 4:44-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶Prayer for Relief, A). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 Elements:
- A flexible, generally triangular container body with "pleat folded" sides forming concentrically nested upper and lower pleats.
- A rigid seal ring bonded to the top edge of the sides.
- A rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove.
- A compressible, removable gasket.
- A microwave safe triangular tray with a peripheral lip and a finger tab.
- The lid resides on the container body with the gasket contacting the seal ring, and the tray resides within the container body.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,109 S - “Expandable Pizza Container”
Issued July 9, 2024
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design of an expandable pizza container. The claim is limited to the appearance of the lid; the expandable body of the container is shown in broken lines and is disclaimed, meaning it does not form part of the protected design. (’109 Patent, Description).
- Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the visual appearance of Defendant's product lid, including its shape, central vent, and locking wings, infringes the claimed design (Compl. ¶18, ¶34). The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of the accused product and Plaintiff's product to support this allegation. This comparison shows the accused product (left) next to Plaintiff's product (right), highlighting similarities in the lid design. (Compl. ¶16, p. 10).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s "Food Storage Pizza - Bullseye's Playground" container (Compl. ¶14-15).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a triangular, collapsible food container with a clear plastic lid that features four hinged locking wings and a triangular vent cap (Compl. ¶16). A photograph in the complaint shows the accused product, illustrating its nested, expandable yellow body and translucent lid. (Compl. ¶14, p. 8). Another image shows the product for sale on Defendant's website for $3.00, indicating its market position as a low-cost consumer item (Compl. ¶15, p. 9). Plaintiff alleges the product is sold in Defendant's physical stores and online (Compl. ¶29).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’260 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible, generally triangular container body having three sides... wherein said sides are pleat folded so as to form an upper pleat and a lower pleat that are concentrically nested | Defendant's product has a collapsible, triangular body with nested levels, described as a "nested three level expandable side wall configuration." | ¶16 | col. 5:27-33 |
| a rigid seal ring bonded to a top edge of said sides | The top rim of the accused container body appears to form a rigid ring for the lid to seal against. | ¶16 | col. 5:34-35 |
| a rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove... a compressible, removeable gasket | The accused product has a "clear lid" and a "removable the light gray rigid seal ring." | ¶16 | col. 5:36-40 |
| a triangular tray with a top face and a bottom face... a finger tab extending from said top face | The complaint alleges the accused product embodies Plaintiff's features, which include "three grey triangular serving platers." | ¶9, ¶16 | col. 5:41-45 |
| wherein said lid resides upon said container body... and said tray resides within said container body | The accused product is sold as a container system where the lid fits on the body. | ¶14 | col. 5:46-49 |
’935 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible, generally triangular container body having three sides... wherein said sides are pleat folded so as to form an upper pleat and a lower pleat that are concentrically nested | Defendant's product has a collapsible, triangular body with nested levels, described as a "nested three level expandable side wall configuration." | ¶16 | col. 5:25-31 |
| a rigid seal ring bonded to a top edge of said sides | The accused container's body has a top rim that engages with the lid. | ¶16 | col. 5:32-33 |
| a rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove... a compressible, removeable gasket | The accused product has a "clear lid" and a "removable the light gray rigid seal ring." | ¶16 | col. 5:34-38 |
| a microwave safe triangular tray with a peripheral lip... and a finger tab | The complaint alleges the accused product embodies Plaintiff's features, which include "three grey triangular serving platers." | ¶9, ¶16 | col. 5:39-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: A primary point of contention may be whether the accused product, as sold by Defendant, includes the "triangular tray" required by the independent claims of both the ’260 and ’935 patents. The complaint alleges the accused product includes "serving platers" (Compl. ¶9, ¶16), but the photographic evidence does not clearly depict a separable tray sold with or as part of the accused container. The photograph of the packaged product is not clear enough to confirm its inclusion (Compl. ¶34, p. 14).
- Scope Question: The claims require sides that are "pleat folded so as to form an upper pleat and a lower pleat that are concentrically nested." The court may need to determine if the accused product's accordion-like collapsible walls meet this specific structural description, or if they operate in a materially different way.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "triangular tray" (’260 Patent, Claim 1) / "microwave safe triangular tray" (’935 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This element appears central to the invention's purpose of separating and serving slices. Infringement of the utility patents may depend on whether the accused product is sold with a component that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its absence from the accused product could be a straightforward defense to literal infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The brief summary describes the invention as providing "triangular trays for use in the separation of pizza slices to be stored" (’260 Patent, col. 2:54-55). A party could argue this supports a broad definition of any separable triangular insert that performs this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments in detail, such as a "dimpled planar top face" (’260 Patent, col. 4:57-58) or a "grid of raised bars" (’935 Patent, col. 4:40-42). This detail could support an interpretation that the "tray" must be more than a simple flat divider and possess features related to reheating or food handling.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. p. 17). However, the factual allegations in the complaint focus on Defendant's direct acts of making, using, selling, and importing the accused product, and do not plead specific facts to support a claim of indirect infringement, such as evidence of intent to encourage infringement by others.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful and intentional (Compl. ¶28). The alleged basis for willfulness is Defendant's purported pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's patents and "the vast amount of intellectual property that Plaintiff has surrounded its Pizza Pack" (Compl. ¶17, ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- An initial question will be evidentiary and factual: Does the "Food Storage Pizza" container, as sold by Defendant, include the "triangular tray" element that is required by the asserted independent claims of both utility patents? The complaint's visual evidence does not definitively resolve this point, making it a likely area of focus in discovery.
- A second core issue, particularly for the design patent and related trade dress claims, will be one of visual comparison: Does the ornamental design of the accused product's lid create the same overall visual impression as the claimed design in the ’109 patent to an ordinary observer? The side-by-side photographs presented in the complaint suggest a high degree of similarity, which may shift the focus to the specific scope of the design patent's protections and the functionality of any similar features.
- A third question may concern claim scope: Can the phrase "pleat folded so as to form an upper pleat and a lower pleat that are concentrically nested" be interpreted to read on the specific collapsible structure of the accused container? The resolution of this question will depend on how the court construes the precise structural requirements of the claim language in light of the patent's specification and figures.