DCT
2:25-cv-01082
StoreBound LLC v. Walmart Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: StoreBound, LLC (New York)
- Defendant: Walmart Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01082, E.D. Pa., 02/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant operating a regular and established place of business in the district, and committing acts of infringement by selling the accused product at a physical store located within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "MyMini" brand cooking appliances with interchangeable cooking plates infringe a patent related to the mechanical system for removably securing such plates.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to small electric appliances, such as waffle makers, where the ability to easily remove and swap cooking plates enhances versatility and simplifies cleaning.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a co-owner of the patent-in-suit and has been granted sufficient rights to bring the lawsuit without joining the other co-owner. Plaintiff also alleges it put Defendant on notice of the infringement during a video meeting nine days before filing the complaint. The complaint notes that a Certificate of Correction was filed with the USPTO three days before the suit to correct a clerical error in a claim chart, suggesting a pre-filing review of the infringement theory.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-07-11 | ’368 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-12-24 | ’368 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-19 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement |
| 2025-02-20 | Alleged infringing product purchased from Defendant's store |
| 2025-02-25 | Plaintiff files Certificate of Correction for claim chart |
| 2025-02-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,171,368 - "Cooking Appliance with Removable Plates"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,171,368, "Cooking Appliance with Removable Plates," issued December 24, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general design of cooking appliances where competing interests such as ease of use, ease of cleaning, and versatility must be balanced (’368 Patent, col. 1:19-25). More specifically, it provides a solution for appliances with removable cooking plates (’368 Patent, col. 1:13-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a cooking appliance, like a waffle maker, with a specific mechanical system for easily detaching and securing interchangeable cooking plates. The solution detailed in the patent involves a clamshell-style housing where both the top and base portions contain spring-loaded latches housed in distinct protrusions (’368 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:35-48). These latches engage the front of the removable plates to lock them in place, and user-operated buttons can retract the latches to allow for the plates' removal (’368 Patent, col. 6:35-43).
- Technical Importance: The disclosed mechanism offers a way to manufacture a compact appliance that can produce various food designs (e.g., different waffle patterns) without requiring the consumer to own multiple single-purpose devices (’368 Patent, col. 5:7-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 7 and reserves the right to assert claims 8-22 (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 7 recites the core elements of the appliance, including:
- A base portion with a main body, a protrusion containing an internal cavity, and a pair of notches.
- A top portion hingedly coupled to the base, also with a main body, a protrusion with an internal cavity, and a pair of notches.
- A base latch mounted to the base protrusion and a top latch mounted to the top protrusion.
- First and second heating elements located in the base and top cavities, respectively.
- First and second removable cooking plates, each with tabs on a rear portion that are received by the corresponding notches in the housing.
- A spring in the base protrusion that biases the base latch into a locked state, and a separate spring in the top protrusion that biases the top latch into a locked state.
- The base and top latches are each "alterable" between a locked state (engaging a front portion of the cooking plate) and an unlocked state (allowing removal of the plate).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "MyMini 5 Plate Waffle Maker Bundle" (Compl., Ex. C, p. 39).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a compact, 400-watt electric cooking appliance sold with multiple interchangeable, non-stick ceramic cooking plates featuring different designs (Compl., Ex. C, p. 39). The complaint alleges the product features an "easy eject button and secure lock-in system" for swapping the plates (Compl., Ex. C, p. 39). A photograph of the product's packaging included in the complaint shows the main appliance body and four swappable plate designs (Compl., Ex. D, p. 44). The functionality of removably coupling different plates to the heated housing is central to the product's value proposition.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’368 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base portion comprising: a base main body section comprising a base cavity having an open top end; a base protrusion extending from the base main body section and comprising a first internal cavity; and a first pair of notches; | The accused product has a base portion with a bowl-shaped main body, a cavity for a heating element, a protrusion extending from the front, and notches at the rear. The complaint provides a photo labeling the "Base Protrusion" and "First Internal Cavity" (Compl., Ex. E, p. 49). | Ex. E, pp. 48-49 | col. 13:38-44 |
| a top portion hingedly coupled to the base portion... comprising: a top main body section comprising a top cavity... a top protrusion extending from the top main body section... and a second pair of notches; | The accused product's top portion is connected by a hinge to the base and includes a top cavity, a corresponding front protrusion, and rear notches. | Ex. E, pp. 50-52 | col. 13:45-52 |
| a base latch mounted to the base protrusion of the base portion... [and] a top latch mounted to the top protrusion of the top portion... | The complaint identifies a "Base Latch" located in the base protrusion and a "Top Latch" in the top protrusion. A photo in the complaint shows the accused base latch mounted within the protrusion (Compl., Ex. E, p. 52). | Ex. E, pp. 52-53 | col. 13:53-58 |
| a first cooking plate removably coupled to the base portion... comprising... a first pair of tabs protruding from a rear portion... the first pair of tabs received within the first pair of notches; | The accused product includes a removable cooking plate for the base. Photographs show that this plate has two tabs at its rear that insert into the corresponding notches in the base portion (Compl., Ex. E, p. 56). | Ex. E, pp. 55-56 | col. 13:60-65 |
| the base latch alterable between: (1) a locked state in which the first cooking plate is locked to the base portion... and (2) an unlocked state that allows the first cooking plate to be removed... | The complaint provides side-by-side photographs depicting the base latch in a locked state engaging the plate, and in an unlocked state (with a finger pressing the release button) allowing for the plate's removal (Compl., Ex. E, p. 59). | Ex. E, p. 59 | col. 14:11-18 |
| a first spring located within the first internal cavity of the base protrusion and biasing the base latch into the locked state; | The complaint alleges the presence of a spring inside the base protrusion that biases the latch. A photograph purports to show this spring and its biasing function (Compl., Ex. E, p. 60). | Ex. E, p. 60 | col. 14:19-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 7 is highly specific, requiring distinct "protrusions" that extend from the "main body section" and contain "internal cavities" for the latch mechanisms. A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused product's integrated housing has structures that meet the definition of a "protrusion" as distinct from the main body, or if they are merely part of a single molded form. The claim also requires the latches and notches to be on "opposite sides of the ... cavity," which may be contested based on the precise geometry of the accused product.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's latching mechanism operates in the manner required by the claims. Specifically, evidence will be needed to show that a "spring" biases the "latch" into a locked state by engaging a "front portion" of the cooking plate, as required by claim 7 and its dependent claims. While the complaint provides photographs, the exact mechanical operation and interaction of these components will be a key subject for discovery and expert testimony.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "protrusion" (e.g., "base protrusion," "top protrusion")
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the claimed structure. The patent requires the latches and springs to be housed within these protrusions, which extend from the main body. The construction of "protrusion" will determine whether the accused product's more integrated-looking housing falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product's latch housing is deemed integral to the "main body section" rather than a "protrusion extending from" it, non-infringement could be argued.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the structure functionally, for instance, as an "arcuate protrusion 136 defining an opening 137 and an internal cavity 138" (’368 Patent, col. 11:41-44). This could support an interpretation where any part of the housing that extends to create a cavity for the latch mechanism qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the protrusions (126, 136) as distinct, somewhat blocky structures attached to the front of the otherwise bowl-shaped housing sections (’368 Patent, Figs. 1-2). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more clearly demarcated and separate-looking feature.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement: The allegations are based on Walmart advising and encouraging customers to assemble and use the product in an infringing manner and advising its suppliers to import the product (Compl. ¶27). Intent is alleged based on pre-suit notice via a video meeting and the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶15, 28).
- Contributory: The complaint alleges the accused product is a non-staple article of commerce especially made to be used in an infringing manner and that it has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶36-37).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful, seeking enhanced damages and attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶¶22, 48). The primary factual basis for this allegation is the claim that Plaintiff "expressly notified" Defendant of its patent and the infringement during a video meeting on February 19, 2025, prior to filing the lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶15, 48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the highly detailed structural limitations of Claim 7—particularly the "protrusion extending from the base main body section" and containing an "internal cavity" with a "spring"—be proven to read literally on the specific design and construction of the accused MyMini appliance? The case may depend on whether minor differences in the molding and assembly of the accused product's housing are sufficient to place it outside the patent's specific architectural requirements.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness and knowledge: the complaint alleges direct, pre-suit notification of infringement in a meeting between the parties. Discovery surrounding this meeting and Walmart’s subsequent conduct will be central to determining whether its continued sales, if found to be infringing, were willful, potentially exposing it to enhanced damages.