Catanzaro v. Walmart Stores Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: David J. Catanzaro (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Walmart Stores, Inc. (Arkansas); Little Tikes (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01751, M.D. Pa., 11/03/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Movin' Lights Monkey" toy and similar products infringe a patent related to an assembly for holding an article, such as a toothbrush, in an upright position.
• Technical Context: The patent-in-suit relates to the field of mechanical holders for consumer goods, where design and functional stability are key features for products like toothbrush stands.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent is expired and that this suit seeks damages for infringement within the six-year statutory look-back period. It also discloses a complex ownership history involving a related patent and a terminal disclaimer, which required common ownership for the asserted patent to be enforceable. Plaintiff alleges that common ownership was re-established in 2016, prior to the patent's expiration, thereby curing any enforceability issue.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1995-12-28	'959 Patent Priority Date
2010-02-02	'959 Patent Issue Date
2011-02-28	Related '532 patent assigned to Church & Dwight Co.
2016-08-31	Related '532 patent assigned back to Plaintiff
2016-12-30	'959 Patent Expiration Date
2022-11-03	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959 - "Article Assembly"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section discusses prior art toothbrush holders and stands, including designs with a "pair of feet which are separate and unattached from one another," suggesting these designs were "not be suitable for the purposes of the present invention" (ʼ959 Patent, col. 1:36-41). The implied problem is a lack of stability or a specific aesthetic provided by such separated-feet designs.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an assembly featuring an article (e.g., a toothbrush) and a stand designed to hold it vertically (ʼ959 Patent, col. 2:27-41). The core of the solution is the stand's specific structure: it is shaped like a pair of feet that are "joined together and positioned together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface" and a "single heel portion" containing a recess for the article (ʼ959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-37). This unified construction contrasts with the prior art's separate components.
• Technical Importance: The invention offers a design for a functional article stand that combines a novel aesthetic with a potentially more stable, single-piece base structure.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1: An article assembly comprising:
  • an article having a receivable end
  • a stand in the shape of first and second feet
  • the feet are elongated to define a toe end and a common heel end
  • the feet are joined and positioned together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface
  • the heel ends are positioned together to form a single heel portion
  • the single heel portion includes a recess for receiving the article's end
  • the first and second feet each include a side surface, with the side surfaces intersecting in a common plane
• Independent Claim 5: An article assembly comprising:
  • A stand in the shape of first and second feet, with the same structural limitations as the stand described in Claim 1.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 4 and 8, which add the limitation that the "toe end of said first and second feet are at an acute angle to one another" (Compl. ¶18; ’959 Patent, col. 4:1-4, col. 4:21-23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as the "Movin' Lights Monkey" and "other similar assorted product lines" sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's structure, features, or functionality. It makes no allegations regarding the product's market positioning beyond its sale by Defendants (Compl. ¶¶15-16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain an element-by-element claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping the features of the accused product to the limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement theory is presented in conclusory terms, stating that Defendants infringed by "manufacturing, having manufactured, importing, using, offering for sale and/or selling products that embody and/or practice the patented invention" (Compl. ¶15).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: The central question will be evidentiary. As the complaint lacks any description or depiction of the accused product, a primary point of contention will be whether the "Movin' Lights Monkey" product has a structure that meets any of the limitations of the asserted claims, particularly the requirement of a stand "in the shape of first and second feet" that are "joined together" to form a "single heel portion."
  • Scope Questions: Should evidence of the product's structure be presented, a dispute may arise over the scope of the claim term "in the shape of...feet." The question would be whether this term requires a literal, recognizable depiction of feet, as shown in the patent's figures, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other forms of bifurcated or dual-lobed bases.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a stand in the shape of first and second feet" (Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claim's scope. The definition will determine whether the claim is limited to stands that are visually recognizable as feet or if it covers a broader category of stands with a similar bifurcated structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will likely dictate whether a wide range of product base designs could be seen as infringing.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the structure functionally, stating the feet are "elongated to define a toe end and together a common heel end" ('959 Patent, col. 2:31-33). An argument could be made that any base meeting this functional description falls within the scope, regardless of its aesthetic similarity to actual feet.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All figures in the patent depict stands that are clearly and intentionally shaped like cartoonish or humanoid feet (e.g., ’959 Patent, FIGS. 1-5). A defendant may argue that these consistent embodiments limit the scope of the claim term to such literal interpretations.

• The Term: "joined together...to form a continuous bottom supporting surface" and "a single heel portion" (Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the primary distinction over prior art that disclosed stands with separate, unattached feet ('959 Patent, col. 1:26-37). The nature of this "joined" structure is therefore critical to both infringement and validity analyses.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the method of joining, which could support a construction that includes any form of integral molding, adhesion, or connection that results in a single, continuous unit.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the feet as "joined together and positioned together" such that their heel ends form a "single heel portion 7" ('959 Patent, col. 2:33-37). This, along with the figures, could support an interpretation requiring a seamless, unitary structure at the heel, potentially excluding designs where two distinct parts are merely attached.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶18). However, it does not plead any specific facts to support the element of intent, such as referencing user manuals or advertisements that instruct users on an infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendants' infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶19). It does not allege any facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or objectively reckless conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused "Movin' Lights Monkey" product incorporates a stand structure that meets the specific limitations of the claims, particularly the "joined feet" and "single heel portion" requirements, given the complete absence of such factual allegations in the complaint?
• A key legal question will be the patent’s enforceability during the damages period. The complaint discloses a terminal disclaimer that required common ownership with a related patent ('532 patent) that was, for a time, held by a third party. The court will likely need to resolve whether the subsequent re-assignment of the '532 patent back to the plaintiff in August 2016 rendered the '959 patent enforceable for the entire pre-assignment damages period.