DCT

3:22-cv-01752

Catanzaro v. Lowe's Companies Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01752, M.D. Pa., 11/03/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' sales of various holiday inflatable products infringe a patent related to an article assembly with a specialized stand.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns a stand, shaped like a pair of joined feet, designed to hold an article such as a toothbrush in an upright position.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states the patent-in-suit, U.S. 7,653,959, is a continuation of U.S. 6,026,532 (the "'532 patent"). The ’959 patent was subject to a terminal disclaimer requiring common ownership with the '532 patent for enforceability. The complaint alleges that the '532 patent was assigned to a third party (Church & Dwight Co.) as part of a prior litigation settlement and then assigned back to the Plaintiff in 2016, re-establishing common ownership. The ’959 patent expired on December 30, 2016, and this suit seeks damages for infringement within the six-year statutory look-back period.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-12-30 ’959 Patent Priority Date (filing of parent application)
2010-02-02 ’959 Patent Issue Date
2011-02-28 '532 Patent assigned to Church & Dwight Co.
2016-08-31 '532 Patent assigned back to Plaintiff David J. Catanzaro
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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959 B1, issued February 2, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes prior art toothbrush holders, such as those with separate and unattached feet, and notes that they would "not be suitable for the purposes of the present invention." (’959 Patent, col. 2:22-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an assembly comprising an article (e.g., a toothbrush) and a stand designed to hold it vertically. (’959 Patent, Abstract). The stand's key feature is its shape: "a pair of feet" that are "joined together and positioned together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface" and a "single heel portion." (’959 Patent, col. 2:30-36). This single heel portion contains a recess to receive the end of the article. (’959 Patent, col. 2:36-40).
  • Technical Importance: The stated object of the invention is to provide an article assembly that is simple, economical to manufacture, and overcomes the perceived shortcomings of prior art devices. (’959 Patent, col. 2:1-4, 42-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites an "article assembly" comprising:
    • An article with a "receivable end."
    • A stand "in the shape of first and second feet," where the feet are elongated to define a toe and common heel end.
    • The feet are "joined together" to form a "continuous bottom supporting surface" and a "single heel portion."
    • The single heel portion includes a "recess" for receiving the article's end.
    • The feet have side surfaces that intersect in a "common plane."
  • Independent Claim 5 recites the stand itself, with structural limitations nearly identical to those in claim 1 but without the "article" element.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 4 and 8, which add the limitation that the toe ends of the feet are at an "acute angle to one another." (Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as various product lines, including "Inflatable(s)," "Christmas Inflatable(s)," "Holiday Inflatables," "Gemmy Airblown Inflatable(s)," and "Home Accents Airblown Inflatable(s)." (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these product lines were offered for sale and sold by the defendants after February 2, 2010. (Compl. ¶18). It does not provide any specific technical description of how the accused inflatable products are constructed or operate, nor does it describe their base or support structures.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. It makes a general allegation that the accused product lines infringe claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 without mapping any specific product features to the limitations of those claims. (Compl. ¶17, 20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • The core of the dispute will likely revolve around the scope of the patent's claims relative to the nature of the accused products.
    • Scope Questions: A primary question is whether the term "a stand in the shape of first and second feet," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the base of a large holiday inflatable. The patent specification and figures exclusively describe and depict a small stand that literally resembles a pair of feet for holding a toothbrush-like object. (’959 Patent, Figs. 1-5). This raises the question of whether a significant mismatch exists between the claimed subject matter and the accused products.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no factual allegations regarding the structure of the accused products' bases. This raises the evidentiary question of whether the bases of the accused inflatables actually possess the specific structural features required by the claims, such as a "single heel portion" with a "recess" formed from two "joined" feet.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a stand in the shape of first and second feet"

  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory appears to depend on this term being interpreted broadly enough to cover the base of a large, decorative inflatable. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s explicit description and drawings seem to create a significant potential for a narrow construction that would not read on the accused products.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "in the shape of" does not require a literal, anatomical depiction of feet, but rather a functional or general resemblance. The claim language itself does not include further limitations, such as "anatomical" or "humanoid." (’959 Patent, col. 3:5-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, including the abstract and detailed description, consistently uses the phrase "a stand in the shape of a pair of feet." (’959 Patent, Abstract). All figures in the patent depict an object that is unmistakably shaped like two feet joined at the heel. (’959 Patent, Figs. 1-5). A defendant may argue this consistent disclosure limits the claim scope to the embodiments shown and described.

  • The Term: "article"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is important for claim 1, which claims an "article assembly." The question is whether a large, integrated inflatable decoration constitutes an "article" being held by a "stand," as contemplated by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, simply requiring "an article having a receivable end." (’959 Patent, col. 3:4). A plaintiff could argue the upper, decorative portion of an inflatable is the "article," and its point of attachment to the base is the "receivable end."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s only disclosed embodiment of an "article" is a toothbrush. (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-23). The figures consistently show the "article" as a slender, separate object inserted into the stand, which may suggest that the term does not cover a large, integrated structure where the "article" and "stand" are permanently affixed parts of a single product. (’959 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants induced infringement "by knowingly and actively inducing others to infringe," but provides no specific supporting facts, such as references to user manuals or advertising that instruct infringing use. (Compl. ¶20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that infringement has been "willful and deliberate" without pleading any facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent or post-suit continuation of infringement. (Compl. ¶21).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "a stand in the shape of first and second feet," which the patent consistently illustrates as a literal pair of feet for holding a small item like a toothbrush, be plausibly construed to cover the base of a large, self-supported holiday inflatable?
  2. A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which lacks any technical description of the accused products or an element-by-element infringement analysis, allege sufficient factual matter to state a claim for patent infringement that is plausible on its face, as required by modern pleading standards?
  3. A foundational question relates to the terminal disclaimer: the complaint raises the issue of the patent's enforceability being tied to common ownership with the '532 patent. The court will need to confirm whether the alleged chain of assignments is sufficient to satisfy the terminal disclaimer's requirements for the entire damages period.