DCT
3:22-cv-01754
Catanzaro v. Walmart Stores Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: David J. Catanzaro (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: Walmart Stores, Inc. (Arkansas); Maya Group Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Catanzaro, pro se
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01754, 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 and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Orbeez Crush Cruskins Pets" toy products infringe a patent related to an article assembly featuring a feet-shaped stand.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns a stand designed to hold an article upright, characterized by a structure resembling a pair of feet that are joined to form a single, continuous support base.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit is a continuation of a parent patent ('532 patent) that was previously assigned to a third party (Church & Dwight Co.) as part of a litigation settlement. The patent-in-suit contains a terminal disclaimer requiring common ownership with the parent patent for enforceability. The complaint alleges the parent patent was assigned back to the Plaintiff in 2016, which may be intended to demonstrate that the common ownership requirement was met, thereby rendering the patent-in-suit enforceable for the relevant damages period. The patent-in-suit expired in 2016, limiting the action to a claim for past damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-12-28 | '959 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-02-02 | '959 Patent Issue Date |
| 2011-02-28 | Parent '532 Patent assigned to Church & Dwight Co. |
| 2016-08-31 | Parent '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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959, "Article Assembly," issued February 2, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art article holders, such as for toothbrushes, as having certain disadvantages. It specifically identifies holders with feet that are "separate and unattached from one another" as potentially lacking stability ('959 Patent, col. 1:26-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an assembly comprising an article and a stand designed to hold it. The stand 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 to receive and hold the article ('959 Patent, col. 2:27-44). This integrated construction, detailed in the patent's description and figures, is presented as the solution to the stability problems of prior designs ('959 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 2:32-36).
- Technical Importance: The design purports to offer a simple, stable, and economically manufacturable method for storing an article in an upright position ('959 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5, and dependent claims 4 and 8 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an "article assembly" comprising:
- An article having a receivable end
- A stand in the shape of first and second feet, with each foot being elongated to define a toe end and a common heel end
- The first and second feet are "joined together 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 feet each include a side surface, with the side surfaces intersecting in a common plane
- Independent Claim 5 recites the stand itself, with elements substantially similar to the stand described in claim 1.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as "Orbeez Crush Cruskins Pets" and "other similar assorted product lines" (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products "embody and/or practice the patented invention" (Compl. ¶15). It does not, however, provide any specific technical description of the products' structure, features, or operation.
- The complaint alleges that Defendants manufacture, import, use, offer for sale, and/or sell these products (Compl. ¶15). Walmart is identified as a major retailer and Maya Group as a company with a principal place of business in California (Compl. ¶4, ¶5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges direct infringement of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 but does not include a claim chart or detailed infringement theory (Compl. ¶18). The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations based on the complaint's general assertions.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'959 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an article having a receivable end, and | The complaint alleges the accused "Orbeez Crush Cruskins Pets" products embody the patented invention, which would require them to be or include an article with a receivable end. | ¶15, ¶18 | col. 2:27-29 |
| a stand in the shape of first and second feet... | The accused products are alleged to include a stand with this feature. | ¶15, ¶18 | col. 2:29-31 |
| said first and second feet being joined together and positioned together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface, | The stand of the accused products is alleged to have a continuous bottom supporting surface formed by joined feet. | ¶15, ¶18 | col. 2:32-34 |
| said heel end of each of said first and second feet being positioned together to form a single heel portion, | The stand of the accused products is alleged to possess a single heel portion formed from the heel ends of the feet. | ¶15, ¶18 | col. 2:35-36 |
| said single heel portion including a recess extending... for selectively receiving said receivable end... | The stand of the accused products is alleged to include a recess for holding the article. | ¶15, ¶18 | col. 2:37-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be one of definitional scope: does the term "article assembly," described in the patent in the context of a toothbrush holder, read on the accused "Orbeez Crush Cruskins Pets" toy product? Further, does the base of the toy meet the claim requirement of being "in the shape of first and second feet"?
- Technical Questions: The complaint lacks any technical evidence or description of the accused product's construction. A central issue will be factual: does the base of the accused toy actually have the specific structure claimed, particularly feet that are "joined together" to form both a "continuous bottom supporting surface" and a "single heel portion"? The plaintiff will bear the burden of producing evidence to substantiate these allegations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis, but based on the patent's language and the nature of the accused product, certain terms are likely to be disputed.
The Term: "a stand in the shape of first and second feet"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core aesthetic and structural character of the invention. Whether the base of the accused toy product can be fairly characterized as being "in the shape of... feet" will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "changes may be made in the specific construction illustrated and described" ('959 Patent, col. 2:11-14), which a plaintiff might argue supports an interpretation that is not strictly limited to the exact drawings.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All figures in the patent depict a literal, anthropomorphic pair of feet ('959 Patent, FIG. 1-5). A defendant could argue that the term's meaning is limited by this consistent and specific disclosure.
The Term: "joined together and positioned together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to be the primary point of distinction over the prior art, which the patent characterizes as having "separate and unattached" feet ('959 Patent, col. 1:26-28). Infringement will likely depend on whether the accused product's base has this specific integrated structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This language could be argued to cover any single-piece molded base that provides a continuous plane of contact with a surface and includes two foot-like protrusions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of a "single heel portion" formed from the heel ends of the feet ('959 Patent, col. 2:35-36) may suggest that the "feet" must be identifiable structures that are joined in a particular manner, rather than just being part of a monolithic base.
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 specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent, such as identifying specific instructions or advertisements that would encourage infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶19). It does not provide a factual basis for this allegation, such as evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "article assembly," rooted in the patent's disclosure of a toothbrush holder, be construed to cover the accused "Orbeez Crush Cruskins Pets" toy? Similarly, does the toy’s base meet the claim requirement of being "in the shape of first and second feet"?
- A central evidentiary question will be factual: does the accused product—for which no technical details are provided in the complaint—actually possess the specific structural features required by the claims, namely a stand with feet that are "joined together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface" and a "single heel portion"?
- Given the patent’s expiration and complex ownership history involving a terminal disclaimer, a threshold question may concern the enforceability of the patent during the relevant damages period and the proper calculation of any potential damages.