Catanzaro v. Walmart Stores Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: David J. Catanzaro (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Walmart, Inc. (Arkansas); Walmart.com (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Catanzaro, pro se
• Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01754, M.D. Pa., 03/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred in the district and Defendants transact business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Orbeez" branded toy products infringe a patent related to an article assembly, specifically a stand shaped like feet for holding an article upright.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is a mechanical stand for consumer goods, designed to be both stable and aesthetically novel, often by incorporating the stand into a figural design.
• Key Procedural History: This is a Second Amended Complaint. The asserted patent, now expired, was subject to a terminal disclaimer requiring common ownership with its parent, U.S. Patent No. 6,026,532. The complaint alleges that the parent patent was assigned back to the Plaintiff in 2016, satisfying the ownership requirement. The suit seeks damages for infringement within the six-year statutory period preceding the original complaint filing.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1996-12-30	U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959 Priority Date
2010-02-02	U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959 Issue Date
2016-08-31	Parent '532 Patent assigned back to Plaintiff
2016-12-30	U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959 Expiration Date
2023-03-31	Second Amended 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 discusses prior art toothbrush holders that employ stands with separate and unattached feet, suggesting these designs are inadequate for the purposes of the invention (’959 Patent, col. 1:25-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an assembly that includes an article (such as a toothbrush) and a stand for holding it. The stand is uniquely configured in the shape of a pair of feet that are joined together to form both a "continuous bottom supporting surface" and a "single heel portion." This single heel contains a recess for receiving the end of the article, allowing it to be held in a stable, vertical position (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-44).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a stable base for an elongated article while allowing for novel aesthetic configurations, such as incorporating the stand into the lower portion of a character figurine (’959 Patent, Figs. 1, 4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5, and dependent claims 4 and 8 (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • An article with 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 to form a continuous bottom supporting surface and a single heel portion
  • The single heel portion has a recess to receive the article's end
  • The feet have side surfaces that intersect in a common plane
• Independent Claim 5 recites the stand itself, with nearly identical structural limitations as Claim 1.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "Orbeez Crush Cruskins Pets and Orbeez Crush Safari Crushkins Animals Maker and assorted product lines" (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide a description of the features or functionality of the accused products beyond their brand names (Compl. ¶¶20-21). It alleges that these products are offered for sale and sold by Walmart in the judicial district (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit or specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features. The infringement allegations are made generally, stating that the accused products "embody and/or practice the patented invention" (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: The primary question is evidentiary: do the accused "Orbeez" products, which are identified as toys, incorporate a physical component that constitutes a "stand in the shape of first and second feet" with a "single heel portion" and a "recess," as required by the claims? The complaint does not provide facts to support this structural correspondence.
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "article having a receivable end," as used in the patent, reads on the components of the accused toy products. The complaint does not specify what component of the accused products constitutes the claimed "article."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core structure of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether any part of the accused products can be characterized as meeting this structural definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit the "shape" of the feet beyond the specified structural arrangement, potentially allowing for a wide range of designs (’959 Patent, col. 3:5-6).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures consistently depict feet with an anatomical or anthropomorphic appearance, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to recognizable foot shapes (’959 Patent, Figs. 1-5).

• The Term: "single heel portion"

• Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the invention from prior art with separate feet. It requires that the heel ends of the two feet be "positioned together to form" a single structure. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused products contain such a specific, merged element.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the heel ends be "positioned together to form" the single portion, which might be argued to cover a variety of joined configurations (’959 Patent, col. 3:10-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "heel end of each first and second feet" being "positioned together to form a single heel portion 7," and the figures show a distinct, unified structure at the rear of the stand (’959 Patent, col. 2:35-36; Fig. 1). This could support an argument that the term requires a physically integrated, singular heel structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendants acted "by knowingly and actively inducing others to infringe" (Compl. ¶23). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support this claim, such as references to user manuals or advertising that instruct infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendants infringement of the '959 patent have been willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶24). It does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendants.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: what evidence, if any, will be produced to demonstrate that the accused "Orbeez" toy products contain the specific physical structures recited in the patent's claims, namely a "stand in the shape of first and second feet" with a "single heel portion" and a "recess"? The complaint itself does not provide this evidence.
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "article having a receivable end," which is exemplified in the patent as a toothbrush, be construed to cover the components of the accused toy products? The resolution of this may depend on the specific nature and function of the components within the accused product line.