Catanzaro v. Walmart Stores Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: David J. Catanzaro (Pennsylvania), pro se
  • Defendant: Walmart Stores, Inc. (Arkansas); Vtech Electronics North America, LLC (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
• Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01757, M.D. Pa., 11/03/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred in the district and because defendants transact business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Flipsies" product line infringes a patent related to an article assembly, specifically a stand for holding an article like a toothbrush.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to consumer goods, specifically novelty holders for personal care items designed with aesthetic and functional features.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states the patent-in-suit is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,026,532 ("the '532 patent"). It alleges the '959 patent was subject to a terminal disclaimer requiring joint ownership with the '532 patent to be enforceable. The complaint further alleges the '532 patent was assigned to a third party as part of a settlement in prior litigation and subsequently assigned back to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2016. The asserted patent expired on December 30, 2016, and Plaintiff seeks damages for a six-year look-back period under 35 U.S.C. § 286.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1995-12-28	Earliest Priority Date ('959 Patent)
2010-02-02	Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959
Post 2010-02-02	Alleged Launch of Accused "Flipsies" Product Line
2016-08-31	'532 Patent Allegedly Assigned Back to Plaintiff
2016-12-30	'959 Patent Expired
2022-11-03	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,653,959 - "Article Assembly," Issued February 2, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses prior art holders for storing toothbrushes in an upright position but concludes, without extensive detail, that such devices "would not be suitable for the purposes of the present invention" (’959 Patent, col. 1:39-41). The invention aims to provide an assembly with "appealing qualities" that overcomes unstated "shortcomings of the prior art devices" (’959 Patent, col. 1:16, col. 2:45-46).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an assembly consisting of an article (such as a toothbrush) and a stand designed to hold it vertically. The stand is shaped like a pair of feet that are joined together at the back to form a "single heel portion" (’959 Patent, col. 2:35-36). This heel portion contains a recess into which the end of the article can be inserted (’959 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The joined feet are described as forming a "continuous bottom supporting surface" to provide stability on a horizontal surface (’959 Patent, col. 2:34-35). An optional base can be added for further stability (’959 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The invention combines a functional utility—holding a toothbrush upright—with a specific ornamental design intended to have aesthetic appeal for consumers (’959 Patent, col. 1:15-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5, as well as dependent claims 4 and 8 (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1 recites an "article assembly" comprising:
  • an article having a receivable end, and
  • a stand in the shape of first and second feet,
  • each foot being elongated to define a toe end and together a common heel end,
  • the feet being joined and positioned together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface,
  • the heel ends being positioned together to form a single heel portion,
  • the single heel portion including a recess for selectively receiving the article's end,
  • the feet each including a side surface, with the side surfaces intersecting in a common plane.
• Independent Claim 5 recites the stand itself, containing nearly identical limitations as the stand in claim 1 but without the "article" element.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Flipsies' and their assorted product lines" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific functionality, features, or operation. It alleges only that Defendants manufactured, imported, used, offered for sale, and/or sold these product lines after February 2, 2010 (Compl. ¶15-16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations mapping the features of the accused "Flipsies" product line to the elements of the asserted claims. The infringement allegations are conclusory, stating only that the "Flipsies" products "embody and/or practice the patented invention" (Compl. ¶15) and that Defendants have "directly infringed claims 1, 4, 5 & 8" (Compl. ¶18). Without a description of the accused product, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: A primary question will be what the "Flipsies" products are and how they are constructed. The court will require evidence establishing whether they include a stand, whether any such stand is in the shape of feet, whether those feet are joined to form a continuous surface and single heel portion, and whether they include a recess for holding another object.
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint's bare identification of a product line, without any factual allegations describing the product's infringing features, satisfies the plausibility pleading standard established by federal court precedent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term appears central to the infringement analysis. The dispute will likely hinge on how literally the "shape of... feet" must be interpreted. Practitioners may focus on this term because its descriptive nature invites arguments over the degree of similarity required between the accused product and the term's plain meaning or the patent's embodiments.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, not limiting the "shape" to any specific type of foot (e.g., human, animal). This may support an interpretation covering any structure that evokes the general appearance of feet.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently illustrates the invention with specific, stylized depictions of feet (e.g., ’959 Patent, Figs. 1-5). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed as limited to shapes consistent with these depicted embodiments.

• The Term: "continuous bottom supporting surface" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the structural nature of the stand's base. Infringement may depend on whether the bottom of the accused product's stand is physically and geometrically "continuous."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue the term should be interpreted functionally, meaning a surface that provides continuous and stable support, even if it has minor gaps, seams, or indentations that do not compromise its stability.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language suggests an uninterrupted surface. The detailed description states the feet "are joined together and positioned together to form a continuous bottom supporting surface," which could imply a seamless physical connection (’959 Patent, col. 2:33-35).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement "by knowingly and actively inducing others to infringe" (Compl. ¶18). However, it does not plead any specific facts to support this allegation, such as references to user manuals, advertisements, or other instructions directing end-users to perform infringing acts.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶19). It does not allege any facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patent or any conduct that would support a finding of objective recklessness.

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

• A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which identifies an accused product line but provides no technical description or element-by-element comparison to the patent's claims, meet the plausibility standard for patent infringement?
• A key substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: can the descriptive term "in the shape of first and second feet," as used in the patent, be construed to read on the design of the accused "Flipsies" product line, whatever that design may be?
• A critical legal question will be one of patent enforceability: did the terminal disclaimer on the ’959 patent, which the complaint states required joint ownership with the parent ’532 patent, render the patent unenforceable during any period for which damages are sought, and does the alleged assignment history satisfy the common ownership requirement?