DCT

2:21-cv-01665

BROADWAY Pine Brands LLC v. Kiddoable

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-01665, W.D. Pa., 11/16/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants transact business in the judicial district, a substantial part of the infringing events occurred there, and non-U.S. resident defendants may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ knock-off toy bins infringe a patent related to a storage container with an integrated play mat.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the consumer market for children's toy storage, specifically providing an integrated product that combines a storage basket with a play mat to simplify toy cleanup.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit issued after a first office action allowance with no amendments to the originally published claims. It further alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the patent's claims as of its publication date, which predates the patent's issuance by nearly two years.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,154,128 Priority Date
2019-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,154,128 Application Publication Date
2019-11-21 Alleged Infringement Start Date
2021-10-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,154,128 Issue Date
2021-11-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,154,128 - “STORAGE CONTAINER WITH AN INTEGRATED MAT,” issued October 26, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the common problem where small toy parts become scattered, lost, or stepped on when children dump them onto a floor to play (’128 Patent, col. 1:33-43). It notes that prior attempts to combine containers and mats lacked a "user friendly combination feature" (’128 Patent, col. 2:6-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a storage container with an integrated, foldable mat. A user can pull the mat out from the container and pour toys onto it for play. To clean up, the user pulls on a drawstring or handles, which transforms the flat mat into a chute, funneling the toys back into the attached container with ease (’128 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:19-35; Fig. 3B).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a single, integrated product designed to corral toy pieces during play and dramatically simplify the cleanup process, addressing a common point of frustration for parents (’128 Patent, col. 1:39-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A receptacle for holding objects, comprising a base, side walls, and an opening with a predefined circumference.
    • An integrated mat with a top surface, a bottom surface, and four defined ends (first, second, third, and fourth).
    • A rim disposed along the length of the mat's second, third, and fourth ends.
    • A drawstring configured to run internally along the length of the rim.
    • The integrated mat is connected to a portion of the receptacle's opening "using the first end (104c) along with the two ends (103c, 103d) of the rim (103)."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim," preserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶2).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "knock-off versions of Plaintiff's SLIDEAWAY® toy bin," collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶2). The complaint identifies over 70 defendants by their online seller names and IDs, such as "Toy Storage World (TSW)" and "Best Us Toys" (Compl. Schedule A, pp. 25-27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "the same or substantially similar" to the Plaintiff's product, which is an integrated toy storage container and play mat combination (Compl. ¶8, ¶25). The complaint includes an image of an infringing product from Defendant Toy Storage World, showing a cylindrical basket with an attached circular play mat that appears to use a drawstring mechanism for cleanup (Compl. ¶2, p. 3). The products are allegedly sold through online marketplaces including Amazon.com, eBay.com, and wish.com to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶2, ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the defendants' products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’128 Patent (Compl. ¶43). The core of the infringement theory is that the accused products are "knock-offs" that copy the structure and function of the Plaintiff's own SLIDEAWAY® product, which is asserted to be protected by the patent (Compl. ¶2, ¶26). Plaintiff states that it "physically examined" the infringing products and confirmed infringement (Compl. ¶43).

While the complaint references a "Claims Chart of Complaint Exhibit 4" for a more detailed infringement analysis, this exhibit was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶43, p. 28). The narrative theory relies on the functional and visual similarity between the accused products and the patented invention. For instance, an image of Plaintiff's product describes a "Built-in Rip-Stop Play Mat with a 3" Lip," which Plaintiff will likely argue maps to the "rim" element of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶25, p. 13). The infringement allegation rests on the premise that the accused products, such as the one pictured on page 3 of the complaint, contain all the structural elements of Claim 1, including a receptacle, an integrated mat, a rim, and a drawstring, connected in the claimed manner (Compl. ¶2, p. 3).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a mat connected to the receptacle "using the first end (104c) along with the two ends (103c, 103d) of the rim (103)." A central dispute may be whether the connection mechanism in the accused products, which may be a simpler continuous seam, meets this specific and complex geometric limitation.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "rim" that is disposed along three of the mat's four defined "ends." The court will have to analyze whether the raised edge formed by a simple drawstring channel in the accused products constitutes the claimed "rim," particularly in light of the patent's depiction of a "teardrop shaped" mat (’128 Patent, col. 4:36). A key question for the fact-finder will be whether the evidence shows that the accused products possess this specific structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "rim"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "rim" is critical because it forms the boundary of the play mat and houses the drawstring essential for the cleanup function. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused products' potentially simple hemmed edge qualifies as the claimed "rim." Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification suggests it is a distinct feature "configured to project upward... to form a boundary wall," potentially implying more structure than a simple sewn channel (’128 Patent, col. 4:45-47).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader meaning may point out that the patent does not provide an explicit definition, leaving the term to its plain and ordinary meaning. The functional language in the specification—that the rim "retaining the... objects" (’128 Patent, col. 4:45-50)—could be argued to cover any raised edge that performs this function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "rim (103)" as a pronounced, distinct component along the edge of the mat (e.g., ’128 Patent, Fig. 2A). Further, the claims tie the rim's location to the "second end (104d), the third end (104e), and the fourth end (104f)" of the mat, a specific geometry associated with the "teardrop shaped" embodiment that could be used to argue for a narrower definition that excludes simple circular hems (’128 Patent, col. 8:30-34).

The Term: "integrated mat (104) is connected to a portion of and along the predefined circumference of the opening (102d) of the receptacle (102) using the first end (104c) along with the two ends (103c, 103d) of the rim (103)"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation from Claim 1 recites the precise geometry of the attachment between the mat and the container. Its construction is vital because a finding of literal infringement requires the accused products to meet this exact structural configuration.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "connected" is a general term and that the subsequent language merely describes the preferred embodiment, not a mandatory structural limitation for all forms of connection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant will likely argue that this is a highly specific structural limitation defining not just the existence of a connection, but its precise manner and location. The specificity of "using the first end... along with the two ends... of the rim" will be presented as a clear structural requirement that distinguishes the invention from a simple bag where the entire circumference of the mat is sewn to the container's opening. The patent’s detailed description reinforces this specific attachment point (’128 Patent, col. 5:38-42).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads contributory infringement and inducement, alleging that Defendants make, use, sell, and import the infringing products (Compl. ¶44). The factual basis for inducement appears to rest on allegations that Defendants advertise and offer the products for sale, thereby encouraging and instructing consumers on their infringing use (Compl. ¶28, ¶30).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the claim that Defendants had notice or knowledge of the ’128 Patent (Compl. ¶46). The complaint asserts this knowledge dates back to the patent application's publication on November 21, 2019, nearly two years before the patent issued, and that infringement was ongoing since that time (Compl. ¶6, ¶42).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: can the claim terms "rim" and the complex "connected to..." limitation, which are described in the patent with reference to a specific "teardrop shaped" embodiment, be construed to read on the accused products, which appear to be simple cylindrical baskets with attached circular drawstring mats?
  • A significant procedural question will be one of jurisdiction and joinder. The complaint names over 70, mostly foreign, defendants operating separate online storefronts. The court will first need to assess whether personal jurisdiction is proper over each distinct entity and then determine whether this diverse group of sellers can be properly joined in a single lawsuit based on allegations of a conspiracy to sell "substantially similar" products.