DCT
2:24-cv-00783
Airigan Solutions LLC v. Effectivecost
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Airigan Solutions LLC (Connecticut)
- Defendant: EFFECTIVECOST, et al. (Jurisdictions Unknown, alleged to be foreign)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ference & Associates
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00783, W.D. Pa., 06/04/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants transact business in the district through online storefronts, target consumers in Pennsylvania, and cause tortious injury within the Commonwealth. For Defendants not resident in the U.S., Plaintiff asserts that they may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling personal egg peelers that infringe its patent covering a device for removing the shell from a hard-boiled egg.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to mechanical kitchen gadgets designed to simplify the common but tedious task of peeling hard-boiled eggs for home or low-volume commercial use.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The case is filed against a large number of separate online seller entities, a common strategy in actions targeting alleged counterfeit or infringing goods on e-commerce platforms.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-05-18 | ’211 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015 | Plaintiff founded and launched NEGG® brand egg peeler |
| 2018-05-15 | ’211 Patent Issued |
| 2024-06-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,968,211 - "PERSONAL EGG PEELER"
- Issued: May 15, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the process of removing the shell from a hard-boiled egg as "a tedious, time-consuming task," particularly for consumers peeling small quantities where large, expensive commercial machines are not practical (’211 Patent, col. 2:22-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "low-cost, readily portable" apparatus for quickly peeling small batches of hard-boiled eggs (’211 Patent, col. 2:37-40). It consists of a hollow main body, two removable end caps, and "oval shaped protrusions" on the interior surface (’211 Patent, col. 2:42-47). A user places an egg and a small amount of water inside, seals the container with the caps, and agitates the device. This action causes the egg to impact the protrusions, cracking the shell and separating it from the egg for easy removal (’211 Patent, col. 2:57-col. 3:10).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide an effective, non-commercial solution that simplifies egg peeling with minimal effort compared to manual methods (’211 Patent, col. 2:33-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts patent infringement generally without specifying claims (Compl. ¶¶65-66). The analysis focuses on the sole independent claim, Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1:
- An egg peeler apparatus comprising a container with a hollow main body and two end caps (a top and a bottom).
- The end caps have a "convex shaped portion" oriented to face the interior of the main body.
- The interior surface of the container has a "plurality of raised protrusions of sufficient height."
- The main body has a diameter sufficient to permit the insertion of one or more standard chicken eggs.
- The apparatus is configured to peel eggs when agitated by a user.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "personal egg peelers" sold by the numerous defendants through online marketplaces including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶¶ introduction, 37, 66).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are "nearly identical to Plaintiff's NEGG® product" and are used for the same purpose: peeling hard-boiled eggs (Compl. ¶66).
- Visual evidence provided in the complaint shows the accused products share a strong external resemblance to the Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of the patent, featuring a clear cylindrical body and two end caps. An image comparing the plaintiff's product to a "Defendant EffectiveCost Listing" shows an egg peeler with the same general size, shape, and transparent appearance (Compl. p. 3).
- The complaint alleges these products are "cheaper and inferior" (Compl. ¶50.a) and are sold at a price below the "usual retail price of Plaintiff's genuine patented product" (Compl. ¶37.g).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed element-by-element analysis or an attached claim chart. The following table summarizes the likely infringement theory based on the allegations and visual evidence provided.
’211 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An egg peeler apparatus, comprising: a container having a hollow main body and a top end cap and a bottom end cap | The accused products are containers consisting of a central body and two removable caps. | ¶66; p. 3 | col. 6:11-13 |
| the top end cap and bottom end cap having a convex shaped portion where said convex shaped portion is oriented such that the curved surface of each top and bottom end cap faces the interior of the cylindrical main body | The accused products are alleged to be "nearly identical" to the Plaintiff's product, which has this feature. The provided images of accused products appear to show end caps with convex indentations. | ¶66; p. 3 | col. 6:14-19 |
| the interior surface of the container having a plurality of raised protrusions of sufficient height to extend into the hollow area of the hollow container | The complaint does not provide direct evidence of the accused products' interiors but alleges they are "nearly identical" to the Plaintiff's product, which embodies this feature. This functionality is implied by the product's purpose. | ¶66 | col. 6:20-22 |
| the container main body having an internal dimension of sufficient diameter to permit the insertion of one or more standard size chicken eggs | The accused products are marketed and sold as egg peelers, which requires dimensions suitable for holding an egg. | ¶37, ¶66 | col. 6:23-25 |
| the apparatus configured to peel the one or more standard sized chicken eggs inserted into the hollow container when agitated by a user | The core function of the accused products, as sold on e-commerce sites, is to peel eggs by shaking the device. | ¶37, ¶66 | col. 6:26-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may involve the interpretation of "convex shaped portion." The patent specification suggests this shape forms a "grip for a user" ('211 Patent, col. 4:50-52). The question will be whether this functional language limits the scope of the term and whether the accused products' end caps meet that definition.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary challenge for the plaintiff will be demonstrating that the accused products contain the claimed "plurality of raised protrusions" on their interior surfaces. The complaint relies on allegations of the products being "nearly identical" but does not provide visual or descriptive evidence of their internal structure. The court will need to determine if the accused devices possess this specific internal feature, which is critical to the patented peeling mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "raised protrusions" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanical feature that acts on the eggshell. The infringement analysis will depend on what structures qualify as "protrusions" and whether the accused products contain them. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its product uses a different mechanism, such as internal ribs or a rough texture, that falls outside the scope of "protrusions" as described and depicted in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering various types of bumps or non-uniform surfaces on the interior wall.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes and depicts the protrusions as distinct, "oval shaped" bumps extending from the interior surface (’211 Patent, col. 2:45-46; Fig. 2). A party could argue that this specific embodiment limits the term's scope to discrete, separated bumps rather than continuous ridges or a generalized rough surface.
The Term: "convex shaped portion" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the structure of the end caps. Its interpretation is critical because it is a specific structural limitation that an accused product must meet. An accused product with flat or differently shaped caps might not infringe.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only a "convex shaped portion" oriented toward the interior, which could be read to cover any surface that curves inward, regardless of its function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this shape to a function: "The convex shaped portion... permits each end portion to participate in the action by forming a grip for a user to firmly grasp the personal egg peeler" (’211 Patent, col. 4:48-52). A defendant may argue this language limits the claim to convex shapes that are specifically designed and suitable for use as a grip.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶66). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as by citing instructions or marketing materials that encourage infringement or by alleging the accused products have no substantial non-infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants had "notice of or knew of the ‘211 patent" (Compl. ¶68). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge was pre-suit or only arose upon the filing of the lawsuit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to be a prelude to a potential default judgment against numerous foreign sellers. Should any defendant choose to litigate, the dispute would likely center on two key questions:
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products, sold by disparate online sellers, actually contain the "plurality of raised protrusions" on their interior surfaces as required by Claim 1, or will the infringement case fail for lack of proof on a key technical limitation?
- A secondary issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "convex shaped portion," when read in light of the specification's description of it forming a "grip for a user," require a specific functional geometry, and if so, do the end caps of the accused products fall within that narrowed scope?