DCT

2:25-cv-01957

Pushpeel LLC v. Schedule A

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01957, W.D. Pa., 12/16/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants do not reside in the United States and are subject to venue in any district. It further alleges Defendants solicit and transact business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of various sensorial activity toys on the Amazon.com marketplace infringe a patent related to toys featuring channels for securing flexible members.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to tactile or "fidget" toys designed for sensory engagement, stress relief, and fine motor skill development, a market segment that includes products for both children and adults.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the patent-in-suit via its pre-issuance publication. This allegation may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-03-13 ’892 Patent Priority Date
2025-10-19 U.S. Patent Application 20250288918 Published
2025-11-25 ’892 Patent Issued
2025-12-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,478,892 - *"Sensorial Activity Toys"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,478,892, “Sensorial Activity Toys,” issued November 25, 2025 (’892 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for toys that integrate the mental stimulation of puzzles with the tactile engagement of "fidget" toys, while avoiding the limitations of conventional products, such as the disruptive sounds of spinners or the lack of versatility in traditional puzzles (’892 Patent, col. 3:34-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a toy comprising a platform with raised protrusions that form channels on its surface. A separate, flexible, slender member—such as a silicone string—is designed to be pushed into and "releasably securable" within these channels, often creating a satisfying "snap fit" (’892 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:65-67). This allows a user to create patterns and engage with the toy in a tactile, quiet, and creative manner, as illustrated in Figure 1A (’892 Patent, Fig. 1A).
  • Technical Importance: The invention claims to create a new hybrid category of toy that provides a holistic sensory experience, combining tactile feedback with cognitive challenges suitable for a wide range of ages and developmental needs (’892 Patent, col. 3:62-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A platform with at least a first channel and a second channel that are "not rectilinearly parallel" to each other.
    • Each channel is defined by sidewalls of protrusions extending from the platform's surface.
    • A "discrete flexible member" that is cylindrical for at least part of its length.
    • The flexible member has a thickness allowing it to be "releasably securable" within the channels, such that a portion of it becomes "curvilinear."
    • The flexible member has a cross-sectional profile with a circumdiameter less than its length.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as "Infringing Products" and are categorized as "Type 1," "Type 2," "Type 3," and "Type 4" sensorial activity toys sold by the Defendants on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶1, pp. 2-3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are toys that are "substantially identical" to Plaintiff's patented invention (Compl. ¶3). Visual evidence provided in the complaint shows various platforms with non-parallel, curvilinear channels designed to receive flexible members. For example, a provided image compares Figure 1A of the ’892 Patent to an accused "Type 1" product, showing a similar rectangular platform with wavy channels (Compl. p. 2). Other visuals show accused products in spherical, cubic, and cylindrical forms, corresponding to different embodiments disclosed in the patent (Compl. p. 3, comparing to ’892 Patent, Figs. 5-7). The complaint alleges that Defendants operate an "infringing marketplace operating in parallel" to Plaintiff's legitimate sales channels, targeting consumers searching for Plaintiff's patented invention (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

12,478,892 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a platform defined by at least a surface, a first channel, and a second channel not rectilinearly parallel to the first channel... The accused products comprise a platform with a surface and at least two channels that are not rectilinearly parallel. ¶44 col. 4:52-54
each of the first channel and the second channel including a first sidewall of a first protrusion extending from the surface and a second sidewall of a second protrusion extending from the surface... The channels in the accused products are formed by sidewalls of protrusions extending from the platform surface. ¶44 col. 4:57-62
a discrete flexible member being cylindrical along at least a partial length thereof and having a thickness such that a bulk of the discrete flexible member is releasably securable... The accused products comprise a discrete flexible member that is cylindrical along a partial length and can be releasably secured within the channels. ¶45 col. 6:20-24
...such that at least a portion of the discrete flexible member is curvilinear... When secured, at least a portion of the accused flexible member is curvilinear. ¶45 col. 4:32-37
wherein the discrete flexible member has a cross-sectional profile having a circumdiameter less than a length of the discrete flexible member. The accused flexible member has a cross-sectional profile with a circumdiameter smaller than its length. ¶45 col. 5:6-9

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may concern the proper construction of "releasably securable." The complaint’s theory appears to rely on a broad interpretation, while a defendant might argue the patent’s repeated references to a "snap fit" (’892 Patent, col. 4:67, 10:4) narrow the claim’s scope to require a specific interference fit.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products are sold with the "discrete flexible member" as required by the claim? The visual evidence primarily depicts the platforms (Compl. pp. 2-3), raising the question of whether the accused instrumentalities, as offered for sale, include all elements necessary for direct infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "releasably securable"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the required interaction between the flexible member and the channels. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this requires a specific mechanical interaction (like a snap fit) or if it can be satisfied by a wider range of temporary attachments, including a simple friction fit. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is functional and not strictly defined in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general phrase "releasably securable," which on its face does not mandate a particular mechanism and could encompass any method that allows the member to be held in place and later removed.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses the term "snap fit" to describe the interaction, stating the member is "configured for insertion into the channel to form a snap fit therebetween" (’892 Patent, col. 2:47-49; Abstract). A defendant may argue this context limits the claim's scope to that specific embodiment.

  • The Term: "not rectilinearly parallel"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the geometric layout of the channels and distinguishes the claimed invention from simple, straight-grooved boards. Its construction will determine what channel patterns fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning suggests any two channels that are not both straight and parallel to each other would meet the limitation. This would cover a wide variety of curved, serpentine, circular, or intersecting patterns.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the specification shows many non-parallel examples like waves and spirals (’892 Patent, Fig. 8), a defendant could potentially argue that a product with channels that are parallel in some sections but curved in others does not meet the limitation, raising a question of degree.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While not a separate count, the complaint alleges that Defendants are "personally contributing to, inducing, and engaging in the sale of Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and intentional (Compl. ¶51). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that each Defendant had "actual notice" of the published U.S. Patent Application that matured into the ’892 Patent, and that the claims of the application and the patent are "substantially identical" (Compl. ¶¶48-50).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of completeness: what proof will be offered to establish that the accused products, as sold on online marketplaces, include the "discrete flexible member" recited in claim 1, or whether they are merely the platforms, potentially shifting the infringement theory?
  • The case may turn on a core issue of claim construction: can the term "releasably securable," which governs the central function of the toy, be interpreted broadly to cover any temporary attachment, or will the patent’s specific "snap fit" embodiment be used to narrow its scope to a more mechanically defined interference fit?
  • A third central question will be one of proof of liability against unnamed parties: given that the complaint is filed against a "Schedule A" of largely anonymous online sellers, a significant procedural element will involve identifying the defendants and establishing jurisdiction over foreign entities operating through e-commerce platforms.