Pushpeel LLC v. Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Pushpeel LLC (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Schedule A Defendants (Jurisdiction Undisclosed, Alleged Foreign)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ference & Associates LLC
• Case Identification:
  • Case Name: Pushpeel LLC v. Schedule A Defendants
  • Docket: 2:25-cv-01957, W.D. Pa., 12/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendants are not residents of the United States and are therefore subject to venue in any judicial district. The complaint further alleges Defendants solicit and transact business in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sensorial activity toys, sold through various storefronts on the Amazon.com marketplace, infringe a patent related to tactile toys featuring a platform with channels for securing flexible members.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of sensory or "fidget" toys, which are designed to provide tactile stimulation for purposes such as stress relief, focus enhancement, and fine motor skill development.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the asserted patent's claims prior to its issuance via its published application, which may form the basis for its willfulness allegations. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-03-13	’892 Patent Priority Date
2025-10-19	’892 Patent Application Publication Date
2025-11-25	’892 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-16	Complaint Filing Date

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 (the "’892 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background suggests that conventional fidget toys can be disruptive or lack creative depth, while traditional puzzles may not provide a sufficient tactile or sensory reward (’892 Patent, col. 3:42-62). The invention aims to combine the benefits of both into a single, cohesive product (’892 Patent, col. 3:63-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a toy comprising a platform with upraised protrusions that form channels on its surface. A user can then press flexible, slender members into these channels, where they are "releasably securable" (’892 Patent, Abstract). This design allows for both tactile engagement through the act of pressing and peeling the members and creative engagement through pattern-making within the channels, as depicted in Figure 1A of the patent (’892 Patent, col. 4:5-25; Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: The patent presents this as a "new hybrid toy category" that integrates functionalities from play therapy, developmental aids, and recreational activities into one device (’892 Patent, col. 3:63-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A platform defined by a surface, a first channel, and a second channel that is "not rectilinearly parallel" to the first.
  • Each channel is formed by sidewalls of protrusions extending from the platform surface.
  • A "discrete flexible member" that is cylindrical along at least a portion of its length.
  • The flexible member has a thickness allowing it to be "releasably securable" within the channels.
  • When secured, at least a portion of the flexible member is "curvilinear."
  • The flexible member has a cross-sectional profile with a circumdiameter less than its overall length.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

"Infringing sensorial activity toys" (the "Infringing Products") sold by the Schedule A Defendants on the Amazon.com online marketplace (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are toys that embody the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶15, 43). The complaint provides several side-by-side visual comparisons of patent figures with photographs of the accused products to illustrate the alleged infringement across various form factors (Compl. pp. 2-3). For example, one comparison shows patent Figure 1A, a flat rectangular board, next to a photograph of "Defendants' Product Type 1," which is also a flat board with curvilinear channels for holding flexible members (Compl. p. 2). Other visuals show accused products that are spherical, cubic, and cylindrical, corresponding to Figures 6, 7, and 5 of the ’892 Patent, respectively, demonstrating the breadth of accused embodiments (Compl. p. 3). The complaint asserts that these products are sold at prices "substantially below the cost of original," suggesting they compete directly with the patent owner's products on the same e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶¶19-20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 4) that was not included with the filing (Compl. ¶42). The following chart is constructed based on the narrative allegations set forth in the body of the complaint.

’892 Patent 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 Infringing 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...	Each channel in the Infringing Products includes sidewalls formed by protrusions extending from the platform surface.	¶44	col. 4:54-57
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 along the partial length thereof within the first channel or the second channel...	The Infringing Products include discrete, flexible, and partially cylindrical members that are releasably securable within the channels.	¶45	col. 6:20-24
...such that at least a portion of the discrete flexible member is curvilinear...	At least a portion of the flexible member is curvilinear when secured in the non-parallel channels of the Infringing Products.	¶45	col. 4:52-54
...wherein the discrete flexible member has a cross-sectional profile having a circumdiameter less than a length of the discrete flexible member.	The flexible member of the Infringing Products is a slender rod with a cross-sectional diameter less than its length.	¶45	col. 2:44-48

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for claim construction may be the scope of "releasably securable." The complaint makes a conclusory allegation, but the patent specification describes this function as being achieved through a specific "snap fit" or "interference fit" where the channel opening is narrower than the member's diameter (’892 Patent, col. 2:40-48). The dispute may turn on whether the term is limited to this specific mechanism or covers any means of holding the member in place, such as simple friction.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products achieve the "releasably securable" function in the manner claimed? The provided top-down photographs do not reveal the cross-sectional geometry of the channels or the precise nature of the fit between the flexible members and the channels (Compl. pp. 2-3). Factual discovery will be needed to determine if the accused products’ channels are configured to create the claimed snap or interference fit.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "releasably securable"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the core interaction between the two main components of the invention: the platform and the flexible member. The interpretation of this term will likely determine whether a wide range of similar toys infringe or if the claim is limited to a specific mechanical interaction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the term itself suggests a broad meaning: capable of being secured, but also capable of being released. Parties arguing for this view may contend that any fit that holds the member in the channel during normal use (e.g., via friction) but allows a user to peel it out meets this definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a specific structure to achieve this function, namely a channel where the distance between protrusions is smaller than the member's diameter, creating a "snap fit" (’892 Patent, col. 2:40-48, col. 4:65-67). The abstract also describes this configuration. Parties may argue that these detailed descriptions limit the claim term to this specific interference-based mechanism.

• The Term: "not rectilinearly parallel"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required path of the channels on the platform. It distinguishes the invention from simple grids or parallel-line patterns. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will dictate whether simple curves or only more complex, winding patterns fall within the claim's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning is very broad, covering any channel configuration other than straight, parallel lines. The patent also shows various non-parallel designs, including circular, wave, and spiral paths, supporting a broad interpretation (’892 Patent, Fig. 8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could potentially argue that, in the context of the preferred embodiments (e.g., Fig. 1A, Fig. 3), the term implies a degree of irregularity or organic curvature, rather than simple geometric curves like concentric circles. However, the express disclosure of such patterns in Figure 8 may counter this argument (’892 Patent, col. 9:32-44).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "inducing... the sale of Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶35). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts typically used to support inducement, such as the creation of instructional materials or advertisements that encourage infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been willful, intentional, and in disregard of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶51). The basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged "actual notice" of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250288918, which matured into the ’892 Patent, and the allegation that the claims of the publication and the issued patent are "substantially identical" (Compl. ¶¶49-50).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: will the term "releasably securable" be construed broadly to cover any friction fit, or will it be limited to the specific "snap fit" or "interference fit" geometry detailed in the ’892 Patent's specification? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof across a wide defendant class: given that the defendants are numerous, anonymous online storefronts, a central challenge will be for the Plaintiff to prove, on a defendant-by-defendant basis, that the physical products sold actually meet every limitation of the asserted claim, particularly the mechanical nature of the fit between the flexible members and the platform channels.
• A significant procedural question will be the viability of litigating against a large, anonymous group of foreign sellers: the complaint structure, naming "Schedule A Defendants," raises the question of how the court will manage issues of service, jurisdiction, and enforcement against a diffuse and potentially elusive set of alleged infringers operating on a third-party marketplace.