DCT

0:24-cv-03903

Ameriglobe LLC v. Independent Packaging Associates LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:24-cv-03903, D.S.C., 10/08/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the domestic defendants’ residence and/or regular and established places of business within the district, and the commission of infringing acts therein. Venue over the foreign defendant is asserted as proper in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ industrial bulk bags infringe five utility patents related to a multi-sided shaped bottom design that improves stability.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBCs), where designs seek to balance stability for safe stacking and transport with manufacturing and logistical efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history, including that Defendant Jeff Wiley is a former employee of Plaintiff Ameriglobe who had knowledge of the pending patent applications. Plaintiffs also allege sending multiple detailed cease and desist letters to Defendants beginning in June 2022. The suit includes claims for false advertising and unfair trade practices, and seeks a declaratory judgment that a design patent owned by Defendants is invalid and unenforceable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-08-17 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents (’973, ’155, ’693, ’540, ’798)
2012-01-01 Defendant Jeff Wiley's employment with Plaintiff Ameriglobe begins
2014-02-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,646,973 issues
2014-02-15 Defendant Jeff Wiley's employment with Plaintiff Ameriglobe ends
2015-08-14 Defendant Jeff Wiley files application for U.S. Design Patent No. D862,245
2019-10-08 U.S. Design Patent No. D862,245 issues
2020-03-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,577,155 issues
2021-12-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,192,693 issues
2022-06-01 Plaintiff sends first Cease and Desist Letter to Defendants
2022-06-27 Plaintiff sends second Cease and Desist Letter to Defendants
2023-02-09 Plaintiff sends Cease and Desist Letter to Defendant Sunbelt Packaging
2023-04-18 Plaintiff sends further notice and claim charts to Defendant Sunbelt Packaging
2023-09-19 U.S. Patent No. 11,760,540 issues
2023-09-20 Plaintiff sends further Cease and Desist Letters regarding all asserted patents
2024-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 11,964,798 issues
2024-07-10 Original Complaint filed
2024-10-08 Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,646,973 - "Bulk Bag Having a Multi-Sided Shaped Bottom"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the instability of conventional square-bottomed bulk bags. When filled with loose product, the bag's flexible walls tend to bulge into a cylindrical shape with a diameter larger than the square base. This creates unsupported columns of product at the bag's periphery, causing it to lean, sag, and become unsafe for stacking (’973 Patent, col. 1:45-col. 2:44). Conversely, fully circular bags, while stable, are inefficient to manufacture and difficult to fit on standard square pallets (’973 Patent, col. 3:15-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a bulk bag with a multi-sided bottom, such as an octagon. This design provides a larger footprint than a conventional square bottom, which better supports the product, minimizes bulging, and allows the bag to stand more upright when filled. This improved stability is achieved while using straight-line seams, making it more economical to manufacture than a round-bottom bag (’973 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:3-14).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a solution to a long-standing trade-off in the bulk packaging industry by combining the stability advantages of a round bag with the manufacturing economy and logistical convenience of a square bag (’973 Patent, col. 3:51-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (’973 Patent, col. 10:29-52; Compl. ¶91).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
    • A multi-sided fabric bulk bag with a top, bottom, and vertical single-layered fabric sidewalls.
    • The bottom portion has at least six sides defining a multi-sided bulk bag with a surface area at least 10% greater than a square bottom bag of the same perimeter.
    • The fabric sidewalls bulge outward at a vertical midpoint by at least 1.3% greater than the bottom's shape.
    • The diameter of the filled bag across the vertical midpoint is at least 2.6% greater than the diameter of the bottom.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶91).

U.S. Patent No. 10,577,155 - "Bulk Bag Having a Multi-Sided Shaped Bottom"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same problem as its parent '973 patent: when standard square-bottom bags are filled, they round out, creating an unstable base where a significant portion of the product is unsupported by the pallet, leading to leaning and unsafe stacking (’155 Patent, col. 2:36-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a fabric bulk bag with a multi-sided bottom (having more than four sides) and an "unsupported continuous single layer sidewall." This construction allows the bag to form a stable, upright structure when filled, providing a larger support footprint that prevents the leaning and sagging common in prior art bags, thereby enabling safer stacking (’155 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:3-14). The patent highlights that this design avoids the need for internal baffles to maintain its shape (’155 Patent, col. 3:5-12).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a continued refinement of bulk bag design to achieve inherent stability through geometry rather than through more costly and complex internal support structures (’155 Patent, col. 4:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 10, 22, 23, and 25 (Compl. ¶92).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 10 include:
    • A fabric bulk bag with an unsupported continuous single layer sidewall, a top, and a bottom.
    • The sidewall has a circular perimeter at a height between the bottom and top.
    • The bottom has more than four sides.
    • In a filled configuration, the sidewall has bulge portions that extend from the bottom to the circular perimeter "without causing leaning or sagging."
    • The filled bag has a "substantially straight support structure" capable of supporting another filled bag stacked on top.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of additional independent and dependent claims (Compl. ¶92).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,192,693

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,192,693, "Bulk Bag Having a Multi-Sided Shaped Bottom," issued December 7, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, continuing from the '155 patent, addresses the instability of conventional square-bottom bulk bags caused by product settling and sidewall bulging. The invention is a bulk bag with a multi-sided bottom (e.g., octagonal) and unsupported sidewalls, which creates a larger, more stable footprint when filled, preventing leaning and improving stackability without costly internal baffles (’693 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:47-54).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, and 14 are asserted (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The accused IPAQ and SunPack bulk bags are alleged to feature the claimed multi-sided bottom and unsupported sidewall construction, resulting in the functional benefit of enhanced stability when filled (Compl. ¶¶21, 93).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,760,540

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,760,540, "Bulk Bag Having a Multi-Sided Shaped Bottom," issued September 19, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the same line of invention, solving the problem of instability in traditional bulk bags. The patented solution is a bag with a multi-sided bottom that provides a wider, more stable base when filled, allowing the bag to remain upright and stackable without the product weight causing the sidewalls to sag over the pallet edge (’540 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:48-55).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, 15, 18, and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' IPAQ and SunPack bags are alleged to infringe by incorporating the multi-sided bottom geometry that yields the patented functional advantages of stability and efficient, safe stacking (Compl. ¶¶21, 94).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,964,798

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,964,798, "Bulk Bag Having a Multi-Sided Shaped Bottom," issued April 23, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent further covers the invention of a bulk bag designed to overcome the leaning and instability of square-bottom bags. The solution is a multi-sided (e.g., octagonal) bottom that creates an enlarged footprint, providing substantially more base support for the product, which results in a safer, more dependable stacking bag (’798 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:56-63).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the defendants' IPAQ and SunPack products infringe by using the claimed multi-sided bottom construction to achieve the same stability and stacking benefits described in the patent (Compl. ¶¶21, 95).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "the Infringing Bags," which include "all past, current, and future bulk bags of the Defendants," sold at least under the names "IPAQ and/or SunPack" (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as "bulk bags" (Compl. ¶21). It alleges that Defendants market these bags by "touting the same or similar advantages" as Plaintiffs' patented MegaBase® bags, which embody the asserted patents (Compl. ¶65). The complaint provides drawings from U.S. Design Patent No. D862,245, invented by Defendant Wiley, which illustrate an ornamental design for a bulk bag bottom that Plaintiffs allege is related to the infringing products (Compl. ¶32, Ex. 3). The complaint alleges that at least one of Plaintiffs' former customers terminated its relationship and began purchasing the accused "SunPack" bags from Defendant Sunbelt Packaging (Compl. ¶¶ 63-64).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the IPAQ and SunPack bags constitute direct infringement of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 91-98). While the complaint references claim charts in an unprovided Exhibit 2, the following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead patents based on the narrative provided in the complaint and the patent claims.

'973 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A multi-sided fabric bulk bag, comprising... a top portion; a bottom portion; vertical single-layered fabric sidewalls... The accused IPAQ and SunPack products are multi-sided fabric bulk bags comprising these fundamental components. ¶21, ¶91 col. 10:29-34
the bottom portion further comprising at least six sides which define the multi-sided bulk bag having a surface area at least 10% greater than a square bottom bag but with the same total perimeter... The complaint alleges the Infringing Bags meet this limitation, referencing an unprovided claim chart for detailed proof. ¶91 col. 10:35-40
each of the fabric sidewalls bulging outward along a vertical midpoint... at least 1.3% greater than the multi-sided shaped bottom... The complaint alleges the Infringing Bags exhibit this specific bulging characteristic, referencing an unprovided claim chart. ¶91 col. 10:41-45
...the diameter of the filled bag across the vertical midpoint of the fabric sidewalls is at least 2.6% greater than the diameter of the multi-sided shaped bottom. The complaint alleges the filled Infringing Bags meet this specific dimensional ratio, referencing an unprovided claim chart. ¶91 col. 10:46-52

'155 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A fabric bulk bag, comprising: a) an unsupported continuous single layer sidewall, a top, and a bottom... The accused IPAQ and SunPack bags are alleged to be fabric bulk bags with an unsupported single layer sidewall construction. ¶21, ¶92 col. 11:7-12
b) the sidewall having a circular perimeter at a height between the bottom and the top; The complaint alleges the Infringing Bags have this feature when filled, referencing an unprovided claim chart for specifics. ¶92 col. 11:13-15
c) the bottom having a shape that has more than four sides; The accused IPAQ and SunPack bags are alleged to have a bottom with more than four sides. ¶21, ¶32, ¶92 col. 11:16-17
d) wherein in the filled configuration the sidewall is operable to have a plurality of bulge portions... without causing leaning or sagging of the bag... The complaint alleges the Infringing Bags are designed to bulge in a controlled manner that provides stability without leaning, a key functional advantage. ¶65, ¶92 col. 11:18-24
e) the bag in the filled configuration having a substantially straight support structure operable to support another filled bag stacked on the bag. The complaint alleges the Infringing Bags achieve the functional result of being stable enough for stacking. ¶65, ¶92 col. 11:25-28

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case raises a question of whether the specific geometry of the accused bags, which Defendants have protected via a design patent, falls within the functional scope of the asserted utility patent claims. A central dispute may be whether the defendants' design is primarily ornamental, as claimed during their design patent's prosecution (Compl. ¶45), or if it is dictated by the functional advantages described in Plaintiffs' patents.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that the accused IPAQ and SunPack bags meet the precise quantitative limitations of the claims, such as the "10% greater" surface area requirement in the ’973 patent or the "without causing leaning or sagging" functional limitation in the ’155 patent? The complaint relies on unprovided claim charts, suggesting that discovery and expert analysis will be critical to resolving these factual questions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "multi-sided shaped bottom" (from ’973 Patent, Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine the breadth of geometries covered by the claim and whether the specific design of the accused IPAQ and SunPack bags, including the design shown in Defendant Wiley's D'245 design patent, constitutes infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to one specific shape, stating that "the term multi-sided bag may be used to describe that embodiment and any other embodiment which may include sides which number greater than four" (’973 Patent, col. 4:53-56).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract, figures, and preferred embodiments consistently emphasize an "octagonal shape" (’973 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5C; col. 4:50-51). A defendant may argue that the invention is effectively limited to this specific octagonal geometry.

  • Term: "unsupported continuous single layer sidewall" (from ’155 Patent, Claim 10)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the type of bag to which the invention applies, distinguishing it from prior art "baffle bags" which use internal walls for support. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges defendants advertise "vertical reinforcements" (Compl. ¶59), which could be argued to constitute a form of "support," potentially placing the accused bags outside the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background contrasts the invention with "baffle bags" having "interior walls" (’155 Patent, col. 3:5-9). This may support an interpretation where "unsupported" means lacking such internal baffles, while still allowing for minor external reinforcements.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "unsupported" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, precluding any structural elements intended to provide support to the sidewall, including the alleged "vertical reinforcements" on the accused bags.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement by Defendant Wiley and Defendant Independent Packaging Associates (Counts II and III). The allegations against Wiley are based on his knowledge of the patents from his prior employment with Ameriglobe and his subsequent role in encouraging the other defendants to manufacture and sell the Infringing Bags (Compl. ¶¶ 23-25, 103-104). The allegations against Independent Packaging Associates are based on its engaging Defendant Sunbelt Packaging as a distributor for the Infringing Bags (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 110).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶85). This allegation is supported by extensive claims of pre-suit knowledge, including Defendant Wiley’s former employment at Ameriglobe during the patent application process (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25) and multiple cease and desist letters with claim charts sent to various defendants between June 2022 and September 2023 (Compl. ¶¶ 78-81, 101). The complaint further alleges that after receiving notice, defendants added a feature to the bag but continued to infringe, which may suggest objective recklessness (Compl. ¶83).

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

  • A core issue will be one of functionality versus ornamentality: Can the design of the accused bags, which Defendants sought to protect as ornamental with their own design patent, be proven to be primarily dictated by the functional advantages of stability and stackability as claimed in Plaintiffs' utility patents?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "unsupported... sidewall"? The outcome will determine whether the alleged "vertical reinforcements" on the accused bags are sufficient to take them outside the scope of claims directed to bags lacking internal baffles.
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: Can Plaintiffs produce evidence from discovery to demonstrate that the accused IPAQ and SunPack bags meet the specific, quantitative limitations recited in the asserted claims, such as the precise percentage-based requirements for surface area and bulging?