DCT
2:22-cv-00426
Ministrap LLC v. TJX Companies Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ministrap, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: The TJX Companies, Inc. (Delaware) and Marmaxx Operating Corp. (Virginia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00426, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain established and regular places of business in the district, such as T.J. Maxx and Marshalls retail stores, and have committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that fastening straps included with "LAX" brand replacement cables sold by Defendants infringe three patents related to secure strap systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable, self-fastening straps, commonly made from hook-and-loop material, designed for organizing and bundling items like electrical cables.
- Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are part of a family sharing a common provisional application filed in 2001. The complaint states each patent is a continuation-in-part of prior applications, indicating a potentially extensive prosecution history that may be relevant to claim scope.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-07 | Priority Date for ’796, ’000, and ’824 Patents |
| 2009-09-15 | U.S. Patent No. 7,587,796 Issued |
| 2013-02-12 | U.S. Patent No. 8,371,000 Issued |
| 2016-07-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,386,824 Issued |
| 2022-10-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,587,796 - "Secure Strap Systems" (Issued Sep. 15, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies limitations in prior art self-fastening straps, noting they can be difficult to use for bundling a second set of objects to an already-bundled first set and may not provide a sufficiently tight cinch. (’796 Patent, col. 1:46-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a unitary fastening strap system with at least two distinct elongated strap portions and an aperture. This configuration is designed to form two independent, adjustable fastening loops. One strap portion can pass through the aperture to cinch and secure a first item, while the second strap portion remains free to secure a second item, providing greater versatility than a single-loop strap. (’796 Patent, col. 2:60-67; Fig. 27). The design also facilitates a more secure binding by allowing the strap end to be fastened on the exterior of the loop. (’796 Patent, col. 12:48-65).
- Technical Importance: The claimed structure offers a more versatile and secure way to manage multiple items, such as a power cord and its associated plug, compared to conventional single-function straps. (’796 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶33).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A fastening strap system comprising at least one first and one second elongated strap portion, each with an end portion, width, and length.
- At least one aperture with a width and length.
- The system consists essentially of a unitary portion of flexible sheet material.
- The material has a first side with a first fastening surface and a second side with a complementary second fastening surface.
- The first and second elongated strap portions are parallel and collinear.
- The aperture is located between the end portions of the first and second strap portions.
- The aperture width is sized to receive the first strap portion without twisting, but the second strap width prevents its insertion.
- The system is structured to form a first fastening loop by inserting the first strap portion through the aperture and a second fastening loop using the second strap portion.
U.S. Patent No. 8,371,000 - "Secure Strap Systems" (Issued Feb. 12, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon existing fastening straps for securing items together, addressing a need for systems that allow for independent bundling and release of multiple items with minimal manipulation. (’000 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a fastening strap system made of a single piece of material that has at least two strap portions that are "offset parallel" from each other by a distance "about equal to said at least one first strap width." (’000 Patent, col. 3:35-41, Claim 1). This specific geometric arrangement is intended to allow two distinct, parallel loops to be formed without interfering with one another.
- Technical Importance: This design provides a specific structural configuration for a multi-loop fastener that enables independent and organized bundling of separate items from a single, unitary strap. (’000 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶45).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A fastening strap system consisting of at least one first and one second strap portion.
- The first strap portion has a first side with a first fastening surface and a second side with a second, complementary fastening surface.
- The second strap portion is offset parallel from the first strap portion a distance about equal to the first strap width.
- All first and second strap portions are parallel.
U.S. Patent No. 9,386,824 - "Secure Strap Systems" (Issued Jul. 12, 2016)
Technology Synopsis
- The ’824 patent claims a method of using a fastening strap system. The method comprises providing a strap with a base and at least two strap portions that are "divided and offset in parallel from each other," then folding the first strap portion around a first element and the second strap portion around a second element, and cinching both. (’824 Patent, Claim 1). The invention is directed at the specific user actions for securing two separate items with the claimed type of strap.
Asserted Claims
- At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶62).
Accused Features
- Defendants are accused of infringing by performing the claimed method steps when using the fastening straps included with the accused "LAX" cables to secure longitudinal elements. (Compl. ¶63).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "various replacement cables featuring the brand name 'LAX' that include straps or strap systems." (Compl. ¶21). Photographs depict these as USB charging cables packaged with a self-fastening strap. (Compl., pp. 5-7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the included straps feature a "first fastening loop and a second fastening loop to secure a single item or multiple items together." (Compl. ¶23). A photograph shows the unwrapped strap as a single, elongated piece of material with an aperture near one end. (Compl., p. 8). The function is to secure items like cables to avoid tangling and enable attachment to other items. (Compl. ¶24). These products are allegedly sold in Defendants' T.J. Maxx and Marshalls retail stores. (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’796 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) at least one first elongated strap portion... b) at least one second elongated strap portion... f) wherein all said... portions are parallel and collinear | The accused strap system includes first and second elongated strap portions that are parallel and collinear. | ¶34 | col. 2:60-67 |
| d) wherein said fastening strap system consists essentially of a unitary portion of flexible sheet material | The accused fastening strap system is made of a unitary piece of flexible material. | ¶34 | col. 3:1-4 |
| e) wherein said unitary portion... comprises... a first side having... a first fastening surface, and... a second side having... a second fastening surface | The accused strap has a first side with a first fastening surface (hook) and a second side with a second fastening surface (complementary). | ¶34 | col. 3:4-9 |
| c) at least one aperture... g) wherein said at least one aperture is located between said... first strap end portion... and said... second strap end portion | The accused strap has an aperture located between what are alleged to be the first and second strap end portions. A photograph shows a strap with an aperture at one end. (Compl., p. 8). | ¶34 | col. 16:35-40 |
| h) wherein said at least one aperture width is sized so as to be able to receive said at least one first elongated strap portion without requiring twisting | The aperture width is sized to receive the first elongated strap portion without requiring twisting. | ¶34 | col. 22:15-20 |
| i) wherein said second strap width... prevents insertion of said at least one second elongated strap portion into said at least one aperture | The second strap width, being wider than the aperture, prevents its insertion into the aperture. | ¶34 | col. 22:21-26 |
| l) wherein said fastening system is structured and arranged to form at least one first fastening loop... m) ...and arranged to form at least one second fastening loop | The system is used to form a first loop by cinching the first strap portion through the aperture and a second loop with the second strap portion. | ¶34 | col. 22:36-54 |
’000 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A fastening strap system consisting of: a) at least one first strap portion... and b) at least one second strap portion | The accused strap system consists of a first strap portion and a second strap portion. The product is shown in its retail packaging. (Compl., p. 5). | ¶46 | col. 3:1-7 |
| c) wherein said at least one first strap portion has, i) at least one first side comprising at least one first fastening surface... and ii) at least one second side comprising at least one second fastening surface | The first strap portion has a first side with a first fastening surface and a second side with a second, complementary fastening surface. | ¶46 | col. 3:7-15 |
| d) wherein said at least one second strap portion is offset parallel from said first strap portion a distance about equal to said at least one first strap width | The second strap portion is alleged to be offset parallel from the first strap portion by a distance equal to the first strap's width. | ¶46 | col. 3:35-41 |
| e) wherein all said at least one first strap portions and all said at least one second strap portions are parallel | The first and second strap portions are alleged to be parallel. | ¶46 | col. 3:41-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product has a "first... strap portion" and a "second... strap portion." However, the visual evidence shows a single, continuous strap with an aperture. (Compl., p. 8). A central question will be whether this single-strap structure can be construed to meet the claims' requirements for two distinct "portions" that are "collinear" (’796 patent) or "offset parallel" (’000 patent). The patents’ specifications and figures frequently depict two structurally distinct arms extending from a base (e.g., ’796 Patent, Fig. 3), which may create a significant point of contention regarding claim scope.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product meets the specific geometric relationship of claim 1(i) of the ’796 patent, where the "second strap width" is greater than the "aperture width" to prevent insertion? Similarly, for the ’000 patent, is there a factual basis for the allegation that two parts of the strap are "offset parallel" by a distance "about equal to said at least one first strap width"? These infringement questions will depend heavily on both claim construction and factual evidence regarding the accused product's dimensions and configuration in use.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "at least one first elongated strap portion" and "at least one second elongated strap portion" (’796 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim hinges on this term's construction. The accused product appears to be a single strap with a hole, not two distinct arms as depicted in many patent figures (e.g., ’796 Patent, Fig. 3, 124a/124b). Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require two structurally separate arms, the infringement case could fail.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the system to "consist essentially of a unitary portion of flexible sheet material," which could support the idea that the two "portions" are simply different sections of a single piece of material. (’796 Patent, cl. 1(d)). The term "portion" itself does not inherently require structural separation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the portions to be "collinear" and for the aperture to be "located between" their respective "end portions," language that may more naturally describe two distinct entities aligned end-to-end. (’796 Patent, cl. 1(f), 1(g)). Many figures in the specification explicitly show two distinct, separately extending strap arms. (’796 Patent, Figs. 3, 6, 10, 12).
The Term: "offset parallel" (’000 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’000 patent infringement allegation. The dispute will likely focus on whether the single-body accused strap can be configured in use to have portions that are "offset parallel" or if the claim requires a structure that is inherently offset and parallel in its resting state.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not explicitly state that the portions must be offset and parallel in an unused state. Plaintiff may argue that the relationship is achieved when the strap is looped to secure objects.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts embodiments with two physically separate, parallel arms offset from each other along their entire length. (’000 Patent, Fig. 3). The claim language "wherein said at least one second strap portion is offset parallel from said first strap portion" suggests a persistent structural attribute of the device itself, not a temporary configuration. (’000 Patent, cl. 1(d)).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For the ’000 and ’824 patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendants provide instructions and promote the use of the accused straps in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 64). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the claim that the straps have special features designed for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 65).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The allegations are based on Defendants having knowledge of the patents at least from the date of the lawsuit and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff characterizes as willful blindness. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-36, 50-52, 67-69). The complaint further alleges Defendants' conduct was "objectively reckless." (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim language requiring two distinct "strap portions" (which are "collinear" in the ’796 patent and "offset parallel" in the ’000 patent) be construed to cover the accused product's design, which appears to be a single strap with an aperture? The resolution of this claim construction dispute will be fundamental to the entire case.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: assuming a favorable claim construction for the Plaintiff, does the accused product's physical structure meet the specific geometric and functional limitations recited in the claims? This will involve factual analysis of, for example, the relative widths of the strap and its aperture (’796 patent) and the alleged parallel offset (’000 patent).
- A third question will relate to willfulness: can Plaintiff produce evidence to substantiate its allegation that Defendants maintained a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," and would such a policy, if proven, be sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement based on objective recklessness?