Ministrap LLC v. Office Depot LLC Pursuant To Court Order Docket In Lead Case 2 23cv330

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ministrap, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Office Depot, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00329, E.D. Tex., 07/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has established and maintained regular and established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas, listing at least 10 specific store locations, and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of third-party branded replacement cables that include cable management straps infringes three patents related to secure strap systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable, self-fastening straps, typically made of hook-and-loop material, designed to organize and bundle items like electrical cables and wires.
• Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are part of a single, long-prosecuted family, with each being a continuation-in-part of its predecessor, all claiming an ultimate priority date of March 7, 2001. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

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’s background section describes the limitations of prior art self-fastening straps, which were typically single straps capable of bundling only one set of items. It notes the difficulty of using such straps to integrally connect a first set of items to a second, or to independently release one set of items while leaving another secured ('796 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a unitary fastening strap system made from double-sided, flexible sheet material (e.g., hook-and-loop). The key feature is a structure with at least two elongated strap portions and at least one aperture located between them. This configuration allows a user to form independent, adjustable loops to cinch and secure multiple objects or sets of objects separately ('796 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-15). For example, Figure 17 shows a two-ended strap with an open-center configuration forming two loops ('796 Patent, Fig. 17).
• Technical Importance: This design provided a more versatile and functional alternative to simple cable ties, allowing for the independent management of multiple bundles with a single, reusable device ('796 Patent, col. 2:36-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A fastening strap system with a first and a second elongated strap portion.
  • At least one aperture located between the first and second strap portions.
  • The system consists essentially of a unitary portion of flexible sheet material with a first and second fastening surface.
  • The aperture is sized to receive the first strap portion without twisting, while the width of the second strap portion prevents its insertion into the aperture.
  • The system is structured to form a first fastening loop (using the first strap portion and the aperture) and a second fastening loop (using the second strap portion).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,371,000 - Secure Strap Systems, Issued Feb. 12, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part, the '000 Patent addresses the same problems as the '796 Patent: the limitations of prior art single-loop straps in managing multiple, independent bundles of items ('000 Patent, col. 1:22-col. 2:30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claimed here is a fastening strap system consisting of a first and second strap portion made from a unitary piece of double-sided fastening material. The defining characteristic is that the second strap portion is "offset parallel" from the first strap portion by a distance about equal to the first strap's width ('000 Patent, col. 3:15-40). This offset parallel structure, illustrated in Figure 3, allows for the formation of two independent binding loops ('000 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach offers another configuration for a single device to manage multiple bundles, differing from the "aperture-between-straps" design of the '796 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A fastening strap system consisting of at least one first and at least one second strap portion.
  • The first strap portion has a first side with a first fastening surface and a second side with a second fastening surface.
  • The second strap portion is "offset parallel" from the first strap portion by a distance "about equal to said at least one first strap width."
  • All first and second strap portions are parallel.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,386,824

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9386824, Secure Strap Systems, Issued Jul. 12, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is also a member of the same family and relates to secure strap systems. It discloses and claims various strap configurations made from unitary, flexible sheet material with detachable fasteners on opposing sides, including systems with parallel, offset strap portions designed to form multiple independent loops for bundling objects ('824 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:48-col. 4:14).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the fastening strap systems included with the accused cables infringe the patent (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are "various replacement cables featuring brand names such as 'OtterBox' and 'Anker' that include straps or strap systems" (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the straps included with these cables are for securing "elongated items such as cables and wires" to aid in "avoiding tangling" and providing a "clean appearance" (Compl. ¶¶19, 21). The complaint provides visual evidence, including a photograph of a white OtterBox cable coiled and secured by its integrated strap. (Compl. p. 5). Another photograph shows a close-up of a black Anker-branded strap, which appears to be a single piece of material with a slot at one end. (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges the straps include a first and second fastening loop to secure items (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'796 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question is whether the accused straps, which appear in complaint photos to be single-body straps with a slot at one end, meet the limitation of having an "aperture ... located between said at least one first strap end portion ... and said at least one second strap end portion." The court may need to determine if a slot in a single strap body can be considered an aperture between two distinct strap portions as the claim language suggests and as is depicted in patent figures like Fig. 17.

'000 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The primary infringement question will be whether the accused single-body straps can be considered to have a "second strap portion" that is "offset parallel from said first strap portion." The complaint does not explain how the accused straps meet this limitation. The patent specification appears to teach a two-armed structure (e.g., Fig. 3), raising the question of whether a fundamental structural mismatch exists between the claimed invention and the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '796 Patent:

• The Term: "aperture ... located between said at least one first strap end portion ... and said at least one second strap end portion"
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory for the '796 Patent appears to depend on construing a slot at the end of a single strap body as meeting this limitation. The defense will likely argue the accused products lack this specific structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses apertures in a general sense as a means to allow cinching, which could support an argument that any functional opening qualifies ('796 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, such as the "open-center-configuration" of Fig. 16 and Fig. 17, depict the aperture (152) as a distinct void separating two parallel strap arms (150a, 150b). This could support a narrower construction requiring a space between two structurally distinct strap portions.

For the '000 Patent:

• The Term: "at least one second strap portion is offset parallel from said first strap portion"
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products appear to be single-body straps, whereas the patent figures depict a two-armed structure. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether a single strap can be said to contain two "offset parallel" portions in the manner claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broad interpretation. A plaintiff might argue that when a single strap is looped through its own slot and laid flat, it creates two parallel segments.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently illustrates this concept with reference to structures having two distinct, parallel arms, such as strap 124 with arms 124a and 124b in Figure 3 ('000 Patent, Fig. 3). The term "offset parallel" is used to describe this physical arrangement, suggesting the claim requires two distinct structural arms, not just a temporary alignment of a single strap.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the '000 Patent, the complaint alleges Defendant induces infringement by advertising, promoting, and distributing instructions that guide users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the products have special features for an infringing use with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶44-45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the '796 and '000 Patents based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the lawsuit and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff characterizes as willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶32-33, 47-49).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and structural equivalence: can the claim language of the asserted patents, which describes specific multi-portion strap systems (e.g., with an "aperture between" two strap ends or with "offset parallel" portions), be construed to read on the accused products, which appear from the complaint's own evidence to be conventional single-body straps with a pass-through slot?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement mapping: the complaint makes conclusory allegations by block-quoting claim language without providing a specific, element-by-element explanation of how the accused straps meet each limitation. A central issue for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual and expert evidence to demonstrate that the accused straps actually contain every element of the asserted claims, particularly given the apparent structural differences.