DCT
2:23-cv-00330
Ministrap LLC v. Target Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ministrap, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00330, E.D. Tex., 07/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including 15 retail stores and a large distribution center, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of certain Anker and OtterBox branded electronic cables, which include integrated fastening straps, infringes three patents related to secure strap systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns self-fastening straps, typically using hook-and-loop material, designed to organize and bundle elongated items like consumer electronic cables.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a family stemming from applications filed as early as 2002, claiming priority to a 2001 provisional application, indicating a long-standing patent portfolio in this technology area. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-07 | Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents |
| 2009-09-15 | U.S. Patent No. 7,587,796 Issues |
| 2013-02-12 | U.S. Patent No. 8,371,000 Issues |
| 2016-07-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,386,824 Issues |
| 2023-07-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,587,796 - "Secure Strap Systems," Issued September 15, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of conventional methods for bundling items like cables, such as the residue left by tape or the difficulty of using simple straps to secure multiple, separate bundles of items together (’796 Patent, col. 1:33-40, col. 2:1-6). It also notes the difficulty of managing and threading long, flexible self-fastening straps with a single hand (’796 Patent, col. 2:11-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fastening strap system made from a single, unitary piece of double-sided, self-fastening material. The design features a narrow "tongue" portion and a wider body portion, with an aperture located between them (’796 Patent, Abstract). This configuration allows the narrow tongue to be passed through the aperture to create a cinching, adjustable loop, which can then be secured back onto the strap body, providing a secure and reusable way to bundle objects (’796 Patent, col. 3:1-14; Fig. 27).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to provide a more versatile and user-friendly alternative to simple, single-function straps by enabling the creation of multiple, adjustable fastening loops from a single, integrated device (’796 Patent, col. 2:36-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A fastening system with a first elongated strap portion, a second elongated strap portion, and an aperture, all consisting of a unitary piece of flexible, double-sided self-fastening material.
- The first and second strap portions are parallel and collinear.
- The aperture is located between the end of the first strap portion and the end of the second strap portion.
- The aperture is sized to receive the first strap portion without twisting, but the width of the second strap portion prevents its insertion.
- The system is structured to form a "first fastening loop" by inserting the first strap portion through the aperture to cinch a first element.
- The system is further structured to form a "second fastening loop" to secure a second element.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,371,000 - "Secure Strap Systems," Issued February 12, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’796 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a strap system that can securely fasten multiple items or bundles of items together and allow for their independent release (’000 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fastening strap system consisting of at least two strap portions that are "offset parallel" from each other by a distance approximately equal to the width of one of the straps (’000 Patent, cl. 1). As depicted in the patent's figures, this creates two distinct, side-by-side straps that can be used to form independent loops for securing different objects (’000 Patent, Figs. 3, 4, 6). The straps are made of a unitary piece of material with self-fastening surfaces on both sides (’000 Patent, col. 3:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This "offset parallel" geometry provides a simple, integrated structure for creating two independent fastening loops, facilitating the bundling of separate objects, such as a power cord and its plug, to each other (’000 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A fastening strap system consisting of a first strap portion and a 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, where the surfaces are detachably fastenable to each other.
- The second strap portion is "offset parallel from said first strap portion 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. 9,386,824, "Secure Strap Systems," Issued July 12, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method of using a fastening strap system to secure at least two longitudinal elements. The described system involves providing a strap with at least two parallel, offset strap portions made of double-sided fastening material and using them to create independent cinching loops around different objects (’824 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-24). The technology is closely related to that of the ’000 Patent.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the strap systems included with the Accused Products, which are used to secure items like cables, practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, 60).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The Accused Products are various Anker and OtterBox branded cables, charging stands, and charging pads sold by Defendant Target (Compl. ¶19).
- Functionality and Market Context: The relevant feature of the Accused Products is the integrated binding strap provided with the cables and chargers (Compl. ¶19). This strap system is used to secure the elongated cable into a neat bundle to avoid tangling during storage or transport (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides an image from a user review showing an Anker strap wrapped around a cable (Compl. Fig. 2A, p. 6) and another image of an OtterBox strap securing the cable of a wireless charging pad (Compl. Fig. 2F, p. 9). The Anker and OtterBox brands are prominent in the consumer electronics accessory market.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'796 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 complaint alleges the aperture on the accused straps is wide enough to receive the narrower "tongue" portion of the strap. An unrolled Anker strap displays this feature (Compl. Fig. 3A, p. 11). | ¶32(h) | col. 22:18-24 |
| i) wherein said second strap width without bending or folding... prevents insertion of said at least one second elongated strap portion into said at least one aperture | The complaint alleges the wider body of the accused strap is too wide to pass through the aperture. An image of an unrolled OtterBox strap shows its wider body relative to the aperture (Compl. Fig. 3B, p. 11). | ¶32(i) | col. 22:25-29 |
| l) wherein said fastening system is structured and arranged to form at least one first fastening loop, such first fastening loop formed by encirclement of said at least one first elongated strap portion around at least one first element to be secured, insertion of at least said first strap end portion... into and through said at least one aperture, and cinching... | The complaint alleges the strap system forms a first loop by passing the narrower end through the aperture and cinching it to secure an item, such as a coiled cable. | ¶32(l) | col. 22:35-47 |
| m) wherein said fastening system is further structured and arranged to form at least one second fastening loop formed by encirclement of said at least one second elongated strap portion around at least one second element to be secured... | The complaint alleges the system is structured to form a second fastening loop by encirclement of a second element by the wider strap portion. | ¶32(m) | col. 22:48-55 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "second fastening loop" (limitation 'm') will be critical. The complaint does not specify what the "second element" is or how the "second fastening loop" is formed by the accused straps. A key question is whether this limitation requires securing a second, distinct object, or if it can be met by the wider part of the strap wrapping around the first object (the coiled cable) that is already secured by the first loop.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused straps form a "second fastening loop"? The visual evidence primarily depicts a single loop being formed to secure a single coiled cable. The allegation for this limitation appears conclusory and may require further factual support.
'000 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) at least one first strap portion... and b) at least one second strap portion | The complaint alleges the accused fastening strap system consists of a first strap portion and a second strap portion. | ¶44(a), (b) | col. 30:29-39 |
| 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 complaint alleges, by reciting the claim language, that the second strap portion is offset parallel from the first. | ¶44(d) | col. 31:3-6 |
| e) wherein all said at least one first strap portions and all said at least one second strap portions are parallel | The complaint alleges that the strap portions are parallel. | ¶44(e) | col. 31:7-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue for this patent is the meaning of "offset parallel." The patent figures consistently show two physically separate, side-by-side strap portions. The complaint's visual evidence, however, shows a single, collinear strap with a narrow tongue and a wider body. This raises the question of whether the accused single-body strap can be construed to meet the specific geometric "offset parallel" limitation of claim 1.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no explanation or evidence for how the accused single-tongue straps possess an "offset parallel" structure. The infringement allegations merely recite the claim language without mapping it to any specific feature of the accused products, suggesting a significant potential mismatch between the claim and the accused device.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "offset parallel" (from ’000 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core geometric structure of the invention of the ’000 patent. The infringement case for this patent hinges on whether the accused single-body strap can be found to have strap portions that are "offset parallel." Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence in the complaint appears to show a structure that is geometrically inconsistent with a plain reading of the term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint provides no specific evidence from the patent to support a broader, non-geometric interpretation. A plaintiff might argue for a functional interpretation, but this is not supported by the complaint's current allegations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes and depicts embodiments with two physically distinct, side-by-side strap portions emerging from a shared base (e.g., ’000 Patent, Fig. 3, Fig. 6). The detailed description explains that this structure allows for independent bundling of separate items, reinforcing a literal, geometric interpretation of "offset parallel" (’000 Patent, col. 14:21-29).
Term: "second fastening loop" (from ’796 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement of limitation (m) of claim 1 depends on this term's definition. The dispute may turn on whether forming a "second... loop" requires securing a second, separate object, or if it can be satisfied by the wider portion of the strap simply wrapping around the first object (a coiled cable) that is already held by the first loop.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the loop is formed "around at least one second element to be secured," which does not explicitly preclude the "second element" from being the same as, or part of, the "first element."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background emphasizes the need to secure "more than one bundle or set of elongated items" and to "integrally connect a first set of bundled objects A to a second set B of bundled objects" (’796 Patent, col. 1:22-25, col. 2:1-3). This context suggests the invention was aimed at bundling distinct items, which could support a narrower construction requiring two separate objects.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For the ’000 patent, the complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendant advises and instructs customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner, and contributory infringement by claiming the products have special features with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46). These allegations are stated without specific factual support, such as citations to user manuals or advertisements.
- Willful Infringement: For all asserted patents, willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 47). The complaint also alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural interpretation: Can the single, collinear strap of the Accused Products, which features a narrow tongue and a wider body, be found to meet the specific "offset parallel" two-strap geometry required by claim 1 of the '000 patent? The complaint's visual evidence of the products appears to diverge significantly from the structures depicted in the patent.
- A key question of claim scope will determine the breadth of the '796 patent: Does the claim limitation requiring the formation of a "second fastening loop" necessitate securing a second, distinct object, or can it be satisfied by the single-loop use case of bundling a coiled cable, as shown in the complaint's photographs?
- An evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can provide factual support for its infringement theory regarding the '000 patent's "offset parallel" structure and the '796 patent's "second fastening loop," as the current allegations for these elements are largely conclusory recitations of claim language.