Ministrap LLC v. Walmart

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ministrap, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Walmart Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00331, E.D. Tex., 07/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, such as retail stores in Tyler, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various consumer electronics cables packaged with fastening straps infringes three patents related to secure strap systems.
• Technical Context: The technology involves reconfigurable, self-fastening straps, typically made of hook-and-loop material, used for organizing and bundling items like electrical cables.
• Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are part of the same patent family, originating from the same 2001 provisional application and sharing substantial portions of their written descriptions. This familial relationship may be relevant for claim construction consistency across the patents.

Case Timeline

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 describes a need for a fastening system that can securely and independently bundle two or more sets of items, or anchor one set of items to another object. It notes that prior art single-loop straps are practically incapable of this and can be difficult to manage with one hand or release selectively (’796 Patent, col. 1:59 - col. 2:10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a fastening strap system made from a single, unitary piece of flexible, two-sided (e.g., hook-and-loop) material. The key feature is a design with at least two "collinear" elongated strap portions separated by an aperture, allowing the system to form two independent, adjustable fastening loops (’796 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:3-11). This structure is intended to permit, for example, the bundling of a power cord and its plug as two separate items using a single strap device (’796 Patent, col. 2:3-6).
• Technical Importance: This design provided a method for creating a multi-loop, independently adjustable fastening system from a single, economically manufactured piece of material, addressing limitations in simple prior art straps (’796 Patent, col. 2:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • At least one first and one 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 fastening surface on one side and a second, complementary fastening surface on the other.
  • The first and second strap portions are "parallel and collinear."
  • The aperture is sized to receive the first strap portion but prevent insertion of the second strap portion.
  • The system is structured to form two finely adjustable fastening loops.
• 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: The patent addresses the same technical challenges as the '796 Patent, including the need for a strap system that can secure multiple items or bundles independently and be manipulated with relative ease (’000 Patent, col. 1:19 - col. 2:31).
• The Patented Solution: This invention provides an alternative strap configuration made from a unitary piece of two-sided fastening material. Instead of collinear straps separated by an aperture, this design features at least two strap portions that are "offset parallel" from one another, creating a side-by-side arrangement (’000 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:10-18). This allows for the creation of two separate fastening loops with a different geometry than the '796 patent's invention.
• Technical Importance: This design offered an alternative method to create a dual-loop fastening system from a single piece of material, avoiding the specific "collinear" and "aperture-between" structure of the '796 patent (’000 Patent, col. 4:40-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • At least one first and one second strap portion.
  • The system consists of a structure with a first side having a first fastening surface and a second side with a second fastening surface.
  • 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.

U.S. Patent No. 9,386,824, "Secure Strap Systems," Issued July 12, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: Continuing in the same family, the ’824 patent further describes secure strap systems made from flexible material. It discloses systems with various fastener types, including mushroom-shaped hooks, and introduces embodiments made from bio-absorbable materials like polylactic acid, while also covering the basic dual-strap structures of its parent patents (’824 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:2-10, col. 4:58-62).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The complaint makes a general allegation that the Accused Products include a "fastening strap system relating to securing at least two elements" (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are strap systems used to secure elongated items like cables and wires (Compl. ¶19). The function is to bind items together to aid in avoiding tangling and provide a clean appearance (Compl. ¶21). Photographs in the complaint depict Walmart's "onn" branded cables in their packaging. A photograph of an "onn." USB-C cable shows it bundled with a black strap inside transparent packaging (Compl. p. 4, top left image). Another photograph shows an Anker-branded cable coiled and secured by a black strap that appears to use a hook-and-loop fastening mechanism (Compl. p. 11, bottom image). The complaint alleges these products are sold at Walmart's physical retail locations and are commercially available (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,587,796 Patent Infringement Allegations

8,371,000 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question for the '796 patent is whether the accused straps, which appear in photographs to be single-body straps with a pass-through buckle, can be considered to have two "collinear" strap portions with an "aperture" located between them as required by the claim. Similarly, for the '000 patent, a question is whether the accused straps embody the claimed "offset parallel" structure. The complaint does not specify which accused products map to which patented configuration, raising the question of whether the allegations provide a sufficient factual basis for these distinct structural limitations.
  • Technical Questions: A technical question for the '796 patent is whether the pass-through feature on the accused straps (e.g., the buckle on the Anker strap) performs the function required by claim 1, which specifies that the aperture's width prevents insertion of the second, wider strap portion. The complaint does not provide specific evidence or measurements to support this functional limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "collinear" ('796 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the structure of the '796 invention, defining the spatial relationship between the two strap portions. Infringement will depend on whether the accused products, which may be single continuous straps, can be said to have two distinct portions arranged "in the same straight line." Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence in the complaint does not clearly depict two separate, end-to-end strap portions.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition. A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning, which might be flexible enough to describe two segments of a single strap that lie along the same axis when the strap is laid flat.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 10, depict two distinct strap ends (140a, 140b) extending in opposite directions from a central point, which may support an interpretation that "collinear" requires two distinct, opposing arms rather than contiguous sections of a single strap body (’796 Patent, Fig. 10).

• The Term: "aperture" ('796 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The existence and characteristics of the "aperture" are essential limitations of the '796 patent. The dispute may turn on whether the plastic buckle or pass-through slit on the accused straps meets the claim's definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the aperture as potentially being a "portion devoid of such flexible sheet material," which could be read to include a simple die-cut slit or opening in the strap body itself (’796 Patent, col. 4:11-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 functionally defines the aperture as being sized to prevent insertion of the "second elongated strap portion" (’796 Patent, col. 22:15-18). This functional requirement, tied to the relative widths of the two strap portions, could support a narrower construction than any generic hole or buckle through which a strap can pass.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the '000 patent, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on Walmart allegedly taking active steps with specific intent, such as "distributing instructions that guide users" to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶44). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused Products have "special features... specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and have "no substantial uses other than ones that infringe" (Compl. ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for the '796 and '000 patents. For the '796 patent, the allegation is based on knowledge of the patent as of the filing of the action (Compl. ¶32). For the '000 patent, the allegation is based on knowledge from the filing of the action and an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff claims constitutes willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶46-47).

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

• A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the complaint demonstrate that the accused single-body cable ties, which appear to form a single primary loop, embody the specific and distinct dual-strap configurations claimed in the asserted patents—namely, the "collinear" straps of the '796 patent or the "offset parallel" straps of the '000 patent?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: what evidence supports the allegation that the pass-through buckles on the accused products meet the specific functional limitations of the term "aperture" in the '796 patent, which requires preventing the passage of the wider, second strap portion?
• A third question relates to damages and willfulness: assuming infringement is found, the dispute will likely involve the extent of Walmart’s knowledge and intent, particularly concerning the allegation of a "policy or practice" of willful blindness, which could impact findings on willfulness and potential enhancement of damages.