DCT
2:24-cv-00827
Ministrap LLC v. Fantasia Trading LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ministrap, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00827, E.D. Tex., 10/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and, additionally, consented to venue by agreeing to transfer a prior declaratory judgment action from the Northern District of Georgia to the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Anker-branded charging cables, which are sold with integrated reusable ties, infringe patents related to secure strap systems for bundling elongated objects.
- Technical Context: The technology involves self-fastening straps, typically made of hook-and-loop material, designed to organize items like electrical cords, a common feature in the consumer electronics accessory market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a preceding declaratory judgment action filed by Defendant Fantasia against Plaintiff Ministrap in the Northern District of Georgia on October 18, 2023. The parties subsequently agreed to transfer that action to the Eastern District of Texas, which was ordered on September 30, 2024. Defendant then dismissed its action on the same day, preceding the filing of the current infringement complaint by Ministrap. This procedural history forms the basis for Plaintiff's argument that Defendant has consented to venue.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-03-07 | Earliest 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 |
| 2023-10-18 | Defendant Fantasia Files Declaratory Judgment Action in N.D. Ga. |
| 2024-01-22 | Plaintiff Ministrap Moves to Transfer DJ Action to E.D. Tex. |
| 2024-09-30 | N.D. Ga. Court Grants Motion to Transfer DJ Action to E.D. Tex. |
| 2024-09-30 | Defendant Fantasia Dismisses its Declaratory Judgment Action |
| 2024-10-08 | Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed in E.D. Tex. |
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 the limitations of conventional single-piece, single-loop fastening straps, which make it difficult to securely bundle a second set of items to a first, or to release one set of items without unbundling the other (’796 Patent, col. 1:61 - col. 2:10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a unitary strap made from flexible, self-fastening sheet material that features two distinct, collinear (in-line) elongated portions separated by an aperture (’796 Patent, col. 3:1-14). This geometry allows the narrower "tongue" portion to pass through the aperture to form a first adjustable loop, while the wider portion can be used to form a second, independent loop, enabling the user to securely and independently bind two separate objects or an object to an anchor point (’796 Patent, col. 4:35-67; Fig. 27).
- Technical Importance: This design enhanced the functionality of basic reusable ties by enabling a single device to perform more complex bundling tasks, such as securing multiple items together or anchoring a cord, with greater stability and convenience than prior art straps (’796 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A fastening strap system with a first elongated strap portion, a second elongated strap portion, and an aperture.
- The system "consists essentially of a unitary portion of flexible sheet material" with a first fastening surface (e.g., hook) and a second complementary fastening surface (e.g., loop).
- 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 is sized to receive the first strap portion, but the width of the second strap portion "prevents insertion" into the aperture.
- The system is structured to form a first fastening loop and a second fastening loop.
- 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 general problem as the ’796 Patent: the functional limitations of prior art straps for bundling multiple objects (’000 Patent, col. 1:61 - col. 2:20).
- The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a different strap geometry to achieve multi-item bundling. The strap is a unitary piece with at least two parallel strap portions that are offset from one another by a distance approximately equal to the width of the first strap portion (’000 Patent, col. 3:20-37). Unlike the collinear design of the ’796 Patent, this configuration creates a U-shaped structure when laid flat, as illustrated in Figure 6 of the patent, which can be used to form multiple binding loops.
- Technical Importance: This offset-parallel configuration represents an alternative structural approach to creating a multi-loop fastening system from a single piece of material, offering different manufacturing or application possibilities compared to a collinear design (’000 Patent, col. 2:31-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A fastening strap system with at least a first strap portion and a second strap portion.
- The first strap portion has a first side and a second side, each with a 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.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,386,824 - "Secure Strap Systems," Issued July 12, 2016
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims methods of using a secure strap system to bundle multiple objects. It describes the steps of providing a strap with two offset, parallel strap portions and then forming independent loops by folding the respective portions around longitudinal elements, for example in a clockwise direction for the first loop and a counterclockwise direction for the second (’824 Patent, col. 3:1-34).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent method Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶64).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's Anker products, which include a "fastening strap system relating to securing at least two elements," implying that the intended use of the strap by consumers constitutes infringement of the patented method (Compl. ¶64).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies various Anker-branded cables sold under the "Powerline" family, such as the "Anker 6' Powerline+ II Braided USB-A to Lightning Cable" and "Anker 6' Powerline Select+ USB-C to USB-C Cable," which are supplied with fastening straps (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the straps included with the accused Anker cables are used to secure elongated items like the cables themselves, aiding in avoiding tangling and providing a clean appearance (Compl. ¶¶26, 28). The complaint alleges the straps can form a "first fastening loop and a second fastening loop" to secure items together (Compl. ¶27). The image in Figure 6 shows an unrolled Anker strap that has a narrow tongue portion, a wider body portion, and an aperture between them (Compl. p. 8, Fig. 6). The image in Figure 1 shows the strap in use, forming a single loop to bind a coiled cable (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 1). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding specific market positioning, but Anker is a prominent brand 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) at least one first elongated strap portion... b) at least one second elongated strap portion... | The accused strap has a narrow "tongue" portion and a wider body portion. | ¶38(a)-(b) | col. 4:35-40 |
| c) at least one aperture... | The accused strap has an aperture located between the tongue and the body. The image in Figure 6 shows an Anker strap unrolled displaying this aperture. | ¶38(c); Fig. 6 | col. 4:55-60 |
| d) ...consists essentially of a unitary portion of flexible sheet material... | The accused strap is a single, integrated piece of flexible material. | ¶38(d) | col. 3:1-3 |
| e) ...unitary portion... comprises, i) a first side... first fastening surface, and ii) a second side... second fastening surface... | The strap is made of self-fastening material, such as hook-and-loop, on its opposing sides. | ¶38(e) | col. 3:3-9 |
| f) ...all said... strap portions... are parallel and collinear; | The tongue portion and body portion of the accused strap are aligned along the same straight axis. | ¶38(f) | col. 3:10-14 |
| g) ...at least one aperture is located between said at least one first strap end portion... and said at least one second strap end portion... | The aperture is physically located on the strap between the end of the tongue and the end of the body. | ¶38(g) | col. 3:10-14 |
| h) ...aperture width is sized so as to be able to receive said at least one first elongated strap portion... | The aperture is wide enough for the tongue portion to pass through it to form a loop. | ¶38(h) | col. 22:15-22 |
| i) ...second strap width... prevents insertion of said at least one second elongated strap portion into said at least one aperture... | The body of the strap is wider than the aperture, preventing it from being passed through. | ¶38(i) | col. 22:23-28 |
| l) ...structured and arranged to form at least one first fastening loop... m) ...further structured and arranged to form at least one second fastening loop... | The strap is allegedly structured to form two independent, adjustable loops for securing items. | ¶38(l)-(m) | col. 22:34-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A key evidentiary question is whether the accused Anker strap is actually used or intended to be used to form two independent fastening loops as required by elements (l) and (m) of Claim 1. The complaint's visual evidence only shows the strap forming a single loop to bind the cable it comes with (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 1), raising the question of whether the claimed dual-loop functionality is ever practiced.
- Scope Question: The claim term "consists essentially of a unitary portion of flexible sheet material" may become a point of contention. If the accused strap incorporates any additional materials or components that materially affect its basic and novel properties, it may raise a question of whether this limitation is met.
'000 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) at least one first strap portion... b) at least one second strap portion... | The accused strap allegedly has first and second strap portions. | ¶49(a)-(b) | col. 3:20-26 |
| c) ...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 strap portions are made of self-fastening material on opposing sides. | ¶49(c) | col. 3:26-32 |
| 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 the strap portions are offset from each other in a parallel arrangement. | ¶49(d) | col. 3:32-35 |
| e) wherein all said at least one first strap portions and all said at least one second strap portions are parallel. | The complaint alleges the strap portions are parallel to one another. | ¶49(e) | col. 3:35-37 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The primary point of contention is whether the accused Anker straps possess the "offset parallel" geometry required by Claim 1. The complaint's own visual evidence, particularly Figure 6 showing an unrolled strap, appears to depict a "collinear" geometry as claimed in the ’796 Patent, not an "offset parallel" one. This raises a fundamental question about the factual basis for alleging infringement of the ’000 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '796 Patent:
- The Term: "collinear" (from Claim 1(f))
- Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental geometric relationship between the first and second strap portions. Its construction is critical because the accused product, as depicted in the complaint's Figure 6, appears to have an in-line, or collinear, structure. The term distinguishes this invention from related art and from the "offset parallel" structure claimed in the ’000 Patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "collinear", which may support applying its plain and ordinary meaning of "lying in the same straight line."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict the two strap portions and the intervening aperture as being perfectly aligned along a single longitudinal axis (’796 Patent, Figs. 25, 27). A party may argue that this specific, strictly in-line arrangement is required to meet the "collinear" limitation.
For the '000 Patent:
- The Term: "offset parallel" (from Claim 1(d))
- Context and Importance: This term is dispositive for infringement of the ’000 Patent, as it describes a specific geometry that appears to be mutually exclusive with the "collinear" structure of the ’796 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's own visual evidence appears to contradict the allegation that the accused product has an "offset parallel" structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the offset to be "a distance about equal to said at least one first strap width," which a plaintiff might argue allows for some degree of variation (’000 Patent, col. 3:32-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments in the patent depict a distinct structure where the two strap portions are joined by a transverse section, creating a U-shape when laid flat (’000 Patent, Fig. 6). A defendant will likely argue that "offset parallel" must be interpreted in light of this embodiment, requiring a non-collinear, U-shaped geometry that the accused product appears to lack.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For the ’000 Patent, the complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶50-51). The inducement allegation is based on general assertions of Defendant advertising and distributing instructions for the accused products (Compl. ¶50). The contributory infringement allegation claims the products have special features "specially designed to be used in an infringing way," namely the ability to form two fastening straps, and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶51).
- Willful Infringement: For the ’000 Patent, the complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent since at least July 14, 2023, the date Ministrap sued Defendant's customers. The complaint cites Defendant's own prior declaratory judgment filing as evidence of this knowledge (Compl. ¶52).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of product geometry: the complaint asserts infringement of two patents that appear to claim mutually exclusive strap configurations—the "collinear" design of the ’796 Patent and the "offset parallel" design of the ’000 Patent. The court will have to resolve whether the accused product's physical structure, which appears to be collinear based on the complaint's own evidence, can plausibly infringe the ’000 Patent's claims.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of demonstrated function: the asserted claims require a strap system capable of forming two independent fastening loops. The case may turn on whether the plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused straps are actually used or intended for this dual-loop function, or if their sole purpose and use is as a single-loop cable tie, potentially placing them outside the scope of the claims.
- The case will also involve a question of claim construction: the dispute over infringement of the ’796 and ’000 patents will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of the geometric terms "collinear" and "offset parallel". The construction of these terms will define the boundary between the two inventions and will be critical in determining whether either patent is infringed.