DCT
4:25-cv-00098
Happy Products Inc v. Kroger Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Happy Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Kroger Company (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm, LLC
- Case Identification: Happy Products, Inc. v. The Kroger Company, 4:25-cv-00098, E.D. Tex., 02/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Kroger has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of the “Pillow Pad” media support device, supplied by non-party Ontel Products, infringes patents related to a multi-angle pillow stand for electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to consumer accessories for portable electronic devices, specifically soft, multi-sided stands that allow for hands-free viewing at different angles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. RE48,479 is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,642,454, which added 19 claims. It also alleges that the supplier of the accused product, Ontel, declined to participate in an Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation (UPNE) process concerning the ’479 patent, after which the accused product was removed from the Amazon platform in June 2021.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-10-28 | Earliest Priority Date for '454 and '479 Patents |
| 2017-05-09 | '454 Patent Issued |
| 2018-11-03 | Plaintiff’s “Flippy” product featured on QVC |
| 2019-05-10 | Supplier Ontel first used the name “Pillow Pad” in commerce |
| 2019-07-01 | Accused “Pillow Pad” product began appearing on retail shelves (approximate) |
| 2019-09-05 | Plaintiff sent first notice letter to Defendant Kroger regarding alleged infringement |
| 2021-03-23 | '479 Patent (Reissue) Issued |
| 2021-04-01 | Plaintiff filed Amazon UPNE complaint against Ontel regarding '479 Patent |
| 2023-06-06 | Plaintiff sent notice to Defendant Kroger specifically referencing the '479 Patent |
| 2025-02-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,642,454 - "Multiple Viewing Angle Media Support," Issued May 9, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the discomfort and fatigue from holding media devices like tablets for extended periods. It notes that traditional pillows often position devices at a "less than advantageous angle," while users shifting their own posture (e.g., from sitting to lying down) creates a need for a support with different viewing angles (’454 Patent, col. 1:24-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a soft but firm pillow-like support, generally triangular in cross-section, with three distinct sides. By rotating the apparatus to rest on any of its three primary surfaces, a user can position a tablet or book at one of three pre-set, ergonomic viewing angles (’454 Patent, col. 2:31-36, FIG. 2). The structure is defined by the geometric relationship between three "support backs" and three "support edges," which are connected to form a single, solid body (’454 Patent, col. 4:40-54).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a single, soft, stable, and multi-functional solution for hands-free media viewing, adaptable to various user positions without requiring mechanical adjustments.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶117).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
- An apparatus with three support sides, each comprising a back support and an edge support.
- A top of each back support is in physical communication with an adjacent edge support clockwise about a central axis.
- Each back support and edge support is in physical communication with two ends of a solid interior.
- Specific geometric and angular relationships between the planes of the back supports.
- The solid interior is a pillow covered in fabric.
- Specific viewing angles (36°, 74°, 49°) for each of the three back supports.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims from this patent.
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,479 - "Multiple Viewing Angle Media Support," Issued March 23, 2021
Technology Synopsis
This patent is a reissue of the ’454 Patent and shares the same specification and drawings (Compl. ¶63). It describes the same multi-angle media support pillow. The reissue process allowed the patentee to amend the claims, and the ’479 patent includes the original ten claims plus nineteen additional claims (’479 Patent, col. 5-8; Compl. ¶63).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶¶64, 201, 204).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the accused Pillow Pad product, with its three-sided design offering multiple viewing angles, infringes claims of the ’479 patent (Compl. ¶¶188, 196-198). The complaint provides an image showing the Pillow Pad alongside the Plaintiff's Flippy product, illustrating their similar three-sided functionality (Compl. ¶2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the "Pillow Pad" or "Pill-O-Pad" media support device and its equivalents (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Pillow Pad is a "knock-off copy" of Plaintiff's Flippy product (Compl. ¶1). Functionally, it is a soft, three-sided stand that provides three different viewing angles for a media device by "flipping the device to rest upon each of its three sides" (Compl. ¶2). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating this rotational, multi-angle functionality (Compl. ¶2). The Pillow Pad is allegedly supplied by non-party Ontel Products Corporation and sold by Defendant Kroger and other major retailers (Compl. ¶¶1, 29). The complaint further alleges the Pillow Pad is made of "vastly inferior quality" materials, allowing it to be sold at a lower price that undercuts Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶123).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE48,479 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 12 of the ’479 patent and refers to an attached Exhibit D, which was not provided with the complaint document. The following chart is constructed based on the complaint's narrative descriptions of the accused product.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body having a first support back, a second support back, and a third support back disposed about a central axis; | The Pillow Pad has a body with three primary faces that support a tablet, arranged in a triangular prism-like shape. | ¶2 | col. 6:46-48 |
| a first support edge disposed between the first support back and the second support back... | The Pillow Pad has ledges or edges that transition between the main support faces. | ¶2 | col. 6:49-50 |
| a second support edge disposed between the second support back and third support back... | The Pillow Pad has ledges or edges that transition between the main support faces. | ¶2 | col. 6:54-55 |
| a third support edge disposed between the third support back and first support back... | The Pillow Pad has ledges or edges that transition between the main support faces. | ¶2 | col. 6:58-59 |
| wherein the media support apparatus is configured to be rotated about the central axis so that the body can rest on a horizontal support in any one of three positions... | The Pillow Pad is designed to be flipped to rest on each of its three sides to change the viewing angle. | ¶2 | col. 6:64-66 |
| and provides three “viewing angles” that are different from one another. | Each of the three resting positions of the Pillow Pad provides a distinct viewing angle for the supported media device. | ¶2 | col. 5:15-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused Pillow Pad meets the specific geometric and angular limitations recited in certain claims (e.g., the specific viewing angles of 36°, 74°, and 49° in claim 1 of the original ’454 patent). The complaint's assertion of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the ’454 patent suggests a potential mismatch in the literal scope of some limitations (Compl. ¶117).
- Technical Questions: The claims require a specific relationship between "support backs" and "support edges" (e.g., "disposed between"). The complaint emphasizes the aesthetic and design importance of its own product's "rounded bumper-like shapes" (Compl. ¶79). A dispute may arise over whether the accused product's structure literally meets the claimed arrangement or is merely an equivalent. The complaint includes a visual comparison highlighting design differences, such as the sharpness of edges, which may become relevant (Compl. ¶80).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "disposed about a central axis" (RE48,479, Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the claimed tri-sided geometry of the apparatus. Its construction will determine how closely the accused product's form must match the specific layout depicted in the patent's figures. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused product's general triangular shape is sufficient to meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "support sides 155 may be disposed about a central axis 125" in general terms, without limiting it to a precise mathematical or geometric center, which may support a more flexible reading (’479 Patent, col. 2:50-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 of the patent depicts the central axis (125) as a specific point at the center of the triangular cross-section, suggesting the three sides must be arranged in a specific, balanced way around this point (’479 Patent, FIG. 2).
The Term: "support edge disposed between" (RE48,479, Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the relationship between the major viewing surfaces (support backs) and the transitional elements (support edges). The complaint's emphasis on the unique "rounded ledges" of its own product suggests that the nature of this connection is a critical feature (Compl. ¶¶79-81). The interpretation of "disposed between" will be key to determining if the accused product's seams or transitions between faces infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and one could argue it simply means the edge is located positionally between two back surfaces without requiring a specific type of integrated structure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show the support edges as integral, rounded transitions that are part of a single, continuous solid body (’479 Patent, FIG. 1, 2). The specification states that "a top of each back support is in physical communication with an adjacent edge support," which could imply a more structured and direct connection than merely being located "between" (’479 Patent, col. 3:19-22).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’479 patent (Compl. ¶204). The allegations are based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Plaintiff alleges constructive notice via patent marking on its "Flippy" product and packaging (Compl. ¶¶97, 98, 203). The complaint shows a photo of a product tag with the '454 patent number (Compl. ¶97). Plaintiff alleges Defendant had actual knowledge based on correspondence sent on September 5, 2019, and more specifically regarding the ’479 patent on June 6, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶132, 143). The complaint alleges Kroger was "willfully blind" by relying on its supplier's indemnification promises instead of conducting its own diligence (Compl. ¶205).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the geometric and angular limitations recited in the patent claims, which appear to describe the plaintiff's "Flippy" product, be construed to literally read on the accused "Pillow Pad"? The plaintiff's alternate allegation of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents suggests this may be a primary point of contention.
- A key question of fact and evidence will be how Kroger’s internal policies and actions are viewed in the context of willfulness. The complaint details extensive pre-suit notice (Compl. ¶¶132-149). The case may turn on whether Kroger’s alleged reliance on its supplier’s assurances and indemnification, in the face of direct notice from a patentee, rises to the level of willful blindness.
- A central infringement question will relate to the significance of non-functional, aesthetic design choices. The complaint extensively details the development of its product's "rounded ledges" for aesthetic reasons (Compl. ¶¶79-84). This raises the question of whether these features, while potentially important for the associated trade dress claim, are captured by the utility patent claims and, if so, whether the accused product’s allegedly "sharper" design avoids infringement.