DCT

4:25-cv-05635

Fasteners for Retail Inc v. Bruegmann USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05635, S.D. Tex., 11/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Houston, resides within the district, and regularly conducts business, including selling the accused products, within the Southern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modular shelving systems, product dispensing trays, and merchandise security products infringe seven U.S. patents related to retail display and loss prevention technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve mechanical systems for displaying, organizing, and securing products in retail environments, a market where modularity, ease of use, and theft deterrence are significant commercial drivers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of prior patent disputes between the parties. It also states that Plaintiff sent pre-suit cease and desist letters to Defendant in 2019 regarding the '006 Patent and in 2021 regarding the '547 and '769 Patents, which may be central to allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,152,006 Priority Date
2012-04-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,152,006 Issued
2017-12-01 U.S. Patent Nos. 10,952,547 & 11,350,769 Priority Date
2019-01-01 Plaintiff allegedly sent cease and desist letter for '006 Patent
2021-01-01 Plaintiff allegedly sent cease and desist letters for '547 & '769 Patents
2021-03-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,952,547 Issued
2022-05-27 U.S. Patent Nos. 12,369,730, 12,390,024, & 12,396,575 Priority Date
2022-06-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,350,769 Issued
2024-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 12,369,730 Issued
2025-07-15 U.S. Patent No. 12,357,114 Issued
2025-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 12,390,024 Issued
2025-08-26 U.S. Patent No. 12,396,575 Issued
2025-11-21 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,357,114 - "Retail Merchandise Shelving System and Deck Panels for Same," Issued July 15, 2025

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional steel and aluminum retail shelving as heavy, difficult to clean, susceptible to corrosion, and often failing to meet NSF Certification standards required for direct contact with food products ('114 Patent, col. 1:29-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a deck panel for a retail shelf made from plastic and featuring a region of strengthening ribbing on its bottom surface to provide structural integrity while maintaining a low weight ('114 Patent, Abstract). The panel itself is described as having numerous rows of specifically arranged and oriented apertures, which may be intended to facilitate drainage, airflow, or the mounting of accessories ('114 Patent, col. 7:40-45).
  • Technical Importance: This design offers a lightweight, potentially corrosion-proof, and easier-to-clean alternative to traditional metal shelving, which is particularly relevant for produce, meat, or other refrigerated sections in grocery stores.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶127).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • A shelf comprising a frame (with front and rear support bars) and a first deck panel made from plastic.
    • The deck panel has a front end, a rear end, a first axis between them, and an upper support surface.
    • A plurality of first apertures in a first row, elongated parallel to the horizontal axis.
    • A plurality of second apertures in a second row, offset from the first row and elongated parallel to the first axis.
    • A plurality of third apertures in a third row, offset from the second row and elongated parallel to the horizontal axis.
    • A plurality of fourth apertures in a fourth row, offset from the third row and elongated parallel to the first axis.
    • A plurality of fifth apertures in a fifth row, offset from the fourth row and elongated parallel to the horizontal axis.
    • Specific positional relationships for the first and last apertures in the third, fourth, and fifth rows relative to the panel edges and to each other.
    • Specific geometric properties for the third and fifth apertures (substantially rectangular, with sides parallel to specific axes).

U.S. Patent No. 12,369,730 - "Retail Shelving System," Issued July 29, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like the related '114 Patent, this patent addresses the drawbacks of conventional metal shelving systems in retail environments ('730 Patent, col. 1:12-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a retail shelving system with a plastic deck panel supported by a frame. The panel's key feature is a specific combination of differently shaped and oriented apertures arranged in successive rows ('730 Patent, Abstract). Claim 1, for instance, specifies that apertures in the second row are not elongated parallel to the horizontal axis, unlike the apertures in the first and third rows, suggesting a design for specific structural or functional purposes ('730 Patent, col. 14:10-21).
  • Technical Importance: This specific configuration of apertures provides an alternative design for a lightweight, modular plastic shelf, potentially optimized for different load-bearing characteristics or compatibility with different accessories than related designs.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶195).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • A shelf comprising a frame (with front and rear support bars) and a first deck panel made from plastic.
    • A plurality of first apertures in a first row, elongated parallel to the horizontal axis.
    • A plurality of second apertures in a second row, offset from the first row, where each second aperture is not elongated parallel to the horizontal axis.
    • A plurality of third apertures in a third row, offset from the second row, where each third aperture is elongated parallel to the horizontal axis.
    • Specific positional requirements for the first and last apertures of the third row relative to the panel's edges.
    • A plurality of sixth apertures in a sixth row, each being "oblong."
    • Specific distance relationships between the first/last third apertures and the first/last sixth apertures relative to the panel edges.

U.S. Patent No. 12,390,024 - "Retail Shelving System," Issued August 19, 2025

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the modular assembly of a retail shelf. It describes a system where multiple plastic deck panels are joined together and "horizontally interlocked" by a separate front fence component that spans across and engages at least two of the panels, creating a larger, unified shelf surface from smaller parts (Compl. ¶225, ¶238).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶240).
  • Accused Features: The Bruegmann Modular Shelf is accused of infringing by allegedly comprising multiple deck panels that are interlocked by a front fence (Compl. ¶218-219, ¶225-226, ¶238-239).

U.S. Patent No. 12,396,575 - "Retail Shelving System," Issued August 26, 2025

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a specific mechanism for attaching a plastic deck panel to the shelf's support bars. The invention utilizes resilient "finger tabs" extending from the deck panel that have "catch portions" designed to engage the bottom of the support bars, affixing the panel to the frame without separate fasteners (Compl. ¶275-280). The claims detail the geometry of these tabs, including leg and catch portions that extend in specific directions.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶294).
  • Accused Features: The Bruegmann Modular Shelf is accused of using a similar finger tab and catch portion system to attach its deck panels to its support bars (Compl. ¶275-277).

U.S. Patent No. 10,952,547 - "Retail Merchandise Tray," Issued March 23, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to product dispensing or "pusher" trays used to automatically front-face merchandise. The patent describes a tray with a frame, a spring-loaded pusher, and a pair of movable divider assemblies. A key aspect is the construction of the divider assemblies, which include a divider wall and wire supports, and their ability to be positioned at varying widths to accommodate different products ('547 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶330).
  • Accused Features: The Bruegmann Hanging ProPusher product is alleged to be a retail merchandise tray with a frame, pusher, and movable divider assemblies that practice the claimed invention (Compl. ¶313-317).

U.S. Patent No. 11,350,769 - "Retail Merchandise Tray," Issued June 7, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is in the same family as the '547 Patent and covers similar technology for a retail merchandise pusher tray. The invention again focuses on a tray with a frame, a pusher, and movable divider assemblies comprising divider walls and wire supports ('769 Patent, Abstract). The claims detail the interaction between the divider walls and wire supports, including how flanges on the walls extend inward or outward in different positions.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶365).
  • Accused Features: The Bruegmann Hanging ProPusher product is accused of infringing by allegedly incorporating the claimed movable divider assembly structure (Compl. ¶355-358).

U.S. Patent No. 8,152,006 - "Merchandise Security System," Issued April 10, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses "shelf sweeping" theft. The invention is a security system comprising a rail mounted to a merchandising structure and at least one slidable "tile." The tile has a protrusion that engages a channel in the rail, allowing it to slide left and right to selectively block or unblock access to a single column of merchandise, thereby preventing a thief from clearing the entire shelf at once ('006 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶405).
  • Accused Features: The Bruegmann SlideGuard product is alleged to be a tile-mounted theft prevention product that uses a rail and sliding tile system to selectively allow access to merchandise (Compl. ¶382-383, ¶393).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies three categories of accused instrumentalities: the "Bruegmann Modular Shelf" systems, the "Hanging ProPusher" product, and the "SlideGuard" product (Compl. ¶6).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • Bruegmann Modular Shelf: This product line is alleged to be a modular retail merchandise shelving system that competes directly with Plaintiff's ModoShelf™ product (Compl. ¶54-55). The complaint alleges these shelves are constructed from plastic deck panels supported by a frame of front and rear bars (Compl. ¶57-61). The complaint includes images of the Bruegmann Modular Shelf, which it references as Exhibit H, showing a perforated deck panel system (Compl. ¶56). These systems are accused of infringing four distinct patents related to the specific geometric arrangement of apertures on the deck panels, the method of interlocking multiple panels, and the mechanism for attaching panels to the frame.
    • Hanging ProPusher: This product is described as a product dispensing retail merchandise tray that competes with Plaintiff's NEXT™ Tray (Compl. ¶310-311). Functionally, it is a "pusher" system designed to automatically advance products to the front of a display. The complaint alleges it includes a frame, a movable pusher, and first and second movable divider assemblies that allow for adjustable lane widths (Compl. ¶314-319).
    • SlideGuard: This product is identified as a merchandise security system that competes with Plaintiff's Invisi-Shield® product and is designed to prevent "store theft" (Compl. ¶380, ¶410). The system is alleged to employ a rail mounted to a merchandising structure and at least one "tile" that slides along the rail to selectively allow access to merchandise, thereby deterring large-scale "shelf sweeping" theft (Compl. ¶383, ¶393).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 12,357,114 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a frame including: a front support bar extending generally parallel to a horizontal axis; a rear support bar extending generally parallel to the horizontal axis; The accused shelf includes a frame with a front support bar and a rear support bar, each extending parallel to a horizontal axis. ¶58-60 col. 18:29-33
a first deck panel supported by the front and rear support bars, the first deck panel having an upper support surface... being formed from plastic... The accused shelf includes a plastic deck panel supported by the support bars with an upper surface for merchandise. ¶61, ¶68 col. 18:34-42
a plurality of first apertures formed in the upper support surface... defining a first row... each first aperture being elongated generally parallel to the horizontal axis; The accused shelf's deck panel has a first row of apertures that are elongated parallel to the horizontal axis. ¶72 col. 18:43-48
a plurality of second apertures... defining a second row... offset from the first row towards the rear end, each second aperture being elongated generally parallel to the first axis; The accused shelf's deck panel has a second row of apertures, offset from the first row, with each aperture elongated parallel to the front-to-back (first) axis. ¶76 col. 18:49-54
a plurality of third apertures... defining a third row... offset from the second row... each third aperture being elongated generally parallel to the horizontal axis; The accused shelf's deck panel has a third row of apertures, offset from the second row, with each aperture elongated parallel to the horizontal axis. ¶80 col. 18:55-60
a plurality of fourth apertures... defining a fourth row... offset from the third row... each fourth aperture being elongated generally parallel to the first axis; The accused shelf's deck panel has a fourth row of apertures, offset from the third row, with each aperture elongated parallel to the front-to-back (first) axis. ¶84 col. 18:61-66
a plurality of fifth apertures... defining a fifth row... offset from the fourth row... each fifth aperture being elongated generally parallel to the horizontal axis. The accused shelf's deck panel has a fifth row of apertures, offset from the fourth row, with each aperture elongated parallel to the horizontal axis. ¶88 col. 18:67-col. 19:4
the third row includes a first third aperture... positioned closer to a first edge... spaced a first distance from the first edge; The third row of apertures on the accused shelf has a first aperture positioned closest to a first edge of the panel at a specific "first distance." ¶94 col. 19:7-12
the fifth row includes a first fifth aperture... spaced the first distance from the first edge... The fifth row of apertures on the accused shelf has a first aperture that is also spaced the "first distance" from the first edge. ¶112 col. 19:42-47
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Precision: The claim recites a highly specific sequence of at least five distinct rows of apertures, each with a specified orientation ("elongated generally parallel to the horizontal axis" vs. "elongated generally parallel to the first axis"). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product meets every one of these detailed structural and geometric limitations precisely as claimed.
    • Scope Questions: The term "generally parallel" is not strictly defined and could be a point of contention. The analysis may raise the question of what degree of deviation from perfectly parallel is permitted by the term "generally." Similarly, the term "elongated" may be disputed if the accused apertures have an aspect ratio close to 1:1.

U.S. Patent No. 12,369,730 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a frame including: a front support bar... a rear support bar... The accused shelf includes a frame with front and rear support bars. ¶146-148 col. 13:21-26
a first deck panel supported by the front and rear support bars... being formed from plastic... The accused shelf includes a plastic deck panel supported by the frame. ¶149, ¶155 col. 13:27-33
a plurality of first apertures... defining a first row... each first aperture being elongated parallel to the horizontal axis; The accused shelf's deck panel has a first row of apertures that are elongated parallel to the horizontal axis. ¶159 col. 13:34-38
a plurality of second apertures... defining a second row... offset from the first row... each second aperture not being elongated parallel to the horizontal axis; The accused shelf's deck panel has a second row of apertures, offset from the first row, where the apertures are not elongated parallel to the horizontal axis. ¶163 col. 13:39-44
a plurality of third apertures... defining a third row... offset from the second row... each third aperture being elongated parallel to the horizontal axis; The accused shelf's deck panel has a third row of apertures, offset from the second row, with each aperture elongated parallel to the horizontal axis. ¶167 col. 13:45-49
the plurality of third apertures including a first third aperture... spaced a first distance from the first edge; The third row on the accused shelf has a first aperture positioned closest to a first edge and spaced a "first distance" from it. ¶172 col. 13:50-55
a plurality of sixth apertures... defining a sixth row... each sixth aperture being oblong; The accused shelf's deck panel has a sixth row of apertures where each aperture is "oblong." ¶183, ¶185 col. 14:1-3
the first sixth aperture... spaced a third distance from the first edge, the first distance being greater than the third distance... The accused shelf's sixth row has a first aperture spaced a "third distance" from the edge, and this distance is less than the "first distance" associated with the third row. ¶187-189 col. 14:4-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Functional Mismatch: A central technical question will be whether the accused product's aperture configuration matches the specific alternating pattern required by the claim (e.g., elongated, then not elongated, then elongated again). A defendant may argue its product uses a different pattern for different technical reasons.
    • Definitional Scope: The distinction between "elongated," "not elongated," and "oblong" will be critical. The case may require the court to construe these terms to determine if the accused product's apertures fall within the claimed scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "elongated generally parallel to the horizontal axis" (and its variant, "elongated generally parallel to the first axis") (from '114 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term and its variant appear repeatedly in the claims for the shelving patents and define the core structure of the deck panel. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the apertures in the accused shelf have the specific orientations required by this alternating pattern. Practitioners may focus on this term because the word "generally" introduces ambiguity that could broaden or narrow the claim's scope relative to the accused product's specific geometry.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a precise angular definition for "generally parallel," which may suggest the patentee did not intend to be limited to a strict, perfectly parallel orientation. The use of "generally" could be argued to encompass minor, unintentional manufacturing deviations or even intentional, slight angling for drainage or other purposes.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures (e.g., '114 Patent, FIG. 1, 3, 7) depict apertures that appear to be perfectly parallel to their respective axes. A defendant may argue that "generally" was only intended to cover insignificant variations from the embodiments shown in the drawings, not fundamentally different angles.

  • The Term: "not elongated parallel to the horizontal axis" (from '730 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a key differentiator in claim 1 of the '730 Patent. The infringement question for the second row of apertures hinges on this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning is defined by what it is not, creating a potential dispute over the boundary between "elongated" and "not elongated" (e.g., is an aperture with a 1.1:1 aspect ratio "elongated"?).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (of "not elongated"): A party might argue this term covers any shape that is not obviously stretched in one direction, such as a circle, a square, or a near-square rectangle. The patent does not set a specific aspect ratio threshold.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (of "not elongated"): The term "oblong" is used separately to describe the sixth row of apertures in the same claim, suggesting the patentee intended "not elongated" to mean something different from "oblong," perhaps limited to shapes like perfect circles or squares as depicted in certain embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all seven patents, asserting that Bruegmann actively encourages infringement by supplying instructions to its customers on how to install and use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶133, ¶201, ¶246, ¶300, ¶336, ¶371, ¶411). The complaint further alleges that Bruegmann knew its customers would install the products in retail stores for their intended purpose (Compl. ¶134, ¶202, ¶247, ¶301, ¶337, ¶372, ¶412).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all seven asserted patents. For the '006, '547, and '769 Patents, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge via cease and desist letters sent in 2019 and 2021, respectively (Compl. ¶413, ¶338, ¶373). For all patents, willfulness is also based on the allegation that Bruegmann, as a direct competitor previously involved in patent disputes with Siffron, actively monitors Siffron's patent filings and therefore had knowledge of each patent from at least its date of grant, but continued to sell the accused products (Compl. ¶135-136, ¶203-204).

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural precision: For the four patents asserted against the "Bruegmann Modular Shelf," can the complaint's allegations establish that the accused product meets every single one of the numerous and highly specific geometric and positional limitations recited in the claims, particularly regarding the orientation, shape, and relative spacing of multiple rows of apertures?
  • A key question of intent and culpability will arise from the willfulness allegations. Given the alleged history of competition and specific pre-suit notice for three of the seven patents, the case will likely examine whether Bruegmann's continued sales of the accused products, especially those identified in cease-and-desist letters, rose to the level of objective recklessness required for a finding of willful infringement.
  • The case also presents a question of technological overlap: Siffron has asserted four different patents against a single product line (the Modular Shelf), each patent focused on a different inventive aspect (aperture patterns, interlocking mechanism, attachment clips). A core challenge for the plaintiff will be to prove infringement of each distinct patented feature, while the defendant may argue that its single design does not incorporate all of these separate patented inventions.