DCT
1:20-cv-00591
SUNDESA LLC v. Gleeb LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sundesa, LLC d/b/a The BlenderBottle Company (Utah)
- Defendant: Gleeb LLC (Virginia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00591, E.D. Va., 05/26/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's residence and principal place of business being within the judicial district, as well as alleged acts of infringement occurring in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s gravity bong infringes one utility patent and two design patents related to the design and function of a container lid with an integrated, pivoting handle.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to container lids, such as those used on shaker cups for nutritional supplements, which feature a secure flip-top seal and a convenient carrying handle.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff, Sundesa, asserts it is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents by visiting Plaintiff's website, where the patents are listed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 Priority Date |
| 2013-06-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478 Priority Date |
| 2014-04-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 Issued |
| 2015-04-29 | U.S. Design Patent No. D820,038 Priority Date |
| 2016-02-02 | U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478 Issued |
| 2018-06-12 | U.S. Design Patent No. D820,038 Issued |
| 2020-05-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,695,830 - “CONTAINER LID HAVING INDEPENDENTLY PIVOTING FLIP TOP AND HANDLE,” issued April 15, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a design challenge in container lids that have both an integrated handle and a flip-top opening: positioning the handle for convenient carrying without creating a risk that forces on the handle will unintentionally open the flip top. (’830 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem with a lid architecture where the handle and the flip top are mounted to pivot independently along a common axis. (’830 Patent, Abstract). As shown in the patent's figures, the handle (102) and the flip top (101) connect to the same mount structure (104) on the lid base, but their ability to rotate separately prevents force applied to the handle from being transferred to the flip top seal. (’830 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:28-35).
- Technical Importance: This design allows a container to have a secure, leak-resistant flip-top closure and an integrated, robust carrying handle, features that are often in tension with one another. (’830 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A lid base with an opening and a mount having a first and second post.
- A handle with first and second handle pivots.
- A flip top with a flip top pivot.
- A specific arrangement wherein the flip top pivot is disposed between and engages the ends of the handle.
- A "sandwiched" configuration where each end of the handle is positioned between an end of the flip top pivot and a post of the mount.
- Protrusions on the flip top pivot that extend into openings in the handle.
- The handle and flip top are each independently pivotable relative to the lid and movable about a common axis.
- The complaint’s use of "at least Claim 1" suggests it may reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Design Patent No. D748,478 - “CLOSURE FOR A CONTAINER,” issued February 2, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Not applicable for a design patent, which protects ornamentation rather than utility.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "closure for a container" as depicted in its figures. (D’478 Patent, “CLAIM”). Key visual features include the contoured shape of the flip-top, the integration of a looped carrying handle that pivots around the base of the flip-top, and the overall proportions and aesthetic of the lid assembly. (D’478 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The broken lines in the figures denote environmental subject matter that is not part of the claimed design. (D’478 Patent, “DESCRIPTION”).
- Technical Importance: Not applicable; the value is in the unique, non-functional aesthetic appearance of the closure.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the design patent. (Compl. ¶16). The claim is for "The ornamental design for a closure for a container, as shown and described." (D’478 Patent, “CLAIM”).
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D820,038, “LID FOR A CONTAINER,” issued June 12, 2018. (Compl. ¶11).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a container lid as illustrated in the patent's figures. (D’038 Patent, “CLAIM”). The design comprises a specific visual appearance for a lid assembly that includes a flip-top cap, a pivoting carry handle, and the particular contours of the spout and base.
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim is asserted. (Compl. ¶17).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the overall ornamental appearance of the Accused Product’s lid is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D’038 patent. (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "gravity bong," which is branded "Gleeb." (Compl. ¶14, p. 5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "gravity bong" marketed for smoking, with website advertising that it provides "the smoothest hits on-the-go" and references "Smoking that Gas," which the complaint identifies as slang for smoking marijuana. (Compl. ¶¶14, 18).
- The complaint further alleges that Defendant markets the product as discreet, claiming it "[i]t looks like a shaker cup that you would use to work out with," thereby connecting its appearance to the product category of the Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Product infringes the '830 Patent, but refers to an external claim chart (Exhibit 4) that was not provided. (Compl. ¶15). The infringement theory for the utility patent appears to be that the lid of the Accused Product incorporates the claimed structural and functional features, including independently pivoting handle and flip-top components.
For the design patents, the complaint alleges infringement under the "ordinary observer" test, arguing the design of the Accused Product is substantially the same as the patented designs. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the accused lid and a figure from the D'478 patent. (Compl. p. 6). This visual shows the accused lid next to the patented design, highlighting similarities in the overall shape and the arrangement of the flip top and carrying handle. (Compl. p. 6). A similar side-by-side comparison is provided for the D'038 patent. (Compl. p. 7).
’830 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lid base having an opening for dispensing contents of the container; a mount comprising a first post and a second post | The complaint alleges the Accused Product possesses a lid with a base, opening, and mount structure that meets this limitation, as part of its general allegation of infringement of Claim 1. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 2:60-62 |
| a handle comprising a first end with a first handle pivot and a second end with a second handle pivot | The complaint alleges the Accused Product possesses a handle with pivots that meets this limitation. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 3:10-12 |
| a flip top for sealing the opening, the flip top comprising an elongated body with a first end for opening the flip top and a second end including a flip top pivot | The complaint alleges the Accused Product possesses a flip top with a pivot that meets this limitation. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 3:4-6 |
| the flip top pivot is disposed between and engages the first end of the handle and the second end of the handle | The complaint alleges the Accused Product’s flip top pivot is arranged relative to the handle in a manner that meets this limitation. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 4:40-44 |
| the first end of the handle is sandwiched between a first end of the flip top pivot and the first post of the mount and the second end of the handle is sandwiched between a second end of the flip top pivot and the second post of the mount | The complaint alleges the Accused Product’s components are assembled in the specific "sandwiched" configuration required by this limitation. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 4:54-59 |
| a first protrusion on the first end of the flip top pivot extends into a first opening in the first end of the handle and a second protrusion on the second end of the flip top pivot extends into a second opening in the second end of the handle | The complaint alleges the Accused Product’s flip top pivot and handle interlock in the manner required by this limitation. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 4:60-65 |
| the handle and the flip top are each independently pivotable relative to the lid, and the handle and the flip top are each independently movable about a common axis | The complaint alleges the Accused Product’s handle and flip top are independently pivotable about a common axis, meeting the core functional requirement of the claim. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 5:1-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A threshold question may arise as to whether the term "container", described in the patent in the context of a beverage bottle, can be construed to read on a "gravity bong" marketed for an entirely different purpose.
- Technical Questions: Without the benefit of a detailed claim chart, a key point of contention will be evidentiary. The infringement case will depend on Plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate that the internal mechanics of the Accused Product's lid meet every structural limitation of Claim 1, particularly the specific "sandwiched" arrangement of the handle, flip-top pivot, and mount posts.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sandwiched"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 of the '830 patent and is critical to defining the precise structural relationship between the handle, the flip-top pivot, and the mount. The infringement analysis for the utility patent may turn on whether the accused device's assembly meets this specific spatial and layered configuration.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not provide an explicit definition for "sandwiched", which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any arrangement where the handle is located generally between the pivot and the post.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific ordering: "the first end of the handle is sandwiched between a first end of the flip top pivot and the first post of the mount." (’830 Patent, col. 4:54-57). This language, along with the exploded view in Figure 1, may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, layered A-B-C assembly of the components.
The Term: "independently pivotable"
- Context and Importance: This term from Claim 1 of the '830 patent captures the core functional innovation described in the patent—the ability to use the handle without affecting the flip top. The degree of mechanical independence required by this term will be central to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "independently pivotable" could be interpreted to mean that the components can be articulated separately, even if some minor friction or incidental contact occurs between them.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that the "handle 102 can be freely pivoted" and the "flip top 101 can be pivoted...without pivoting handle 102," suggesting a high degree of mechanical separation. (’830 Patent, col. 3:31-35). This could support a construction requiring that movement of one component imparts no or negligible force on the other.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement or allege specific facts to support it, focusing instead on direct infringement through the "manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation" of the Accused Product. (Compl. ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful, knowing, and intentional. (Compl. ¶14). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, purportedly gained by visiting Plaintiff's website where the patents-in-suit are listed. (Compl. ¶19). The complaint also asserts that Plaintiff’s designs are "iconic" and "well-known" and that the Accused Product is an "identical copy." (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of design similarity and market perception: For the two design patents, the case will turn on the "ordinary observer" test. A key question is whether the visual resemblance between the accused "Gleeb" lid and the patented designs is sufficient to deceive an observer, especially in light of the allegation that the product was intentionally designed to "look[] like a shaker cup."
- A second key question will be one of evidentiary proof: For the '830 utility patent, which involves specific internal mechanics, the case will depend on Plaintiff's ability to prove that the Accused Product's structure meets every element of the asserted claim, including the precise "sandwiched" configuration that is not visible from the exterior.
- Finally, the case may present a question of claim scope and application: A potential issue for the court could be whether the claims of patents for a beverage "container lid" can be properly construed to cover the lid of a "gravity bong" intended for an entirely different use, and what effect, if any, the product's intended use has on the infringement analysis.