DCT
1:25-cv-01186
Happy Hour Thinking LLC v. Evriholder Products LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Happy Hour Thinking, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: Evriholder Products, LLC (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: JDM Patent Law PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01186, E.D. Va., 07/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant offers for sale and sells the accused product in Walmart stores within the District and places the product into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that consumers in the District will purchase and use it.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Cord Keeper" product infringes a patent related to an electrical cord storage device that is affixed to an appliance.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns simple, attachable devices for managing and storing the electrical cords of common household appliances, a market segment for home organization products.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the primary prior art reference considered during the patent’s prosecution, U.S. Patent No. 8,091,820 to Thorn, was overcome by the patentee. The complaint also builds an extensive record of secondary considerations of non-obviousness, including alleged industry praise (e.g., a Good Housekeeping award), commercial success, failure of others, and widespread copying by third parties, which it argues demonstrate the patent’s validity and groundbreaking nature.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-05-07 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,820,626 |
| 2020-03-XX | Plaintiff HHT launches its "Cord Wrapper" product |
| 2020-11-12 | Underlying patent application published ('185 Publication) |
| 2021-03-23 | Related 'D776 design patent issued |
| 2021-XX-XX | Plaintiff's product receives "Kitchen Gear of the Year" award |
| 2021-10-XX | Plaintiff's product begins selling on Amazon |
| 2022-02-XX | Plaintiff alleges mass online copying of its product began |
| 2022-06-19 | Plaintiff's product first featured on QVC |
| 2023-03-XX | Defendant's accused "Cord Keeper" product found in Walmart |
| 2023-07-XX | Plaintiff filed design patent infringement claim on Walmart's portal |
| 2023-09-01 | USPTO issued "Notice of Allowability" for the asserted patent's application |
| 2023-11-01 | USPTO issued "Issue Notification" for the asserted patent's application |
| 2023-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. 11,820,626 issues |
| 2023-12-XX | Plaintiff's product featured on QVC for a second time |
| 2025-07-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,820,626 - "Systems and Methods for Electrical Cord Storage"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,820,626, “Systems and Methods for Electrical Cord Storage,” issued November 21, 2023. (’626 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of managing loose, dangling electrical cords for small appliances, noting that existing solutions are often inconvenient, insufficient, or require users to unwrap the entire cord before use (Compl. ¶15; ’626 Patent, col. 1:31-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a device that adheres directly to an appliance to provide on-board cord storage. It consists of a base for attachment, a central post around which the cord is wound, and a dome that extends from the post to hold the wound cord in place (’626 Patent, col. 2:1-15). The complaint emphasizes that a key innovation is the use of a "single permanent configuration" that provides both cord-winding and cord-storage functions without needing modification, in contrast to prior art devices alleged to require conversion between two distinct configurations (Compl. ¶24, ¶44).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this simplified, single-configuration approach was a "groundbreaking" departure from the "conventional wisdom" of prior art, which favored more complex, enclosed, and multi-part mechanisms (Compl. ¶45, ¶59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 and 16, as well as dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 (Compl. ¶203-204).
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A base with a first surface for affixing to an appliance and an opposite second surface.
- A post affixed to the base.
- A dome affixed to the post, extending radially and curving toward an imaginary plane at the base.
- The dome has a "scalloped perimeter" with a "plurality of grooves" configured to "catch the electrical cord" to prevent unwinding and maintain its position.
- Independent Claim 16 is similar to claim 1 but adds the limitations that the dome's diameter is greater than the base's diameter and that the scalloped perimeter is spaced from the imaginary plane to form a 360-degree gap for cord entry.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s “Cord Keeper” product (Compl. ¶136).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Cord Keeper is a "direct copycat product" of the Plaintiff's "Cord Wrapper" and that it functions identically as an adhesive-mounted cord storage device for small appliances (Compl. ¶101, ¶137). The complaint includes side-by-side visual comparisons to support the allegation of near-identical appearance and structure, including a base, post, and dome with scalloped edges (Compl. ¶138, FIG. 11A). FIG. 11A presents a side-by-side photographic comparison of the top, side, and bottom views of the Plaintiff's "Cord Wrapper" and the Defendant's "Cord Keeper" (Compl. p. 47).
- The complaint alleges the Cord Keeper is sold through "at least one major retail chain (namely, Walmart) and multiple online e-commerce platforms" (Compl. ¶136). The plaintiff frames the defendant's product as a direct competitor, allegedly sold at a "predatory" low price to undercut the plaintiff's premium-priced product (Compl. ¶197-198).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint does not include a claim chart as an exhibit but alleges that the Cord Keeper meets all limitations of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶141). The narrative allegations can be mapped to the exemplary independent claim as follows:
’626 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electrical cord storage device adapted to be affixed to an electrical appliance, comprising: a base having a first surface adapted to be affixed to a surface of an electrical appliance and a second surface opposed to the first surface; | The accused Cord Keeper is an apparatus with a base that is instructed to be affixed to an appliance using an adhesive. | ¶141, FIG. 11C | col. 11:31-36 |
| a post having a first end affixed to the base and extending from the second surface of the base to a second end to form a cord-wrapping structure adapted to receive an electrical cord of the electrical appliance wound thereon; | The accused Cord Keeper is alleged to have a base and post combination. A side-by-side visual comparison shows this structure. | ¶138, FIG. 11A | col. 11:37-41 |
| a dome affixed to the second end of the post, extending radially away from the post, and curving toward an imaginary plane substantially normal to the post located at the first end of the post, | The accused Cord Keeper is alleged to have a respective dome and a base/post combination, which the complaint claims is a near-identical structure to the patented device. | ¶138, FIG. 11A | col. 11:42-45 |
| wherein the dome has a scalloped perimeter spaced around the post, the scalloped perimeter having a plurality of grooves that are configured to catch the electrical cord to prevent unintended unwinding of the electrical cord from around the post and to maintain the electrical cord in a desired position. | The accused Cord Keeper is alleged to be "almost identical in appearance, structure," which includes the dome with a scalloped perimeter for securing the cord. | ¶137, ¶140, FIG. 11A | col. 11:45-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s extensive "teaching away" argument against prior art (Compl. ¶15-51) suggests Plaintiff will argue for a claim construction that emphasizes the simplicity and "single permanent configuration" of the invention. A central question will be whether this prosecution history and specification-based narrative can be used to define claim terms in a way that captures the accused product while distinguishing it from prior art that allegedly required "conversions through modifications" (Compl. ¶22, ¶43).
- Technical Questions: Infringement may turn on the specific interpretation of "scalloped perimeter having a plurality of grooves that are configured to catch the electrical cord." The court will have to determine if the specific shape and function of the accused Cord Keeper's perimeter meets this limitation as it is defined by the patent's specification and drawings.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "scalloped perimeter"
- Context and Importance: This term describes the key feature of the dome that allegedly secures the wound cord. Its construction is critical because the complaint alleges the accused product has a nearly identical appearance, including this feature (Compl. ¶137-138). Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the visual similarity translates to a legal one under the patent's specific definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose broadly as being "adapted to reduce unintended unwinding of the electrical cord from around the post" (’626 Patent, col. 2:41-44). This functional language could support an interpretation covering any perimeter shape that achieves this result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 further defines it as having a "plurality of grooves that are configured to catch the electrical cord" (’626 Patent, col. 11:47-49). The specific figures (e.g., FIG. 13, 14, 22) show a distinct, wave-like edge. A defendant may argue these specific embodiments limit the term to a shape that is not just functionally but also structurally very similar to the drawings.
The Term: "a base having a first surface adapted to be affixed to a surface of an electrical appliance"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines how the device interacts with the appliance. The complaint's narrative argues the invention creates a "permanent extension of an electrical appliance" (Compl. ¶55), distinguishing it from temporary solutions. The construction of "adapted to be affixed" will be important for both infringement and validity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses a wide range of affixation methods, including reversible ones like hook-and-loop fasteners and suction cups, as well as permanent ones like epoxy and adhesives (’626 Patent, col. 8:36-54). This suggests the term is not limited to a permanent bond.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also teaches that the base can be "formed of a flexible and/or heat-tolerant material, whereby the base may be flexed to better adapt to a shape of the surface of the electrical appliance" (’626 Patent, col. 5:35-40). This could support a narrower construction requiring the base to have properties beyond simple attachment, such as conformance to the appliance's shape.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s packaging for the Cord Keeper provides "instructions and enticing imagery" that instruct and encourage customers to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶208-209). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the Cord Keeper is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is known by Defendant to be especially adapted for an infringing use (Compl. ¶212).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint makes extensive allegations of willful infringement. It claims Defendant is a sophisticated "patent guru" and "impulse-buy products guru" (Compl. ¶119, ¶121) that knew of Plaintiff's product and its commercial success on Amazon since at least January 2022 (Compl. ¶151). The complaint alleges Defendant knew of Plaintiff's IP rights through a publicly available design patent and by monitoring the prosecution of the application that became the ’626 Patent, including a "Notice of Allowability" issued before the patent granted (Compl. ¶157, ¶180). The complaint further supports this allegation by referencing Defendant’s obligation to Walmart to not infringe third-party IP rights (Compl. ¶132, FIG. 10).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key question will be one of evidentiary proof for willfulness: The complaint presents a detailed narrative alleging Defendant is a sophisticated actor who closely monitored Plaintiff's intellectual property and commercial success before launching a copycat product. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can substantiate these factual allegations regarding Defendant’s knowledge and intent, which are central to the claim for willful infringement and enhanced damages.
- A second core issue will be one of validity in light of prior art: Plaintiff argues at length that prior art devices taught away from its simple, single-configuration invention by requiring complex, multi-part mechanisms that convert between storage and winding modes. The viability of this "teaching away" argument will be critical in defending the patent’s non-obviousness against prior art that also addresses appliance cord storage.
- Finally, the dispute will involve a question of claim construction and scope: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused product's structure, particularly its "scalloped perimeter," falls within the scope of the patent's claims. The outcome will depend on whether the court adopts a broader, functional interpretation of the claim terms or a narrower one tied more closely to the specific embodiments shown in the patent's drawings.