Beincart LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Beincart LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware/Washington)
  • Joinder: Pizza Pack LLC (Oregon)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01116, W.D. Wash., 08/23/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an online seller, seeks a declaratory judgment that its product does not infringe patents owned by Joinder Pizza Pack LLC, and that those patents are invalid, following the Joinder's patent infringement notice which led to the deactivation of Plaintiff's product listing on Defendant Amazon.com's platform.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on expandable food storage containers specifically designed for storing and reheating individual, triangular slices of leftover pizza.
• Key Procedural History: This is a declaratory judgment action initiated by the accused infringer, Beincart LLC, appearing pro se. The action follows the deactivation of its product listing on Amazon after Pizza Pack LLC submitted a patent infringement notice through Amazon's internal reporting system. The complaint's primary legal arguments focus on the alleged invalidity of the patents-in-suit due to lack of novelty and obviousness over prior art.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,661,260, “Expandable Pizza Container,” issued May 30, 2023 (’260 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiency of storing triangular pizza slices in conventional square or round refrigerator containers, which consumes unnecessary space. It also notes the inconvenience of needing a separate plate for microwaving and the subsequent washing of both the container and the plate (’260 Patent, col. 1:30-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a dedicated storage container for pizza slices that is both triangular and vertically expandable via an "accordion-style container body." The solution includes a set of removable, microwave-safe triangular trays that serve to separate stacked slices and can also be used as individual serving plates for reheating, thereby solving both the storage and reheating problems (’260 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:52-60). The expandable body allows the container's height to be adjusted to match the number of slices being stored (’260 Patent, col. 3:45-56).
• Technical Importance: The invention purports to provide a specialized, all-in-one solution for the common problem of storing and reheating leftover pizza, aiming to improve convenience and storage efficiency (’260 Patent, col. 1:44-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against it. The independent claims of the ’260 Patent are analyzed below as representative.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • An expandable pizza storage container comprising:
  • A flexible, generally triangular container body with "pleat folded" sides forming an upper and lower pleat that are "concentrically nested";
  • A rigid seal ring bonded to the top edge of the body;
  • A rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove;
  • A compressible, removable gasket retained within the groove;
  • A triangular tray with a top and bottom face, a peripheral lip, and a finger tab.
• Independent Claim 4:
  • Includes the elements of a flexible container body, rigid seal ring, lid, and gasket.
  • Requires a triangular tray whose top face has "a series of concave dimples."
• Independent Claim 5:
  • Includes the elements of a flexible container body, rigid seal ring, lid, and gasket.
  • Requires "a triangular tray with a top face and a bottom face."

U.S. Patent No. 11,738,935, “Expandable Pizza Container,” issued August 29, 2023 (’935 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’935 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’260 Patent: the inefficient storage and inconvenient reheating of leftover pizza slices (’935 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that of the ’260 Patent, describing an expandable, triangular container with an accordion-style body, a sealing lid, and microwave-safe trays for separating and serving slices (’935 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:44-51).
• Technical Importance: As with the ’260 Patent, the invention aims to provide a purpose-built product that improves upon general-purpose food storage solutions for the specific task of handling leftover pizza (’935 Patent, col. 1:35-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against it. Independent claim 1 is analyzed as representative.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • An expandable pizza storage container comprising:
  • A flexible, generally triangular container body with "pleat folded" sides forming an upper and lower pleat that are "concentrically nested";
  • A rigid seal ring bonded to the top edge of the body;
  • A rigid, generally triangular, planar lid with a gasket groove;
  • A compressible, removable gasket retained within the groove;
  • A "microwave safe triangular tray" with a peripheral lip and a finger tab.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Plaintiff BEINCART LLC’s "Pizza Storage Container," sold on Amazon under ASIN B0BJVNRTFH (Compl. ¶7.4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a "Pizza Storage Container" but does not provide a technical description of its features, materials, or method of operation (Compl. ¶7.4). The complaint’s context is the product’s sale on the Amazon.com e-commerce platform, from which it was deactivated following an infringement notice from Pizza Pack LLC (Compl. ¶¶ 3.1, 5.1.1).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a petition for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity; therefore, it does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a corresponding claim chart. Instead, the complaint's central arguments are directed at the alleged invalidity of the ’260 and ’935 patents.

Plaintiff’s invalidity contentions are summarized as follows:

• Lack of Novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102): The complaint alleges that the core concepts claimed in the patents are not new (Compl. ¶6.2.1). It contends that features such as "expandable compartments," "microwaveable trays" with crisping features, and "locking mechanisms and gaskets" are already disclosed in existing prior art, citing U.S. Patent Nos. 11,279,519 B2 and 6,629,607 B1 as examples (Compl. ¶6.2.1).
• Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103): The complaint argues that the combination of these known features into a single product would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (Compl. ¶6.2.2). It asserts that integrating known expandable compartments, microwaveable trays, and locking lids into a triangular container is a "predictable use of prior art elements" and does not constitute an inventive step (Compl. ¶6.2.2).

Identified Points of Contention

• Validity Question: The central dispute is one of patentability: do the specific combinations of features claimed in the '260 and '935 patents—such as an expandable "pleat folded" body, a particular lid and gasket structure, and separable microwaveable trays—represent a non-obvious invention over the prior art in the field of food storage containers?
• Evidentiary Question: A key question for the court will be whether the prior art references cited in the complaint, or others that may be identified, teach or suggest all the limitations of the asserted claims as arranged in the patented invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not engage in claim construction analysis. However, based on the technology and the patent claims, the following term may be central to resolving the dispute.

• The Term: "pleat folded so as to form an upper pleat and a lower pleat that are concentrically nested" (e.g., ’260 Patent, Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core structural feature that enables the container's expandability and collapsibility. The definition of this term is critical to determining the scope of the claims for both validity and any potential infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the specific "accordion-style" mechanism central to the invention's purported novelty.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the structure in general terms as being "pleat folded in the style of an accordion," which might support a construction covering a variety of accordion-like or collapsible structures (’260 Patent, col. 3:47-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific structure of "an upper pleat and a lower pleat." This language, in conjunction with figures that depict a distinct two-pleat design (e.g., '260 Patent, Figs. 2, 9, 10 showing pleats 10 and 12), could support a narrower construction limited to the precise configuration shown and described.

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

1. A central question will be one of patent validity: does the combination of an expandable accordion-style body, a sealing lid, and stackable microwaveable trays, as specifically claimed in the ’260 and ’935 patents, constitute a non-obvious invention, or is it a predictable combination of features known in the prior art of food storage containers, as the complaint alleges?
2. A threshold procedural question is one of justiciability: has the patent holder's infringement notice filed through Amazon's proprietary reporting platform created a sufficient "actual controversy" between BEINCART LLC and Pizza Pack LLC to support the court's jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action?
3. A key evidentiary issue will be establishing the facts of the technology: given the complaint does not provide a technical description of the accused product, the case will require development of a factual record detailing the specific structure and functionality of the Plaintiff's "Pizza Storage Container" to enable a comparison against the patent claims.