DCT

3:14-cv-00502

Kimberly Clark Worldwide Inc v. First Quality Baby Products LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:14-cv-00502, W.D. Wis., 07/11/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' sales, distribution, and business activities within the Western District of Wisconsin, including Defendant FQRS being registered to do business in Wisconsin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s disposable training pant products infringe a patent related to refastenable side seams.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns disposable absorbent articles, such as children's training pants, that combine the appearance of pull-on pants with the functionality of diaper-like refastenable side closures.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided notice to Defendants of the published patent application that issued as the patent-in-suit as early as August 2010. The provided patent documentation includes an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate, issued on February 23, 2018, subsequent to the complaint's filing. The IPR proceeding, initiated in June 2014, resulted in the cancellation of all claims (1-54) of the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-12-18 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,747,379
2010-08-20 Alleged notice of published patent application provided
2014-06-10 U.S. Patent No. 8747379 Issued
2014-06-23 Inter Partes Review proceedings initiated against '379 Patent
2014-07-11 Complaint Filed
2018-02-23 IPR Certificate Issued, Cancelling All Claims of '379 Patent

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,747,379, "Absorbent Articles With Refastenable Side Seams," issued June 10, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market need for a disposable training pant that offers the "garment-like or underwear-like look" of conventional pull-on training pants but overcomes their limitations (’379 Patent, col. 1:49-62). Specifically, conventional pull-on pants can be difficult to apply without removing a child's shoes and clothing, and the interior cannot be easily checked for soiling without pulling the product down (’379 Patent, col. 1:43-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "pant-like disposable absorbent article having refastenable side seams" (’379 Patent, col. 2:66-68). The article features an absorbent chassis with elastomeric side panels on both the front and back waist regions. Fastening components are positioned on these side panels, allowing the front and back of the article to be secured together at the wearer's sides, creating a pant that can be either pulled on or applied like a traditional diaper (’379 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This design aims to provide the fit and comfort of a training pant with the convenience of a diaper (’379 Patent, col. 2:4-8).
  • Technical Importance: This design seeks to merge two distinct product categories—diapers and training pants—into a single, adaptable garment for children transitioning out of diapers (’379 Patent, col. 1:55-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A training pant comprising:
    • an absorbent chassis with front and back waist regions, a crotch region, and various structural layers (bodyside liner, outer cover, absorbent assembly).
    • first and second front side panels bonded to the front waist region.
    • first and second back side panels bonded to the back waist region, which are "longitudinally spaced" from the front side panels and include an "elastomeric material" to render them elastic.
    • a fastening system with first/second fastening components on the back side panels and first/second mating fastening components on the front side panels.
    • The engagement of these components defines "refastenable seams that cover about 80 to 100 percent of a distance between the waist opening and the leg openings."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "a training pant product" sold under the "Cuties" brand, as well as store-brand products sold by retailers including Super Valu, Walgreens, Safeway, Rite Aid, Family Dollar, and CVS (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products simply as "training pant product[s]" (Compl. ¶8). It does not provide any specific technical details about their construction, materials, fastening mechanisms, or method of operation. The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale to consumers, implying they have a commercial presence in the market (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim chart analysis. The pleading alleges that Defendants infringe "by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing a training pant product covered by one or more claims of the ’379 patent" (Compl. ¶8). However, it does not identify which claims are asserted or map any specific features of the accused products onto the limitations of those claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Questions: A central question would concern whether the accused products contain all elements of the asserted claims. For example, analysis would focus on whether the accused pants have both "elastomeric front side panels" and "elastomeric back side panels" that are "longitudinally spaced" from each other, as recited in certain claims like claim 1.
    • Functional Questions: An analysis would question whether the fastening mechanism on the accused products functions as a "refastenable seam" that covers "about 80 to 100 percent of a distance between the waist opening and the leg openings," as required by claim 1. The performance and dimensions of the accused fastener would be a point of comparison against the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint’s lack of specificity regarding asserted claims necessitates a focus on terms from independent claim 1 that are central to the invention's novelty.

  • The Term: "refastenable seams"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of claim 1 and defines the core feature of the invention. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused products' closure system falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition distinguishes the invention from both permanently-seamed training pants and traditional diapers with front-fastening tabs.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can encompass various mechanical fasteners, stating they can be "hooks, loops, bulbs, mushrooms, arrowheads, balls on stems, male and female mating components, buckles, snaps, or the like" (’379 Patent, col. 4:63-68). This list could support a construction that is not limited to a single type of fastener.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the seams as being formed by "hook-and-loop fastening elements" in its preferred embodiments (’379 Patent, col. 5:1-2). Furthermore, claim 1 requires the seams to "cover about 80 to 100 percent of a distance between the waist opening and the leg openings," a specific dimensional constraint that could support a narrower construction than any generic side closure (’379 Patent, col. 21:41-44).

  • The Term: "elastomeric material disposed between nonwoven facing layers"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation in claim 1 describes the specific construction of the back side panels. The infringement analysis would depend on whether the accused products' side panels are constructed in this particular laminated manner.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "elastomeric material" is defined broadly to include materials that can be "elongated by at least 25 percent of its relaxed length" and recover at least 10 percent (’379 Patent, col. 6:19-23). This could support a reading on various stretchy materials.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 explicitly illustrates a specific layered structure, showing "elastomeric segments 320 disposed between an outer facing layer 322 and an inner facing layer 324" (’379 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 18:15-17). An argument could be made that the claims should be limited to such a composite structure, rather than a single, monolithic elastic material.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful, based on the allegation that Plaintiff provided notice of the published patent application (which later issued as the ’379 patent) "at least as early as August 20, 2010" (Compl. ¶11-12). This constitutes an allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology.

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

  1. Viability of the Action: The most significant question is procedural and potentially dispositive: given that the provided patent documents show all claims of the '379 patent were cancelled in a 2018 Inter Partes Review, what legal basis, if any, remains for this 2014 action to proceed or for damages to be awarded for any alleged past infringement?
  2. Claim Scope and Infringement: Should the case proceed, a core technical issue would be one of structural equivalence: do the accused "Cuties" training pants incorporate the specific multi-component side panel structure claimed in the patent—namely, "longitudinally spaced" front and back side panels, with the back panels comprising an "elastomeric material disposed between nonwoven facing layers"—or is there a material difference in their construction?
  3. Willfulness and Pre-Suit Notice: A key evidentiary question related to willfulness will be whether the alleged 2010 notice of a published application is sufficient to establish the "wanton and malicious" conduct required for enhanced damages, particularly as the patent itself did not issue until four years later in 2014.