DCT
3:22-cv-00704
Handi Craft Co v. Graco Children's Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Handi-Craft Company (Missouri)
- Defendant: Graco Children’s Products, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren; Armstrong Teasdale LLP
- Case Identification: Handi-Craft Company v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., 3:22-cv-00704, W.D. Wis., 12/12/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Defendant is registered to do business in the state, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and maintains a physical, regular, and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “NUK Smooth Flow Pro” anti-colic baby bottle infringes a patent related to a dual-configuration bottle assembly that can be used with or without a vent system.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses baby bottles with internal venting systems designed to reduce colic, providing a way to use the bottle without the vent system as a child ages, while avoiding leaks that could occur in prior art designs when so configured.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patent and its alleged infringement via a letter dated October 13, 2022, a fact which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-01-10 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,028,890 |
| 2018-07-24 | U.S. Patent No. 10,028,890 Issued |
| 2022-10-13 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant alleging infringement |
| 2022-12-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,028,890 - "Dual Configuration Bottle Assembly"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,028,890 (“Dual Configuration Bottle Assembly”), issued July 24, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes an issue with prior art vented baby bottles: when parents attempt to use the bottle without the internal vent assembly (e.g., for travel or for an older child), the bottle’s collar and nipple do not form an adequate seal against the bottle’s rim, which can lead to leakage (’890 Patent, col. 1:50-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a bottle assembly designed to function correctly in two distinct configurations. In a “first configuration,” an internal vent assembly is used, and the collar assembly seals against the vent. In a “second configuration,” the vent assembly is removed, and the same collar assembly is able to travel further down the bottle’s neck to form a direct, leak-proof seal against the container’s rim (’890 Patent, col. 5:3-9, 44-51). The geometry of the collar and bottle neck is specifically adapted to accommodate both modes of use (’890 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This design provides the convenience of a single bottle that can adapt from a vented system for infants to a simpler, non-vented system for older children, without compromising the seal and risking leaks in the non-vented mode (’890 Patent, col. 1:59-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (’890 Patent, col. 10:9-20; Compl. ¶15).
- Essential elements of independent claim 10 include:
- A container with a neck and a rim.
- A vent assembly positionable on the rim.
- A collar assembly for releasable engagement with the neck.
- The components are configured to allow selective use in a first configuration (with the vent) and a second configuration (without the vent).
- In the first configuration, the collar assembly seals against the vent assembly, urging it against the container rim.
- In the second configuration, the collar assembly seals directly against the container rim.
- In the second configuration, the assembly is configured for venting to the atmosphere (separate from the nipple opening).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "NUK Smooth Flow Pro" anti-colic baby bottle (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a bottle assembly that includes a container, a collar assembly (with nipple), and a separate vent assembly (Compl. ¶20, 22, 24). The product is marketed with an "Advanced venting system" that "reduces air bubbles for colic-free feeding," as shown in a marketing image from the complaint (Compl. p. 5). Crucially, the complaint alleges that the Accused Product is designed to be used in two configurations: a first with the vent assembly installed, and a second where the vent assembly is omitted (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides photographic evidence purporting to show these two distinct configurations (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’890 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a container having an open end, a closed end, a base portion, and a neck, the neck having a rim defining the open end of the container | The Accused Product includes a bottle container with these features. A photograph shows a container with a base portion, neck, and rim at the open end. | ¶20 | col. 3:5-11 |
| a vent assembly positionable on the rim of the container to enable venting of the container during use | The Accused Product includes a venting system with a vent assembly that is inserted into the container and positionable on the rim. A diagram shows a "Vent assembly" situated at the container's rim. | ¶22 | col. 2:19-21 |
| a collar assembly generally defining a closure for the container, the collar assembly configured for releasable engagement with the neck of the container over the open end thereof | The Accused Product includes a collar assembly with a bottle nipple and a collar that is releasably engageable with the neck of the container. | ¶24 | col. 2:21-24 |
| wherein the collar assembly and the container are configured to enable selective configuration of the bottle assembly between a first configuration and a second configuration | The Accused Product has two configurations: one with the vent assembly inserted and a second without the vent assembly. Photographs depict the bottle assembled in both the "First configuration" and "Second configuration." | ¶26 | col. 2:24-26 |
| wherein in the first configuration, the collar assembly is configured to sealingly engage the vent assembly and urge the vent assembly into sealing engagement with the rim of the container | In the first configuration, the collar assembly is sealingly engaged with the inserted vent assembly and urges it to sealingly engage with the container’s rim. | ¶28 | col. 5:26-30 |
| and wherein in the second configuration, in which the vent assembly is omitted from the bottle assembly, the collar assembly is configured to sealingly engage the rim of the container, | In the second configuration, the vent assembly is not inserted, and the collar assembly is sealingly engaged with the rim of the container. | ¶30 | col. 5:48-51 |
| at least one of the collar assembly and the container being configured for venting the container to atmosphere in the second configuration with the vent assembly omitted from the container | In the second configuration, the collar assembly is configured to vent the container to the atmosphere "through a space between the collar assembly and the neck of the container and a channel extending through the portion of the collar assembly abutting the rim." An annotated image points to a "channel for venting." | ¶30 | col. 10:17-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The final limitation of claim 10 requires the assembly, in its un-vented configuration, to be "configured for venting the container to atmosphere." The complaint alleges this is met by a "space" and "channel" where the collar abuts the rim (Compl. ¶30). This raises the question of whether such a feature, which could be an incidental result of manufacturing tolerances, meets the "configured for" requirement, or if the claim requires a more deliberate and engineered venting structure.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the alleged "channel for venting" in the Accused Product (Compl. p. 8) actually functions to vent the container to the atmosphere during use in the second configuration, as required by the claim. The defense may argue that this feature does not provide functionally significant venting.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sealingly engage"
- Context and Importance: This term appears twice in the claim, governing the interaction of parts in both the first and second configurations. Its construction is critical because the core of the invention is preventing leaks. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product achieves a "seal" in both configurations that is coextensive with the patent's definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background section describes the problem to be solved as "leakage of liquid" (´890 Patent, col. 1:58-59), suggesting "sealingly engage" could be functionally defined as any engagement sufficient to prevent such leakage under normal use.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description describes the nipple being "urged against" the vent assembly or container rim, implying a direct, compressive physical seal between the surfaces (´890 Patent, col. 5:26-33, 49-51).
The Term: "configured for venting the container to atmosphere" (in the second configuration)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a required function in the un-vented mode and is a central point of the infringement allegation for that mode. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory relies on a "space" and "channel" (Compl. ¶30), and the defense will likely question if this meets the affirmative "configured for" requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, not specifying the mechanism of venting. This could support an argument that any structure, including a small channel, that has the effect of allowing air to enter meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses an alternative embodiment using a nipple with specific "vent features 541" to achieve this venting (´890 Patent, FIGS. 6-7, col. 7:31-50). A party could argue that "configured for" implies a deliberately designed structure, like the disclosed vent features, rather than an incidental space between parts.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful and deliberate since at least October 13, 2022, the date on which Defendant allegedly received a letter from Handi-Craft notifying it of the ’890 patent (Compl. ¶12, 16).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "configured for venting" in the context of the bottle's un-vented mode? Can this requirement be met by an alleged "space" and "channel" between the collar and container rim, or does it demand a more affirmative and engineered venting structure as arguably suggested by other embodiments in the patent?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: What evidence will be presented to establish that the Accused Product's collar assembly and rim, when assembled without the vent system, both "sealingly engage" to prevent leaks and simultaneously provide a functional "channel for venting" as required by the two distinct clauses of claim 10?