IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Ill.: Partial summary judgment of infringement granted in sippy cup dispute, (Jan 26, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Summary judgment was granted in an infringement dispute over a sippy cup design because the dispute centered around agreed facts and needed only legal interpretation of those facts in light of the court’s claim construction.

Children’s products manufacturer and patent owner Munchkin, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment of direct infringement of certain claims of one asserted patent against a competing manufacturer of children’s sippy cups, the U.S. District Court in Chicago has held. The claim construction and Daubert ruling had left no dispute of material fact as to those claims (Munchkin, Inc. v. TOMY International, Inc. , January 25, 2024, Kocoras, C.).

Munchkin, Inc. (Munchkin) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 9,888,796 (the ’796 patent) and D744,281 (the ’281 patent), both of which related to non-spill drinking containers. Munchkin brought suit for infringement against TOMY International, Inc. (TOMY), a competitor in the field of children’s sippy cups. After claim construction and a Daubert ruling excluding portions of TOMY’s expert’s opinion, Munchkin moved for summary judgment that the accused TOMY products literally infringed claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 of the ’796 patent.

“Closed lower end” limitation. Each of the claims in dispute recited a “closed lower end” of a collar which had projections extending from it and passages disposed through it. TOMY’s argument for non-infringement required that the “closed lower end” limitation must mean the lowest, terminal point of the collar, and because its accused product had the component which Munchkin identified as the “closed lower end” in its middle, it could not possibly infringe. Munchkin argued that this requirement was contrary to the court’s claim construction.

After reviewing its prior claim construction order, the diagrams found in the patent and the accused products, and the portions of expert opinions not excluded, the court held that “closed lower end” in the context did not require that the identified portion of the lid be at its lowest extremity, but that it was rather an area which could start in the middle and proceed to the lower portion of the product’s lid. The court drew an analogy to the end of a novel, which could comprise sentences, pages, chapters, or scenes, and was not limited to just the final period of the final sentence.

Remaining limitations. TOMY did not dispute the infringement of several other claim limitations, so summary judgment was granted on them without discussion.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Munchkin on the literal infringement of claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 of the ’796 patent.

The case is No. 1:18-cv-06337.

Attorneys: Bryan E. Minier (Lathrop Gpm LLP) for Munchkin, Inc. Natalia S. Kruse (Husch Blackwell LLP) for Tomy International, Inc.

Companies: Munchkin, Inc.; Tomy International, Inc.

Cases: Patent IllinoisNews