Creative Plastic Concepts LLC v. Intl Precision Components Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Creative Plastic Concepts, LLC (Ohio)
  • Defendant: International Precision Components Corporation (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Thompson Coburn LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-09889, N.D. Ill., 08/17/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the defendant is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's plastic storage totes are manufactured using a patented injection-molding method and that its tote lids and latches infringe on Plaintiff's design patents.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns high-volume manufacturing of large plastic goods, specifically injection molding processes for consumer storage totes, where efficiency and product durability are key market differentiators.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement of the two asserted design patents via a letter dated November 27, 2023. A subsequent letter dated June 18, 2026, allegedly provided notice as to all three asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-14	'239 and '385 Patents Priority Date
2015-12-01	'239 Patent Issue Date
2016-10-11	'385 Patent Issue Date
2019-10-30	'666 Patent Priority Date
2023-11-27	Pre-suit notice letter sent regarding '239 and '385 patents
2023-12-13	IPCC responds to pre-suit notice
2024-03-26	'666 Patent Issue Date
2026-06-18	Pre-suit notice letter sent regarding all asserted patents
2026-08-17	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,938,666 - "SIDE SHOT SYSTEM, METHOD, AND TOTE MANUFACTURED THEREFROM"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional injection molding for plastic totes, where molten plastic is injected through gates on the bottom of the mold (ʼ666 Patent, col. 1:52-54). This method is said to require high clamp tonnage and injection pressure, create high-stress points on the tote's bottom wall, and necessitate elevated melt temperatures that can degrade the plastic's physical properties, reducing quality and strength (ʼ666 Patent, col. 1:57-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "side shot" method where molten material is injected through a plurality of injectors located on the side surfaces of the mold, rather than the bottom (ʼ666 Patent, abstract; '666 Patent, col. 2:46-51). This approach allegedly allows for a more "balanced fill" of the mold cavity, requiring less pressure and lower temperatures (ʼ666 Patent, col. 2:61-65). The resulting product is characterized by sprue marks on its sidewalls instead of the bottom (ʼ666 Patent, col. 2:19-25).
• Technical Importance: This method purports to improve manufacturing efficiency by reducing clamp force and fill times, while also yielding a more durable and higher-quality final product with less material stress and warping (ʼ666 Patent, col. 2:1-4; ʼ666 Patent, col. 8:15-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses its infringement allegations on independent claim 1.
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Providing a mold with four side surfaces and a plurality of injectors, including "a first pair of injectors disposed through the first side surface and a second pair of injectors disposed through the second side surface."
  • Providing a molten material.
  • Positioning the injectors along the side surfaces at a desired height and a desired lateral position to achieve a "balanced fill of the cavity."
  • Injecting the molten material through the injectors on the side surfaces of the mold "and not through the bottom wall."
  • Removing the manufactured storage container from the mold.

U.S. Patent No. D744,239 - "TOTE LID"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a storage tote lid.
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific visual design for a tote lid, characterized by its grid-like top surface, handle structures, and overall configuration, as depicted in its figures (ʼ239 Patent, FIGS. 1-5).
• Technical Importance: As a design patent, its value lies in the aesthetic appearance of the article, which can be a significant factor in consumer purchasing decisions in the storage products market.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The '239 Patent claims "The ornamental design for a tote lid, as shown and described" (ʼ239 Patent, claim).

U.S. Patent No. D768,385 - "TOTE HANDLE"

Technology Synopsis

This design patent protects the ornamental, non-functional visual appearance of a handle integrated into a storage tote lid. The design is defined by the specific shapes and contours shown in the patent's drawings.

Asserted Claims

The single claim for "The ornamental design for a tote handle, as shown and described" (ʼ385 Patent, claim).

Accused Features

The handle portions of the "Performax 12-Gallon Black Industrial Storage Tote with Latching Lid" are accused of infringing the patented design (Compl. ¶37; Compl. ¶80).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies two sets of accused products:
  1. The "Performax 27-Gallon Black Industrial Storage Tote with Snap-On Lid," accused of being manufactured by the method claimed in the '666 Patent (Compl. ¶24).
  2. The "Performax 12-Gallon Black Industrial Storage Tote with Latching Lid," whose lid and latch components are accused of infringing the '239 and '385 design patents, respectively (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as industrial plastic storage totes sold in consumer retail channels, such as Menards stores and its website (Compl. ¶24; Compl. ¶32).
• The infringement allegations for the '666 Patent are not based on the tote's function but on the physical evidence of its manufacturing process. The complaint alleges that the presence of "sprue marks" on the side walls of the totes and the absence of such marks on the bottom wall are physical indications that the totes were made using a side-injection method (Compl. ¶25; Compl. ¶27). A photograph provided in the complaint shows two distinct sprue marks on a long side of an accused tote (Compl. ¶25, p. 10).
• For the design patents, the relevant features are the ornamental appearances of the accused lid and latch, which the complaint alleges are substantially similar to the patented designs (Compl. ¶72; Compl. ¶81).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'666 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
providing a mold having... a plurality of side surfaces... the mold includes two sections, wherein the mold is in a closed position, a cavity is formed between the two sections...	Upon information and belief, the Accused Totes are manufactured in a mold with these features, as can be inferred from inspection of the final product.	¶53	col. 9:1-14
the mold further includes a plurality of injectors... including a first pair of injectors disposed through the first side surface and a second pair of injectors disposed through the second side surface	The Accused Totes are allegedly manufactured in a mold with this injector configuration, as evidenced by sprue marks on their side surfaces.	¶55	col. 6:46-52
providing a molten material	The Accused Totes are manufactured using a molten plastic resin, as stated on Defendant's website.	¶57	col. 9:15-16
positioning the plurality of injectors along the plurality of side surfaces at a desired height and a desired lateral position to achieve a balanced fill of the cavity	This step is allegedly performed as part of Defendant's manufacturing process to achieve a balanced fill, as evidenced by the location of the sprue marks.	¶59	col. 9:17-22
injecting the molten material through the plurality of injectors disposed through the plurality of side surfaces of the mold into the cavity and not through the bottom wall	This is allegedly evidenced by the presence of sprue marks on the sides and the absence of sprue marks on the bottom of the Accused Totes.	¶59	col. 9:23-29
removing the manufactured storage container from the mold	This step is allegedly performed, as evidenced by "suction marks" on the bottom of the Accused Totes.	¶61	col. 9:30-32

'239 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the '239 design patent based on the "ordinary observer" test, arguing that the Accused Lid is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶72). To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison, juxtaposing figures from the '239 Patent with photographs of the Accused Lid (Compl. ¶36). This visual chart compares the patented design and the accused product from perspective, top, bottom, and side views to highlight their alleged resemblance (Compl. ¶36, pp. 13-16).

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The infringement theory for the '666 Patent relies on inferring a manufacturing method from the physical characteristics of the finished product. A central question will be whether the presence and location of sprue marks and suction marks are sufficient to prove that each step of the claimed method was performed.
• Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over the claim language "a first pair of injectors disposed through the first side surface and a second pair of injectors disposed through the second side surface." The court may need to determine if this requires a total of four injectors distributed across two distinct sides, and whether those sides must be opposing to satisfy the "balanced fill" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a first pair of injectors... and a second pair of injectors..." (from claim 1 of the '666 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The number and arrangement of injectors are central to defining the patented method. The defendant's actual manufacturing setup will be compared directly to this language, making its construction critical for determining infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "pair" simply means two, and the "first" and "second" side surfaces can be any two of the four available sides, not necessarily opposing ones.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where "each opening may have a corresponding opening formed in an opposite sidewall" ('666 Patent, col. 3:12-14). A party could use this language to argue that the claim requires injectors to be placed on opposite sides of the mold to achieve the claimed "balanced fill."

• The Term: "balanced fill" (from claim 1 of the '666 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a functional limitation that qualifies the "positioning" step. Infringement requires not just a specific injector placement, but a placement that achieves this result.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art bottom-gating methods ('666 Patent, FIG. 8). Plaintiff may argue that any side-injection configuration that fills the mold more evenly than bottom-gating meets the "balanced fill" requirement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that a balanced fill may be achieved where the top and bottom of the cavity are injected "substantially simultaneously" ('666 Patent, col. 7:10-12). A defendant might argue this sets a specific, measurable standard for what constitutes a "balanced fill," rather than a mere improvement over the prior art.

VI. Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶31, 39, 40).
• For the '239 and '385 design patents, the allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notice letter sent on November 27, 2023, and Defendant's alleged continuation of infringing activities thereafter (Compl. ¶¶41-42; Compl. ¶46).
• For the '666 utility patent, the willfulness allegation is based on alleged knowledge from a second notice letter sent on June 18, 2026 (Compl. ¶¶43-44). The complaint asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents "prior to the filing of this Complaint or engaged in willful blindness" (Compl. ¶45).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant's manufacturing method meets every limitation of the asserted claim in the '666 Patent, based primarily on inferences drawn from the physical characteristics of the final products?
• The case may also turn on claim construction: How will the court construe the term "a first pair of injectors... and a second pair of injectors"? The interpretation of this phrase will define the specific injector configuration required for infringement and will be a focal point of the dispute.
• For the design patents, the central question for the fact-finder will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test: Is the overall visual appearance of the accused lid and handle so similar to the patented designs that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into buying one product believing it to be the other?