Jetteo LLC v. Walmart Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jetteo, LLC (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Walmart LLC. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: AXENFELD LAW GROUP, LLC
• Case Identification: 5:26-cv-03666, E.D. Pa., 05/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant's operation of numerous regular and established physical retail stores within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as well as offering for sale and selling the Accused Product within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "CRUSTLESS SANDWICH MAKER" infringes a utility patent for a sandwich making apparatus and a design patent for the ornamental appearance of circular sandwich cutters.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to consumer kitchen gadgets designed to cut the crusts from bread and simultaneously crimp the edges to create a sealed, crustless sandwich.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement on at least three separate occasions prior to filing suit, using Defendant's own intellectual property claims portal. Despite Defendant's acknowledgements and statements that the product listing would be unpublished, Plaintiff alleges that sales continued, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-05-20	'D809 Patent Priority Date
August 2019	Jetteo's SAVOYCHEF product launch
2019-11-12	'647 Patent Priority Date
2021-02-09	'D809 Patent Issue Date
2022-11-08	'647 Patent Issue Date
March 2024	Jetteo begins marking product packaging with '647 Patent number
2026-04-01	Jetteo submits first infringement notice to Walmart
2026-04-06	Walmart states it has "unpublished" the accused listing
2026-04-08	Jetteo submits second infringement notice to Walmart
2026-04-15	Jetteo submits third infringement notice; Walmart again states it has "unpublished" the listing
2026-04-21	Walmart closes third claim as a "duplicate"
2026-05-28	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,490,647 - Sandwich Maker for Making Crustless Sealed Sandwich

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section states that many sandwich makers available on the market "do not form a good seal, and/or form cracks on the surface of the bread upon sealing," which leads to filling spillage and an "aesthetically imperfect looking sandwich" '647 Patent, col. 1:20-25
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part apparatus, typically comprising a "primary cutting die" to remove crusts and a separate "sealing press" to crimp the bread edges '647 Patent, col. 2:30-31 The key feature of the "sealing press" is a specific "oblique inner surface" that "compresses the upper piece of the sandwich compactly, without creating any cracks or spillage of the filling" and imparts a "slight dome shape" '647 Patent, abstract '647 Patent, col. 2:20-27 The components are also designed to be nested for compact storage '647 Patent, col. 3:40-44
• Technical Importance: This design purports to provide a more reliable and aesthetically pleasing method for consumers to create sealed, crustless sandwiches at home.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶57
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A "primary cutting die" comprising a first rim, a first lateral sidewall, and a primary blade.
  • At least one "sealing press" comprising a second rim, a second lateral sidewall, a sealing edge, and an "oblique surface".
  • Specific structural relationships, including the first lateral sidewall being "coextensive" to the primary blade.
  • A specific geometry for the "oblique surface", requiring it to taper from a first edge connected to the sealing edge to a second edge positioned between the sealing edge and the second rim.

U.S. Design Patent No. D909,809 - Circular Sandwich Cutters

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a set of "circular sandwich cutters" as depicted in its figures 'D809 Patent, claim Compl. ¶30 The design consists of a three-part assembly featuring specific proportions, flared rims on the cutting and sealing components, and a distinctive pattern of protrusions on the bottom edge of the sealing piece, as shown in the exploded view of Figure 7 'D809 Patent, FIG. 7
• Technical Importance: The protected design provides a unique visual identity for the product in the consumer marketplace.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described. The complaint alleges that the design of the circular version of the Accused Product is "substantially the same" as the claimed design Compl. ¶69

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "CRUSTLESS SANDWICH MAKER," sold by Walmart in both square and circular versions (the "Accused Product") Compl. ¶4

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is described as a three-piece set including a "large cutter" for removing crust, a "sealer" for crimping the bread, and a "mini cutter" for shaping fillings Compl. ¶40 The product packaging includes instructions for a multi-step process of cutting, filling, and sealing a sandwich Compl., p. 9
• The complaint alleges the product is sold on Walmart.com, shipped by Walmart, and also sold in its physical retail stores Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶41 A screenshot from the Walmart.com listing shows a price of $2.44 and indicates high sales volume Compl., p. 8 This screenshot shows the product packaging for the Accused Product Compl., p. 8

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'647 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A sandwich maker comprising: a primary cutting die; at least one sealing press;	The Accused Product is a three-piece set that includes a "large cutter" and a "sealer."	¶40	col. 2:30-31
the primary cutting die comprising a first rim, a first lateral sidewall, and at least one primary blade;	The "large cutter" component of the Accused Product is alleged to have this structure for cutting the crust off the bread.	¶40	col. 2:37-39
the at least one sealing press comprising a second rim, a second lateral sidewall, a sealing edge, and an oblique surface;	The "sealer" component of the Accused Product is alleged to have this structure for sealing the bread together.	¶40	col. 2:60-64
the oblique surface tapering from the first edge to the second edge.	The complaint's images of the "sealer" suggest an angled inner surface designed to compress and seal the bread.	¶40	col. 3:17-21

'D809 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the circular version of the Accused Product infringes the 'D809 Patent under the "ordinary observer" test Compl. ¶69 To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of Figure 7 from the 'D809 Patent and a photograph of the circular Accused Product's packaging Compl., p. 16 This image presents the three components of the accused device in an exploded view that mirrors the patent figure, highlighting alleged similarities in shape, proportions, and the arrangement of features Compl., p. 16

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: For the '647 Patent, a central question may be whether the geometry of the accused "sealer" meets the specific claim limitation of an "oblique surface tapering from the first edge to the second edge." The dispute could turn on how narrowly this geometric and functional language is construed.
  • Technical Questions: For the 'D809 Patent, the question for the fact-finder is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the overall ornamental appearance of the circular Accused Product to be substantially the same as the patented design. The comparison will focus on the combination of visual elements, not on their functional aspects.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "oblique surface"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the "sealing press" in the '647 Patent. Its construction will likely determine whether the accused "sealer" infringes, as it defines the specific mechanism for creating a spill-proof, domed sandwich. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent attributes the key benefits of the invention-a compact seal without cracks-to this feature.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term "curved/oblique inner surface" interchangeably, suggesting the term is not limited to a perfectly flat, angled plane but could encompass a range of non-perpendicular, compressive surfaces '647 Patent, col. 2:21
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links this surface to the function of creating a "perfectly sealed, spill proof" sandwich with a "slight dome shape" '647 Patent, abstract '647 Patent, col. 2:25-27 A party could argue these functional descriptions limit the scope of "oblique surface" to only those structures that achieve these specific results. Figure 4 depicts a distinct, straight-angled surface, which could support a narrower reading.

• The Term: "coextensive"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the structural alignment between the lateral sidewalls and the cutting/sealing edges of the "primary cutting die" and "sealing press". Its meaning is important for establishing the precise structure of the claimed device.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean generally aligned along the same perimeter, without requiring perfect continuity.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a more precise alignment, stating the arrangement "forms a smooth cut on the bread, without any imperfections along the perimeter" '647 Patent, col. 2:48-51 This language, along with the drawings (e.g.,'647 Patent, FIG. 4), may support an interpretation requiring a flush, continuous boundary.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit actual notice. It claims that Jetteo submitted formal infringement claims to Walmart through its IP portal on at least three occasions, beginning on April 1, 2026 Compl. ¶¶44-52 The complaint further alleges that despite acknowledging the notices and stating that the product listing was "unpublished," Walmart continued to offer for sale and sell the Accused Product both online and in stores (Compl. ¶¶47; Compl. ¶50; Compl. ¶54). A screenshot from the portal shows Walmart closing one claim as a "duplicate" while infringement allegedly continued Compl., p. 13

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

1. A central issue will be one of pre-suit conduct and knowledge: will the evidence of Plaintiff's repeated notices through Walmart's IP portal, Walmart's responses, and its alleged continued sales be sufficient to meet the standard for willful infringement, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages?
2. A key technical question will be one of geometric infringement: does the accused "sealer" component possess an "oblique surface" that "tapers" in the specific manner required by Claim 1 of the '647 Patent, or is there a functional or structural difference that places it outside the scope of the claim?
3. For the design patent, the dispute will turn on a question of visual similarity: would an ordinary observer, when comparing the patented design to the circular Accused Product, be deceived into thinking the two designs are the same, particularly in light of the side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint?