SMARTE CARTE, INC. v. INNOVATIVE VENDING SOLUTIONS LLC
1:19-cv-08681
D.N.J.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Smarte Carte, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 7,434,674 ('674 Patent) concerning systems for dispensing wheeled devices (like strollers) at malls.
- Innovative Vending Solutions LLC (IVS) sells the competing Zoomaroo system, which Smarte Carte alleges infringes its patent.
- IVS counterclaimed, arguing (1) the Smarte Carte patent is invalid (indefinite claim terms and prior sales) and (2) Smarte Carte engaged in sham litigation violating antitrust laws.
- Both parties moved for partial summary judgment on the claims and counterclaims.
- The court previously construed a disputed claim term (“cart raceway”) and now resolves the parties’ summary judgment motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indefiniteness of "cart raceway" term | "Cart raceway" can reasonably be understood in claim context | Term is indefinite due to inconsistent usage across claims | Not indefinite; reasonable construction available |
| Entitlement to provisional patent priority date | Provisional application supports the claimed invention | Provisional lacks adequate written description | Entitled to earlier date; sales do not invalidate |
| Literal infringement by Zoomaroo system | Zoomaroo system matches all claim elements (esp. “shape” and ports) | Zoomaroo lacks “plurality of shapes” and ports do not "extend" | No literal infringement for most claims |
| Doctrine of equivalents infringement (Claim 16) | Differences between systems are insubstantial, functions equivalent | Differences are substantial; structure not equivalent | Triable issue exists — jury to decide |
| Sham litigation/antitrust counterclaim | Patent suit was reasonable and within rights to enforce IP | Smarte Carte's lawsuit was baseless and anticompetitive | No sham litigation; counterclaims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (indefiniteness of patent claims)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (claim construction principles)
- Prof. Real Est. Invs., Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (Noerr-Pennington doctrine and sham litigation)
- Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 843 F.3d 942 (two-step infringement analysis)
- Hilton Davis Chem. Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512 (doctrine of equivalents standard)