On June 17, 2015, Reynolds Presto Products Inc. of Appleton, Wisconsin ("Reynolds Presto") filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that Inteplast Group, Ltd. of Livingston, New Jersey ("Inteplast") and Minigrip, LLC of Alpharetta, Georgia ("Minigrip") (collectively, the "Proposed Respondents") unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain resealable packages with slider devices that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,427,421 (the '421 patent), 6,524,002 (the '002 patent), and 7,311,443 (the '443 patent) (collectively, the "asserted patents").
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to resealable packages with slider devices and methods for manufacturing such packages. In particular, the '421 patent relates to a manufacturing process for resealable bags having slider devices along their top edge for opening and closing each bag. The '002 patent relates to a slider device for use with a resealable package. Lastly, the '443 patent relates to a resealable bag with a slider device and a zipper profile along the top edge of the bag.
In the complaint, Reynolds Presto states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to resealable bags sold under the brand names Boulder and Minigrip as infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, Reynolds Presto states that it conducts significant, substantial, and extensive activities in the U.S. related to products protected by the asserted patents, including manufacturing and research and development. According to the complaint, Reynolds Presto has multiple manufacturing facilities in the U.S. responsible for manufacturing resealable packages with slider devices that practice the asserted patents, which include resealable packages sold under the brand name Home Sense.
With respect to potential remedy, Reynolds Presto requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, a permanent limited exclusion order, and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents. Reynolds Presto asserts that a general exclusion order is necessary due to the difficulty in identifying the source of all infringing resealable packages entering the U.S.