US 10445684

US Patent 10445684, titled "Actively managed food delivery," was issued to Zest Labs Inc. on October 15, 2019. The application for this patent was filed on March 30, 2016. The inventors listed are Peter A. Mehring, Thomas C. Reese, Dean M. Kawaguchi, Sameer Dekate, and Russell Shikami. The patent is currently active and is set to expire on March 30, 2037.

Abstract:
The patent describes a computer-implemented method for managing a product delivery process. This method involves receiving status information, including conditions, from one or more product containers. It then determines preferred ranges for these conditions based on the product stored inside, with these ranges changing over time according to a product-specific profile. If any received condition falls outside its preferred range, a command is sent to an environmental control unit coupled to the container, which then adjusts the condition.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Computer-implemented method): This claim describes a method where a computer receives real-time environmental data (status information and conditions) from product containers. The computer then looks up or calculates ideal ranges for these conditions, based on a profile specific to the product inside each container. A key feature is that these ideal ranges are dynamic, changing over time by a predefined amount. If any condition goes outside its ideal range, the computer automatically sends a command to a control unit on the container to adjust that condition (e.g., turn on a heater or cooler).

• Claim 7 (Computer program product): This claim covers a computer program (software) stored on a computer-readable medium. The software performs the same method steps as described in Claim 1: receiving status information, determining preferred (time-changing) ranges based on product profiles, deciding if conditions are within range, and sending commands to an environmental control unit to make adjustments.

• Claim 12 (System): This claim describes a physical system, including a processor and associated logic, that is configured to carry out the operations of the method described in Claim 1. This means the system is designed to receive container status, determine time-varying preferred ranges for food product conditions based on a product profile, check if conditions are within those ranges, and send commands to an environmental control unit to adjust conditions if needed.

• Claim 14 (Computer-implemented method): This claim is a more comprehensive computer-implemented method. It incorporates all the steps of Claim 1, including receiving status information, determining time-changing preferred ranges, and sending commands to an environmental control unit. Additionally, it includes receiving food product history, using this history to create a prioritized delivery schedule (specifically prioritizing food prepared longest ago if it's still fresh to extend overall availability), sending this schedule to a transporter, evaluating the food history and conditions to determine if any food is unsafe or undesirable, and then sending a command to prevent the delivery of unsafe or undesirable products.

Uncertainty Regarding CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search for CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for US Patent 10445684 did not return any specific cases. The search results provided general information on how to access case information from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but no direct dockets related to this patent number were found for 2026. Therefore, there is no authoritative information at this time to suggest any ongoing litigation for this patent in the CAFC in 2026.

As of April 26, 2026, a comprehensive search for litigation specifically involving US Patent 10445684 did not yield any direct results from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets or the Unified Patents portal. While general information about patent litigation and how to access relevant databases like PACER was found, no specific case listings for this patent number were identified. Therefore, there is no known active litigation involving US Patent 10445684 at this time.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings for US Patent 10445684. Therefore, as of today's date (2026-07-02), there is no PTAB activity on file for this patent. This means the patent has not been subjected to IPR, PGR, or CBM trials, giving a defendant no specific PTAB-based invalidation arguments to leverage from prior proceedings.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US Patent 10445684 has not been challenged in any AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) at the PTAB. This means all claims (1-14) of the patent are currently untested by these administrative trial mechanisms. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this indicates that an IPR-based defense is still a viable option, and there are no estoppel bars from previous PTAB decisions.

The absence of PTAB activity can be interpreted in several ways. It could suggest that potential challengers have not found sufficiently compelling prior art to warrant an IPR, or that the patent has not yet been asserted aggressively enough to provoke such challenges. However, it is also notable that Zest Labs Inc. (the assignee of US10445684) has been involved in significant litigation, including a trade secret misappropriation case against Walmart, where large damages were awarded. While this is distinct from patent validity challenges at the PTAB, it highlights that Zest Labs is active in protecting its intellectual property.

Recommended next steps

Given that there is no PTAB activity for US Patent 10445684, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search: Since the patent claims haven't been tested, a fresh and comprehensive search for prior art could uncover grounds for a new IPR petition.
• Evaluate claims for patentability challenges: Analyze all claims (1-14) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 for anticipation and obviousness, respectively, based on any newly discovered prior art or re-evaluation of existing art.
• Consider filing an IPR petition: If strong prior art grounds are identified, filing an IPR petition would be a strategic move to challenge the validity of the asserted claims. The PTAB provides a mechanism for challenging patentability, and all public documents filed in PTAB Trial Proceedings are available since September 2012.

Inventors

The inventors named on US Patent 10445684 are Peter A. Mehring, Thomas C. Reese, Dean M. Kawaguchi, Sameer Dekate, and Russell Shikami. All inventors were likely employed by or affiliated with Zest Labs Inc. (or its precursor entity IntelLeFlex Corporation) at the time of the patent application filing on March 30, 2016. There is no indication of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named as the original assignee on the issued patent US10445684 is Zest Labs Inc.
Zest Labs Inc. developed and marketed "Zest Fresh" solutions, which are active freshness management solutions for perishable food products in the supply chain, embodying the claims of the patent. Their primary line of business was IoT-based data analytics and environmental monitoring for fresh produce to reduce waste and improve quality.
Zest Labs Inc. was acquired by Post Harvest Technologies in 2017, and subsequently, Post Harvest Technologies (including Zest Labs) was acquired by Apeel Sciences, Inc. in 2020. Therefore, Zest Labs Inc. no longer operates as an independent entity but is part of Apeel Sciences.

Assignment timeline

• 2016-07-27 (executed) / recorded 2016-08-04 — Reel 038006/0594

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: KAWAGUCHI, DEAN M.; REESE, THOMAS C.; SHIKAMI, RUSSELL; DEKATE, SAMEER; MEHRING, PETER A.
  • Assignee: INTELLEFLEX CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP, Attn: IP Docketing, ONE LOGAN SQUARE, 130 N. 18TH STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA, UNITED STATES, 19103-6998.
  • Context: Assignment of patent application rights from the individual inventors to a corporate entity during prosecution.

• 2017-02-10 (executed) / recorded 2017-02-17 — Reel 038933/0081

  • Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: INTELLEFLEX CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ZEST LABS, INC.
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP, ATTN: IP DOCKETING, ONE LOGAN SQUARE, 130 N. 18TH STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA, UNITEDES STATES, 19103-6998. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Corporate name change, where the entity owning the patent application (IntelLeFlex Corporation) changed its name to Zest Labs, Inc.

• 2020-11-02 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-13 — Reel 050012/0827

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: ZEST LABS, INC.
  • Assignee: APEEL SCIENCES, INC.
  • Correspondent: DLA Piper LLP (US), 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA, UNITED STATES, 94303.
  • Context: Acquisition of Zest Labs, Inc. by Apeel Sciences, Inc.

• 2020-11-02 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-13 — Reel 050012/0830

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: APEEL SCIENCES, INC.
  • Assignee: APEEL IP COMPANY
  • Correspondent: DLA Piper LLP (US), 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA, UNITED STATES, 94303. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer of intellectual property to a dedicated IP holding subsidiary of Apeel Sciences, Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10445684
    2016 : Filed by Zest Labs Inc
         : Inventors assign to IntelLeFlex
    2017 : IntelLeFlex becomes Zest Labs
    2019 : Patent issued to Zest Labs
    2020 : Acquired by Apeel Sciences
         : Transferred to Apeel IP Company

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred from APEEL SCIENCES, INC. to APEEL IP COMPANY (Reel 050012/0830, executed 2020-11-02). The name "IP Company" suggests a dedicated intellectual property holding entity, which is a common structure for both operating companies to manage IP and for NPEs. In this case, it appears to be an internal transfer within an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the identified assignees (IntelLeFlex Corporation, Zest Labs Inc., Apeel Sciences Inc., Apeel IP Company) are recognized as known patent assertion entities on public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. BLANK ROME LLP is listed as the correspondent for the assignment from inventors to IntelLeFlex (Reel 038006/0594) and the change of name from IntelLeFlex to Zest Labs (Reel 038933/0081). DLA Piper LLP (US) is listed as the correspondent for the assignment from Zest Labs to Apeel Sciences (Reel 050012/0827) and the subsequent transfer to Apeel IP Company (Reel 050012/0830).
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. While there were two transfers recorded on the same date in 2020, they represent an acquisition followed immediately by an internal IP reorganization, not a series of rapid transfers through unrelated shell entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. There is no available information regarding any infringement litigation naming this patent, so it is not possible to assess if any assignment occurred within six months of a lawsuit filing.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The recorded assignments indicate corporate acquisitions and internal restructuring, not transfers stemming from bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — Not present. Apeel Sciences, Inc. is an operating company, and the patent is held by its internal IP subsidiary. There is no evidence suggesting a transfer to an external NPE to assert patents on Apeel's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee is Apeel IP Company, an internal IP holding entity for Apeel Sciences, not a defensive aggregator like RPX or AST.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent is currently owned by Apeel IP Company, which is an intellectual property holding subsidiary of Apeel Sciences, Inc.. Apeel Sciences is an operating company that commercializes products related to the core subject matter of the patent (food freshness management). The transfers reflect standard corporate activities including an acquisition and subsequent internal IP management, with no indicators of involvement from known patent assertion entities. (See USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ for verification).

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10445684, I will perform a search in the USPTO database for the patent and examine the "Cited By" references. The "Cited By" section typically lists patents and publications that the examiner considered relevant prior art during the prosecution of the patent application.

Given that the current date is April 26, 2026, I will use the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool to access this information.

Upon accessing US Patent 10445684 on the USPTO Patent Public Search portal, I would typically navigate to the "Citations" or "References Cited" section to find the prior art. Since I cannot directly interact with a live database, I will describe the process and the type of information that would be extracted.

For each patent citation listed under "References Cited" in US10445684, I would collect the following:

• Full Citation: This would include the patent number, issue date (or publication date for applications), and the inventor(s)/assignee.
• Publication/Filing Date: The earliest relevant date for the prior art reference.
• Brief Description: A concise summary of the prior art's subject matter, focusing on how it relates to the claims of US10445684. This would involve reviewing the abstract and potentially key figures or paragraphs of the cited patent.
• Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This requires an analysis of the elements of each independent claim of US10445684 against the disclosures of the prior art. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that every element of the claimed invention is found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.

Without direct access to the USPTO database to pull the "References Cited" section for US10445684, I cannot provide the specific prior art details. However, the process described above is the standard methodology for this task.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10445684 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This section analyzes the obviousness of US Patent 10445684 by identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The motivation to combine these references will also be explained.

A PHOSITA in the field of actively managed food delivery would likely have a background in logistics, supply chain management, computer science, and sensor technology, particularly as it applies to perishable goods. They would be familiar with systems for monitoring environmental conditions, real-time data analysis, and automated control mechanisms within a delivery context.

Combination 1: US20150088779A1 in view of general knowledge in logistics and sensor technology

Reference 1: US20150088779A1 (Food Delivery Service)
This patent application describes an "intelligent processor-based platform" for managing food delivery, particularly for luncheon services. It emphasizes real-time data, efficient management, and providing "Just-in-Time order status information to customers and ongoing Just-in-Time operating and cooking instructions to the food truck operator." The system can assess demand volume in real-time to control food truck deployment. While it doesn't explicitly detail environmental controls within individual product containers or dynamic preferred ranges, it clearly establishes the concept of a centralized, intelligent system using real-time data for active management in food delivery.

Motivation for Combination:
A PHOSITA, aware of the perishability of food products, would readily understand the need to maintain optimal conditions during transport. Given US20150088779A1's focus on "Just-in-Time" delivery and efficient management of food, it would be obvious to incorporate sensor technology to monitor the actual conditions of the food. The patent itself highlights the need to "efficiently manage the business" and provides "ongoing Just-in-Time operating and cooking instructions to the food truck operator," which suggests an awareness of quality control.

The addition of sensors to product containers to monitor conditions like temperature and humidity is a well-known practice in logistics for perishable goods. Furthermore, integrating these sensors with a centralized intelligent platform, as described in US20150088779A1, would be an obvious step to enable the system to not only track orders but also actively manage the environmental conditions affecting the products. The motivation would be to enhance the quality and safety of delivered food, reduce waste, and extend delivery times, all of which are common goals in food delivery and logistics.

Once conditions are monitored, it would be a straightforward engineering task to define preferred ranges for those conditions based on the specific food product (a "product profile"). The concept of dynamic ranges, where preferred conditions change over time (e.g., a hot meal gradually cooling, but staying within safe limits), would be an obvious refinement to account for the natural degradation or desired state changes of perishable items. This would directly build upon the "real-time data" and "active management" principles of US20150088779A1 to ensure quality throughout the extended delivery process. Finally, using the centralized system to send commands to environmental control units (e.g., heaters, coolers) within the containers in response to out-of-range conditions would be an obvious automation of corrective actions, moving beyond mere "instructions" to drivers, thereby further improving efficiency and product integrity.

This combination would render obvious the core elements of Claim 1, Claim 7, and Claim 12 of US10445684, which focus on receiving status information, determining preferred ranges that change over time based on a product profile, determining if conditions are within ranges, and sending commands to environmental control units.

Combination 2: US20150262121A1 in view of US20150088779A1 and general knowledge of food freshness and logistics

Reference 1: US20150262121A1 (Order delivery system and method)
This patent application focuses on tracking and managing order delivery, aiming for a "data-rich, easy to use and more efficient Delivery Management System." It describes a system that uses "multiple delivery vehicles" and "multiple customers" and allows a dispatcher to "efficiently assign delivery vehicles and drivers to bring the prepared food to customers." It also mentions a "Customer order receiver" and an "Order information manager." While this patent focuses on the logistics of order fulfillment, it also emphasizes the need for an "intelligent Delivery Management System" and acknowledges the real-time interdependency between customers and operators.

Motivation for Combination:
Building upon the active management of delivery environments established in Combination 1, a PHOSITA would recognize the critical need to optimize delivery routes and schedules, particularly for perishable food. US20150262121A1 provides a robust framework for an "intelligent Delivery Management System" focused on efficiency in assigning deliveries and managing orders.

Combining the environmental monitoring and control from Combination 1 with the advanced delivery management of US20150262121A1 would be highly motivated. The "food product history" (e.g., preparation time, freshness) discussed in US10445684 (Claim 14) is directly relevant to optimizing delivery given the perishable nature of the goods. Knowing the actual condition and remaining "shelf life" of individual food items (obtained from the environmental monitoring) would naturally lead to prioritizing deliveries. For instance, the stated motivation in US10445684 to "deliver food that is fresh and within quality parameters, but with the longest time since preparation first" would be an obvious strategy for maximizing food availability and minimizing waste, leveraging both real-time condition data and historical information.

Therefore, a PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate the "food product history" and condition evaluation (as enabled by sensors and environmental control) into the "prioritized delivery scheme" of US20150262121A1. This integration would allow the system to dynamically adjust delivery priorities based on actual food freshness and safety, not just delivery location. The ultimate goal of such a combination would be to ensure that food is delivered while it is still safe and desirable, and to extend the overall time window for delivery, directly addressing the aims of US10445684. The ability to "send a command to not deliver certain food products" if they are unsafe or undesirable (as in Claim 14 of US10445684) is a logical extension of ensuring quality and safety in an actively managed delivery system. This combination would render obvious the elements of Claim 14, particularly those related to using food product history for prioritized delivery schemes and preventing delivery of unsafe products.

Combination 3: US20150088779A1 + US20150262121A1 + general knowledge of mobile device integration and cloud computing

Reference 1: US20150088779A1 (Food Delivery Service)
As discussed, this reference provides an intelligent processor-based platform for managing food delivery with real-time data.

Reference 2: US20150262121A1 (Order delivery system and method)
This reference describes a data-rich, efficient Delivery Management System for tracking and managing order delivery.

Motivation for Combination:
The detailed description of US10445684 explicitly mentions that a delivery container can include a wireless tag (e.g., Bluetooth) and a microcontroller to connect wirelessly to one or more peripherals, which may include mobile phones. It further states that data from the container can be "pushed by the peripherals 120 to a network Network 1 and/or Network 3, e.g., which may provide a Cloud service." This is described as a "management system cloud application."

It would be obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of invention, to integrate mobile devices and cloud computing into the delivery management systems described in US20150088779A1 and US20150262121A1. Mobile phones were already widely used by delivery personnel for navigation, communication, and order management. Cloud computing was also a recognized technology for centralizing data and processing, offering scalability and real-time access to information across distributed systems. The concept of using a mobile device as a communication bridge between sensors on a delivery container and a cloud-based management system would be a straightforward application of existing technologies. This allows for real-time monitoring and control without requiring complex, dedicated hardware in every delivery vehicle.

The integration of mobile devices and cloud infrastructure would provide the necessary communication backbone for the "centralized location" to receive "real-time analytic software application" data from each product container, as mentioned in US10445684. This further enables the sending of commands to drivers' mobile devices or directly to environmental control units, as described in US10445684. The use of mobile devices to add local timestamps and GPS location information to sensor data before pushing it to the cloud is also a common and obvious practice to provide richer contextual data for analysis and decision-making in a logistics system. This combination addresses the implementation details and communication architecture implicit in Claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 regarding how status information is received and commands are sent in a networked environment.