US 11037094

Here's a concise summary of US patent 11037094:

US Patent 11037094: Actively managed food delivery

• Title: Actively managed food delivery
• Current Assignee: Zest Labs Inc
• Inventors: Peter A. Mehring, Thomas C. Reese, Dean M. Kawaguchi, Sameer Dekate, Russell Shikami
• Filing Date: March 21, 2019
• Issue Date: June 15, 2021
• Abstract: The patent describes a computer-implemented method for generating a report about a food product delivery. This involves receiving status information, including sensor-derived conditions like temperature, from a product container holding food as it travels. This status information is stored, and the performance of delivery entities is analyzed against ideal handling conditions for that food product. Finally, a report of this analysis is generated, which includes a food safety report confirming adherence to proper quality and safety processes.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

There are three independent claims in US Patent 11037094: Claim 1 (Method), Claim 10 (Computer Program Product), and Claim 14 (System).

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a computer-implemented method for reporting on food product delivery. It involves:

  1. Receiving Status Information: A computer gets updates about a product container carrying food at various times during its journey. This container has a "profile" linked to the food, which outlines the best handling and processing conditions for that food type, and these ideal conditions change over time as specified in the profile. The updates include sensor readings from inside the container, such as temperature.
  2. Determining Compliance: The computer checks if the received sensor readings are within the acceptable ranges defined by the food's profile.
  3. Storing Data: The computer saves both the status information and its determination of whether conditions were met.
  4. Sending Corrective Commands: If the conditions are outside the preferred ranges, the computer sends a command to take a corrective action.
  5. Analyzing Performance (Pre-Delivery): Before the food is delivered, the computer assesses how well the delivery personnel or systems performed by comparing the actual conditions (from its determinations) against the ideal conditions specified in the food's profile.
  6. Generating Report: The computer then creates a report of this analysis, which includes a food safety report confirming that proper procedures for maintaining food quality and safety were followed throughout the delivery process.

• Independent Claim 10 (Computer Program Product): This claim covers a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. It essentially describes the computer code that, when executed, performs the steps of Independent Claim 1, with added specifics regarding pre-heating/pre-cooling conditions and the tiered command sending (first to an individual/dispatcher, then to an environmental control unit if no activity is detected).

  1. Code for Receiving Status Information: Computer code to receive status information (including sensor-derived conditions like temperature) from a product container that holds food. The container is loaded with a profile for the food, which includes ideal handling conditions that change over time, and also specifies pre-heating or pre-cooling for the container before food is placed or delivered.
  2. Code for Determining Compliance: Computer code to check if the received conditions are within the preferred ranges, which are derived from the food's profile.
  3. Code for Storing Data: Computer code to store the status information and the compliance determination.
  4. Code for Sending First Command: Computer code to send an initial command to an individual (like a driver) or a dispatcher to perform a corrective action.
  5. Code for Sending Second Command (Automated): Computer code to send a second command to an environmental control unit in the container if the individual doesn't act on the first command. This second command adjusts the container's settings to maintain the ideal conditions, including autonomously maintaining the pre-heating/pre-cooling.
  6. Code for Analyzing Performance (Pre-Delivery): Computer code to analyze the performance of delivery entities based on the compliance determinations compared to ideal conditions, before delivery.
  7. Code for Generating Report: Computer code to generate a report of the analysis, including a food safety report confirming consistent adherence to quality and safety processes.

• Independent Claim 14 (System): This claim describes a system comprising a processor and logic configured to perform the steps of Independent Claim 1. This means the hardware and software are set up to:

  1. Receive Status Information: Receive status information (including sensor-derived conditions like temperature) from a food-containing product container as it travels. The container has a profile with ideal, time-varying handling conditions for the food type.
  2. Determine Compliance: Determine if the received status information is within the preferred ranges derived from the food product's profile.
  3. Store Data: Store the status information and the determination.
  4. Send Corrective Command: Send a command to take corrective action if the status information is outside the preferred ranges.
  5. Analyze Performance (Pre-Delivery): Prior to delivery, analyze the performance of delivery entities based on the compliance determination compared to the ideal conditions.
  6. Generate Report: Generate a report of this analysis, including a food safety report confirming consistent adherence to food quality and safety processes.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:

A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 11037094 did not yield any specific results by the current date of April 26, 2026.

As of April 26, 2026, a search for litigation involving US patent 11037094 across Unified Patents Portal and PACER did not yield any specific results. Therefore, no known litigation cases for US patent 11037094 can be listed at this time.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US patent 11037094 as of July 2, 2026. Neither the USPTO Open Data Portal nor web searches for "PTAB US11037094" or related terms yielded any results for such proceedings.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US patent 11037094 has not been subjected to any AIA trial challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means all claims (Claims 1-19) of the patent remain untested in the context of IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings. There is no estoppel landscape from PTAB decisions to consider, as no institution decisions or final written decisions have been issued.

While there is no PTAB activity, it's worth noting that the patent owner, Zest Labs Inc., has been involved in significant district court litigation concerning its "Zest Fresh" technology, which is related to the actively managed food delivery described in the patent. Zest Labs filed a $2 billion complaint against Walmart in August 2018, alleging trade secret misappropriation regarding Walmart's "Eden" food freshness technology. This litigation resulted in a jury awarding Zest Labs $115 million in 2021, a verdict that was later set aside, and a retrial in May 2025 where a jury awarded Zest Labs $222 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Walmart subsequently settled the dispute confidentially in July 2025. While this lawsuit is highly relevant to the commercialization and enforcement of Zest Labs' intellectual property, it is distinct from PTAB validity challenges to the patent itself.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US11037094, the recommended next steps for a potential defendant would involve:

• Prior Art Search: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify any patents or publications that could form the basis for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition against the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Claim Construction Analysis: Perform a detailed claim construction analysis of US11037094 to understand the scope of the claims and potential non-infringement arguments.
• Invalidity Contentions: Develop robust invalidity contentions based on the prior art search, which could be used in a district court litigation or as the basis for a PTAB petition if one is deemed viable.
• Monitoring: Continuously monitor the PTAB dockets for any newly filed petitions against US11037094 or related patents owned by Zest Labs Inc.

Inventors

The named inventors for US Patent 11037094 are:

• Peter A. Mehring
• Thomas C. Reese
• Dean M. Kawaguchi
• Sameer Dekate
• Russell Shikami

These inventors assigned their interest in the invention to Intelleflex Corporation on March 30, 2015, which is the priority date of the patent. It is highly probable that they were employed by Intelleflex Corporation at that time.

Original assignee

The entity named as the original assignee on the issued patent US11037094 is Zest Labs Inc. Zest Labs Inc. was an AgTech company that provided a freshness management solution called "Zest Fresh" for the produce industry. Their platform utilized IoT sensors and analytics to monitor and manage the freshness of perishable goods from harvest to retail. This business directly aligns with and embodies the claims of the patent, which describe actively managed food delivery using sensor-derived conditions and product profiles.

Zest Labs, Inc. was acquired by Post Harvest Technologies, Inc. in 2020 and currently operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Post Harvest Technologies, Inc.. Post Harvest Technologies, Inc. continues to operate and promote the Zest Fresh solution.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-03-30 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-01 — Reel 049520/0734

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MEHRING, PETER A; REESE, THOMAS C; KAWAGUCHI, DEAN M; DEKATE, SAMEER; SHIKAMI, RUSSELL
  • Assignee: INTELLEFLEX CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: BEYER LAW GROUP LLP, 1731 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SUITE 480, SAN JOSE, CA 95110. This correspondent also appears on a later recording for this patent.
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventors to an operating company.

• 2019-04-01 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-01 — Reel 049520/0738

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: INTELLEFLEX CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ZEST LABS, INC. (FORMERLY INTELLEFLEX CORPORATION)
  • Correspondent: BEYER LAW GROUP LLP, 1731 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SUITE 480, SAN JOSE, CA 95110. This correspondent also appears on an earlier recording for this patent.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization and name change.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11037094
    2015 : Inventors assigned to Intelleflex Corp
    2019 : Intelleflex changed name to Zest Labs Inc
         : Patent application filed by Zest Labs Inc
    2020 : Zest Labs acquired by Post Harvest Technologies
    2021 : Patent issued to Zest Labs Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The assignees, Intelleflex Corporation and Zest Labs, Inc., are identified as operating companies that developed and marketed products in the AgTech and supply chain management sectors. The transfers represent an initial assignment from inventors and a corporate name change, not a transfer to a licensing-only shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Intelleflex Corporation nor Zest Labs, Inc. are recognized as known patent assertion entities (NPEs) or frequently listed on public NPE databases.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. BEYER LAW GROUP LLP is listed as the correspondent on both recorded assignments (Reel 049520/0734 and Reel 049520/0738). While this indicates a consistent legal representative for the chain of ownership, it is for initial assignment and a name change, which is typical for an operating company's legal counsel.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The records show only two transfers related to the same underlying entity, representing an initial assignment and a corporate name change, not multiple consecutive transfers through chained LLCs within a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. There is no information provided or readily available about litigation involving this specific patent. The assignments occurred in 2015 and 2019, before the patent issued in 2021.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The assignment records do not indicate any transfers related to bankruptcy proceedings. Zest Labs, Inc. was acquired by Post Harvest Technologies, Inc. in 2020, which is an acquisition rather than a bankruptcy sale.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence suggests a transfer to an NPE to assert on an operating company's behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is held by Zest Labs, Inc. (a subsidiary of Post Harvest Technologies, Inc.), which is an operating company, and there is no indication of transfer to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent originated from inventors to Intelleflex Corporation (Reel 049520/0734), which then underwent a name change to Zest Labs, Inc. (Reel 049520/0738) and was subsequently acquired by Post Harvest Technologies, Inc. in 2020. Zest Labs, Inc. is an operating company that developed and commercialized products directly embodying the patent's claims. There are no strong signals of NPE activity in the ownership chain.

For verification, see the USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/11037094

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11037094, I will perform a search on the USPTO Patent Public Search tool using the provided patent number.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11037094

US Patent 11037094 explicitly states that it claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 15/085,288, filed Mar. 30, 2016, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/140,425, filed Mar. 30, 2015. These earlier applications are therefore direct foundational prior art.

Beyond these, the patent itself lists "Prior art keywords" as: product, status information, food, food product, product container.

The "Cited By" section of the patent also lists two other patents that have cited US11037094B2:

• DE102022206000A1 (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft) - Device and system for transporting temperature-sensitive goods, published 2023-12-14, with a priority date of 2022-06-14.
• US12008509B2 (Zest Labs, Inc.) - Actively managed food delivery, published 2024-06-11, with a priority date of 2015-03-30.

To fully determine the most relevant prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a comprehensive review of all cited references within US11037094 would be necessary, along with a broader prior art search. However, based on the information provided in the patent text, here are the directly referenced and most relevant prior art documents:

1. U.S. Application Ser. No. 15/085,288

   • Full Citation: U.S. application Ser. No. 15/085,288
   • Filing Date: March 30, 2016
   • Brief Description: This is a direct parent application to US11037094, meaning it likely describes very similar or identical inventive concepts related to actively managed food delivery and the monitoring of product conditions during transit. As a parent application, it would encompass much of the same subject matter as disclosed in US11037094.
   • Potential Anticipation: This application would likely anticipate all claims of US11037094 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 to the extent that the subject matter of the claims is identically disclosed in the earlier-filed application.

2. U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/140,425

   • Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/140,425
   • Filing Date: March 30, 2015
   • Brief Description: This is the earliest priority document for US11037094. Provisional applications establish an early filing date and often contain a broad description of the invention. It would describe the foundational concepts of actively managed food delivery, including receiving status information, determining preferred ranges, sending commands, and generating reports.
   • Potential Anticipation: This provisional application would likely anticipate all claims of US11037094 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 to the extent that the subject matter of the claims is identically disclosed and enabled in the provisional application.

3. US10445684B2 - Actively managed food delivery

   • Full Citation: US10445684B2, "Actively managed food delivery"
   • Priority Date: 2015-03-30
   • Filing Date: 2016-03-30
   • Brief Description: This patent is listed as a "Related Parent Application" and shares the same priority date and an earlier filing date than US11037094. It also has the same title and assignee (Zest Labs Inc.). This indicates it is a closely related patent disclosing similar or overlapping subject matter.
   • Potential Anticipation: Given the shared priority date and similar title, it is highly probable that US10445684B2 anticipates many or all claims of US11037094 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as it likely details similar methods, systems, and computer program products for actively managed food delivery.

4. US12008509B2 - Actively managed food delivery

   • Full Citation: US12008509B2, "Actively managed food delivery"
   • Priority Date: 2015-03-30
   • Publication Date: 2024-06-11
   • Assignee: Zest Labs, Inc.
   • Brief Description: This patent also shares the same priority date as US11037094 and is assigned to the same entity. It is listed as "Cited By" US11037094 and is also a "Family Application." This suggests it covers similar aspects of actively managed food delivery, potentially with some variations or expanded scope.
   • Potential Anticipation: Due to the shared priority date and common assignee, US12008509B2 is likely very similar in scope to US11037094. It could anticipate many or all claims of US11037094 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if the disclosed subject matter is identical.

Further analysis would require examining the full text and claims of each of these priority and cited documents to precisely determine the extent of anticipation for each claim of US11037094.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 11037094 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To determine the obviousness of US patent 11037094, we must consider whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention, in light of prior art. This includes identifying combinations of prior art references and the motivation a POSA would have had to combine them.

The priority date of US11037094B2 is March 30, 2015. Therefore, any prior art must have been publicly available before this date.

Independent Claim 1 Analysis

Independent Claim 1 describes a computer-implemented method for generating a report about a food product delivery process, including:

• Receiving status information from a product container with a food-specific profile that includes time-varying ideal handling conditions and sensor-derived conditions (at least temperature).
• Determining if received status information is within preferred ranges derived from the profile.
• Storing status information and the determination.
• Sending a command for corrective action if conditions are outside preferred ranges.
• Prior to delivery, analyzing the performance of entities based on the determination compared to ideal conditions.
• Generating a report, including a food safety report.

A POSA in March 2015 would likely have been familiar with:

• Product monitoring systems: Systems that use sensors to collect data (like temperature) from containers during transport.
• Profiles for perishable goods: Establishing ideal environmental parameters (e.g., temperature ranges) for specific perishable products, which might even vary over the product's shelf life or transport duration.
• Real-time data analysis: The ability to compare collected sensor data against predefined thresholds or ranges.
• Automated alerts/commands: Sending notifications or triggering actions based on deviations from desired conditions.
• Performance reporting and auditing: Generating reports on compliance with handling procedures, especially in industries with safety regulations like food delivery.

To render Claim 1 obvious, we would need to find prior art that, individually or in combination, discloses or suggests each element of the claim, along with a motivation to combine them.

The patent itself describes "those shipping products are currently unable to utilize product data collected during the shipping process until after the product has been delivered." This suggests a novelty in real-time or pre-delivery analysis and intervention.

Potential Combination and Motivation:

1. Reference A (General Product Monitoring System): A hypothetical prior art reference disclosing a system for monitoring environmental conditions (e.g., temperature) within a shipping container using sensors and wirelessly transmitting this data to a central system for storage.
2. Reference B (Food Safety/Quality Management System): A hypothetical prior art reference disclosing a system for managing food product quality, where each food product has an associated profile defining ideal handling conditions (e.g., temperature ranges, potentially time-varying) and a system for generating reports on adherence to these conditions after delivery.

Motivation to Combine A and B:

A POSA would be motivated to combine Reference A and Reference B to address the known problem of not being able to utilize product data until after delivery, especially for perishable food products. The stated problem in US11037094's background section highlights that "those shipping products may not realize that a shipment of perishable products has surpassed a product tolerance until after it has been delivered, e.g., after receipt, upon their inspection." By integrating the real-time monitoring capabilities of Reference A with the food-specific profiles and reporting of Reference B, a POSA would understand that they could actively monitor the food product during transit, identify deviations from ideal conditions before delivery, send corrective commands, and generate a pre-delivery performance report including food safety aspects. This combination would lead to improved food quality, reduced waste, and enhanced adherence to safety regulations, directly addressing the shortcomings acknowledged in the patent's background. The changing ideal handling conditions over time would be a natural extension of existing food profiles, allowing for more dynamic and accurate monitoring, particularly for prepared meals where optimal temperatures might decrease over time to prevent overcooking.

Independent Claim 10 Analysis

Independent Claim 10 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method of Claim 1, with additional specifics regarding:

• Pre-heating and/or pre-cooling conditions as part of a meal preparation procedure.
• A two-tiered command system: a first command to an individual/dispatcher, and a second automated command to an environmental control unit if inactivity is detected.
• Autonomous maintenance of pre-heating/pre-cooling conditions by the environmental control unit.

A POSA in March 2015 would have known about:

• Environmental control units in containers: Delivery bags or containers with active heating/cooling elements.
• Automated control: Systems that automatically adjust environmental settings based on sensor inputs.
• User alerts and manual intervention: Notifying a human operator to take action.
• Automated fallback: Systems that take automated action if a human operator fails to respond.

Potential Combination and Motivation for Claim 10:

Building on the combination of Reference A and Reference B, we could add:

1. Reference C (Smart Delivery Container with Environmental Controls): A hypothetical prior art reference disclosing a delivery container with integrated sensors and an environmental control unit (e.g., heater, cooler) capable of maintaining a specific temperature range, potentially pre-heated or pre-cooled. The reference might also disclose that this environmental control can be adjusted remotely or automatically based on sensor readings.
2. Reference D (Workflow Management System with Escalation): A hypothetical prior art reference describing a system for managing tasks or workflows, where an initial alert or instruction is sent to a primary individual, and if no action is taken within a predefined time, an escalated action (e.g., an automated system command) is triggered.

Motivation to Combine A, B, C, and D:

A POSA, aiming to further refine the active management of food delivery (as motivated by the combination of A and B), would logically consider integrating smart delivery containers (Reference C) and robust command escalation (Reference D). The problem of perishable food delivery demands not just monitoring, but also effective intervention. The motivation to combine these would be to create a more resilient and efficient delivery system.

• Integrating Reference C with the monitoring (A) and profile-based management (B) would allow for active adjustment of the container's environment, moving beyond just sending alerts. This would be particularly obvious for maintaining precise temperature for pre-heated or pre-cooled meals, as described in the patent (e.g., "the controller may adjust the environment settings as needed by turning on or off a heater, turning on or off an air conditioner, opening or closing a vent, turning on or off a dehumidifier, etc.").
• The two-tiered command structure (Reference D) provides a critical safety net. While an initial alert to a driver (first command) might be sufficient for minor adjustments, a POSA would recognize the need for automated intervention (second command) if the driver is unable or fails to respond. This directly addresses potential human error or resource limitations during delivery, ensuring that critical environmental conditions are maintained, especially when "the delivery bag may not always have sufficient resources (e.g., power, capabilities, etc.) to manage the environment inside the delivery bag" or when a driver is unresponsive, leading to "detecting inactivity by an individual." The autonomous maintenance of pre-heating/pre-cooling conditions by the environmental control unit is a direct application of automated control described in Reference C, further enhanced by the feedback loop enabled by the overall system.

Independent Claim 14 Analysis

Independent Claim 14 is a system claim essentially mirroring the method of Claim 1. The obviousness analysis for Claim 14 would largely follow the same reasoning as for Claim 1, as it describes a system (processor and logic) configured to perform the method steps.

Potential Combination and Motivation for Claim 14:

The same combination of Reference A and Reference B, along with the motivation discussed for Claim 1, would apply here. The "processor and logic integrated with and/or executable by the processor" would be the standard implementation for any computer-implemented method. A POSA would understand how to implement the method steps as described in Claim 1 using conventional computing hardware and software.

It is important to note that without specific prior art references, this analysis remains hypothetical. A definitive obviousness determination would require a thorough prior art search and direct comparison with the elements of the claims.