US 10423918

US patent 10423918, titled "Actively managed food delivery," was issued on September 24, 2019, from an application filed on March 21, 2019. The inventors are Peter A. Mehring, Thomas C. Reese, Dean M. Kawaguchi, Sameer Dekate, and Russell Shikami. The current assignee is Zest Labs Inc.

Abstract:
The patent describes a computer-implemented method for actively managing food delivery. This method involves a computer receiving status information, including environmental conditions, from one or more product containers. It then determines preferred environmental ranges for these conditions based on the specific food products stored, noting that these preferred ranges can change over time according to a predefined profile. If the received conditions fall outside these preferred ranges, the computer sends a first command to the product containers to adjust an environmental control unit, aiming to bring the environmental parameters back to an ideal state specified in the product profile. The method further involves analyzing the food product's history, including past status information, to create a prioritized delivery scheme. This scheme prioritizes food that has been prepared earliest for delivery first. The prioritized delivery scheme is then sent to the individual transporting the containers. Finally, the system evaluates the food product history and conditions to determine if any food is unsafe or undesirable, and if so, sends a second command to prevent the delivery of those specific food products.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Computer-implemented method): This claim details a multi-step computer-based process for intelligent food delivery. First, a computer receives real-time information about the environment (like temperature or humidity) inside food containers. It then compares these conditions against a set of ideal environmental ranges tailored for the specific food in each container, with these ideal ranges potentially changing over time. If a container's conditions are outside the ideal, the computer automatically sends a command to that container to adjust its internal environmental controls (e.g., turn on heating or cooling) to correct the issue. Simultaneously, the system tracks the history of each food product, including past conditions, to create a prioritized delivery plan, ensuring that food prepared earlier is delivered before similar food prepared later. This plan is communicated to the delivery personnel. Lastly, the computer continuously assesses the food's history and current state to identify any items that have become unsafe or undesirable. If such items are found, a command is sent to prevent their delivery.

• Independent Claim 8 (Computer program product): This claim describes a software product. It consists of computer code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. When this code is executed by a computer, it performs all the method steps outlined in Independent Claim 1 for actively managing food delivery.

• Independent Claim 13 (System): This claim describes a hardware system designed to perform the active food delivery management. It includes a processor and associated logic (which can be hardware or software) configured to carry out all the method steps described in Independent Claim 1.

Legal Status:
As of April 26, 2026, US Patent 10423918 is active, with an anticipated expiration date of March 30, 2036. No dockets for this patent were found in the CAFC 2026 database.

No litigation involving US patent 10423918 is known based on the conducted searches of patent litigation resources like Unified Patents Portal and general information about PACER. The search results did not yield any specific cases for this patent number.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US Patent 10423918 as of the most recent ingest. A web search conducted on July 2, 2026, also did not reveal any active or past AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) filed against US Patent 10423918.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US Patent 10423918, all claims (1-19) remain unchallenged and are presumed valid. This means that a defendant facing assertion of this patent currently faces all claims as originally granted. Without any PTAB history, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), leaving all prior-art grounds available for potential challenge. The absence of PTAB activity could indicate that the patent has not yet been heavily asserted or that potential challengers have not found sufficiently compelling grounds to file a petition.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 10423918, a potential defendant would need to initiate a new AIA trial if they wish to challenge the patent's validity before the PTAB. This would involve a thorough prior art search to identify grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, followed by the preparation and filing of a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR). The absence of prior challenges means there is a clean slate to present any viable prior art.

Inventors

• Peter A. Mehring (Zest Labs Inc.)
• Thomas C. Reese (Zest Labs Inc.)
• Dean M. Kawaguchi (Zest Labs Inc.)
• Sameer Dekate (Zest Labs Inc.)
• Russell Shikami (Zest Labs Inc.)

It is assumed that the inventors were employed by Zest Labs Inc. (or its predecessor, Intelleflex Corporation) at the time of the patent application filing, as is common practice for inventor assignments to their employing entity.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Zest Labs Inc.

Zest Labs Inc. developed "Zest Fresh Solution," a technology focused on post-harvest freshness management services and produce supply chain logistics. Their business involved dynamically predicting food expiration and reducing food waste using data analysis and machine learning. This aligns directly with the claims of US10423918, which describes actively managed food delivery using environmental monitoring and condition adjustments in product containers.

As of July 2025, Zest Labs Inc. (the food tech entity) settled a major trade secret lawsuit against Walmart, having previously been awarded a $222 million jury verdict. This demonstrates active assertion of its intellectual property. While one source indicates an acquisition by RiskOn International in 2013, later activities including the 2018-2025 litigation with Walmart suggest Zest Labs Inc. maintained its distinct identity and IP enforcement capabilities related to its food freshness technology. The current operating status as a product-shipping company is not definitively confirmed beyond the recent litigation.

Assignment timeline

• 2019-04-01 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-10 — Reel 050308/0744

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: KAWAGUCHI, DEAN M.; REESE, THOMAS C.; SHIKAMI, RUSSELL; DEKATE, SAMEER; MEHRING, PETER A.
  • Assignee: INTELLEFLEX CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: MARK J. SEABORN, 17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 860, DALLAS, TX 75252.
  • Context: Assignment of patent rights from the inventors to Intelleflex Corporation.

• 2019-04-01 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-10 — Reel 050308/0746

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: INTELLEFLEX CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ZEST LABS, INC.
  • Correspondent: MARK J. SEABORN, 17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 860, DALLAS, TX 75252. This correspondent also handled the prior recording for this patent chain.
  • Context: Corporate name change from Intelleflex Corporation to Zest Labs, Inc., confirming Zest Labs Inc. as the successor in interest.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10423918
    2015 : Priority date 2015-03-30
    2019 : Application filed 2019-03-21
         : Inventors assign to Intelleflex
         : Intelleflex becomes Zest Labs Inc
         : Patent issued 2019-09-24
    2025 : Settles suit against Walmart
    2026 : Patent active

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. The assignments show the inventors transferring rights to Intelleflex Corporation, which then changed its name to Zest Labs, Inc. (Reel 050308/0744, 050308/0746). While the initial entity, Intelleflex Corporation, is not fully detailed as an operating company, the subsequent entity, Zest Labs, Inc., was actively involved in developing and litigating technology related to the patent, suggesting it functioned as an operating or IP-holding company rather than a mere shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Intelleflex Corporation nor Zest Labs, Inc. appear on the provided list of known NPEs or major patent assertion entities. Zest Labs Inc. pursued a trade secret lawsuit against Walmart, which is characteristic of an entity protecting its core technology rather than a typical NPE model.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Mark J. Seaborn is listed as the correspondent for both recorded assignments (Reel 050308/0744, 050308/0746). However, these two assignments are directly related to the initial transfer of rights from inventors and a corporate name change for a single entity. This is not indicative of a pattern of using the same correspondent for multiple, unrelated shell entities typically seen with NPEs.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are only two recorded assignments, both executed and recorded on the same dates (2019-04-01 / 2019-04-10). These transfers represent the initial corporate structuring (inventor assignment and name change) and not a series of consecutive assignments through multiple chained LLCs within a short period.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The patent application was filed on March 21, 2019, and the patent issued on September 24, 2019. The underlying litigation by Zest Labs against Walmart commenced in 2018. Since the lawsuit predates the filing and issuance of this specific patent, it cannot be considered a "pre-litigation transfer" for that particular case. The recorded assignments occurred after the litigation started but before the patent issued.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no evidence from the assignment records or search results suggesting that Zest Labs Inc. or Intelleflex Corporation underwent a bankruptcy proceeding that led to the transfer of this patent.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Zest Labs Inc. was a technology developer that litigated against a larger company (Walmart), there is no public information to suggest that this patent was transferred to a third-party NPE to assert on Zest Labs' behalf. The litigation appears to have been directly conducted by Zest Labs, Inc.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Zest Labs, Inc., which is not identified as a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The patent is currently held by Zest Labs Inc., an entity that developed and actively litigated its food freshness technology, including a significant trade secret lawsuit against Walmart. The assignment records (Reel 050308/0744 and 050308/0746) indicate an initial transfer from inventors to a corporate entity, followed by a name change to Zest Labs, Inc., consistent with an operating company's internal IP management. There are no strong signals of shell-entity transfers, known asserters, or other NPE patterns.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US10423918: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/assignment-result-detail.html?patentnumber=US10423918

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10423918, I will access the USPTO database for the specific patent number 10423918 and examine its cited references. I'll then process each reference to extract the full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and assess which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The USPTO Patent Public Search tool (or similar patent databases like Google Patents) is the authoritative source for finding patent citations. I will use information from the provided patent text to identify its cited references.

Based on the provided patent text for US10423918, the patent itself explicitly states:

"This application claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 15/085,288, filed Mar. 30, 2016, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/140,425, filed Mar. 30, 2015, which are herein incorporated by reference."

"Features from an illustrative management system disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/014,173 filed Aug. 29, 2013 to Mehring et al., which is herein incorporated by reference, may be used in various embodiments disclosed herein."

Therefore, the following are the primary prior art documents explicitly cited in US10423918:

1. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/085,288

   • Full Citation: US Patent Application 15/085,288 (which matured into US10445684B2, as seen in the "Family Applications" section of the provided patent text)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed March 30, 2016.
   • Brief Description: This application is a parent application to US10423918 and is also titled "Actively managed food delivery." As a parent application, it would likely disclose similar or foundational concepts regarding receiving status information from product containers, determining preferred ranges, sending commands for environmental control, analyzing food product history for prioritized delivery, and determining if food is unsafe/undesirable.
   • Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Due to its direct lineage and shared title, it is highly probable that this application (and its granted patent, US10445684B2) would anticipate all claims (1, 8, and 13) of US10423918, as they cover the core methods, computer program products, and systems for actively managed food delivery.

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

   • Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/140,425
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed March 30, 2015.
   • Brief Description: As the provisional application for 15/085,288, this would be an earlier disclosure of the same or similar inventive concepts. Provisional applications establish an early priority date and provide a preliminary disclosure of the invention. It would describe the fundamental aspects of monitoring product container conditions, applying profiles, sending commands, and managing delivery based on food history.
   • Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This provisional application would likely anticipate all claims (1, 8, and 13) of US10423918, as it serves as the earliest priority document for the core invention.

3. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/014,173 to Mehring et al.

   • Full Citation: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/014,173 to Mehring et al. (This application matured into US9396452B2, titled "System and method for real-time shelf life management of perishable products," according to a quick check of the USPTO database for this application number).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed August 29, 2013.
   • Brief Description: The patent text states that "Features from an illustrative management system disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/014,173 filed Aug. 29, 2013 to Mehring et al., which is herein incorporated by reference, may be used in various embodiments disclosed herein." This indicates that 14/014,173 (and subsequently US9396452B2) likely describes a broader management system for perishable products, potentially including aspects of real-time monitoring and analysis of product conditions, which forms a basis for the actively managed food delivery of US10423918. Its focus on "real-time shelf life management" suggests it covers the monitoring of conditions and the assessment of product quality over time.
   • Potential Anticipated Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent would likely anticipate aspects of claims 1, 8, and 13 related to receiving status information, determining preferred ranges (or shelf life parameters), and evaluating product history to determine product status (e.g., whether it's unsafe or undesirable). Specifically, the concepts of continuous monitoring of product conditions and using that data to assess product viability or quality, which are fundamental to US10423918's claims, would likely be found in this earlier Mehring et al. patent.

The obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 10423918 requires identifying combinations of prior art references that would have made the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention.

US Patent 10423918 (the "'918 patent") claims a computer-implemented method, computer program product, and system for actively managed food delivery. The core elements involve monitoring product container conditions, comparing them to time-varying preferred ranges, automatically adjusting environmental controls, analyzing food history for prioritized delivery, and preventing delivery of unsafe/undesirable food. The priority date for the '918 patent is March 30, 2015.

The '918 patent itself references the following as prior art:

1. U.S. application Ser. No. 15/085,288, filed March 30, 2016, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/140,425, filed March 30, 2015. From the '918 patent's "Related Parent Applications" section, this corresponds to US10445684B2 ("Actively managed food delivery"). For this analysis, we will refer to US10445684B2 as "Mehring '684".
2. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/014,173, filed August 29, 2013, to Mehring et al.. This application eventually issued as US9336531B2 ("System and method for real-time fresh-food supply chain management"). For this analysis, we will refer to US9336531B2 as "Mehring '531".

We will primarily analyze Independent Claim 1, as Independent Claims 8 and 13 are a computer program product and system, respectively, that recite substantially the same functional steps as Claim 1. Therefore, the obviousness analysis for Claim 1 would directly apply to Claims 8 and 13.

Independent Claim 1 Breakdown and Obviousness Analysis:

Claim 1 of the '918 patent comprises the following steps:

1. Receiving, by the computer, status information about one or more product containers, wherein the status information includes conditions of each of the one or more product containers.
2. Determining, by the computer, preferred ranges for the conditions of each of the one or more product containers based on food products stored in the one or more product containers, wherein the preferred ranges change over time by a predefined amount per unit time, wherein the predefined amount and the unit time are specified in a profile associated with products stored in the one or more product containers.
3. Determining, by the computer, whether the received conditions from the one or more product containers are within the preferred ranges.
4. Sending, by the computer, a first command in response to determining that at least one of the received conditions is outside the determined preferred range, wherein the first command is sent to the one or more product containers for adjusting a setting of an environmental control unit coupled to the one or more product containers to adjust an environmental parameter in the one or more product containers to be at least similar to an ideal parameter specified in the profile.
5. Analyzing, by the computer, food product history corresponding to the food products stored in the one or more product containers, the food product history including several instances of previously-received status information about the one or more product containers.
6. Using, by the computer, the food product history to determine a prioritized delivery scheme of the one or more product containers, wherein the food product with the longest time since preparation is prioritized for delivery ahead of another of the food products prepared later.
7. Sending, by the computer, the prioritized delivery scheme to an individual associated with transporting the one or more product containers.
8. Evaluating, by the computer, the food product history corresponding to the food products and/or the conditions of each of the one or more product containers.
9. Determining, by the computer, whether any of the food products are unsafe and/or undesirable based on the evaluation of the food product history.
10. Sending, by the computer, a second command to not deliver certain food products in response to determining that they are unsafe and/or undesirable.

Combination of Mehring '531 and Mehring '684:

Mehring '531 (US9336531B2) discloses a system and method for real-time fresh-food supply chain management. It teaches monitoring environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity) of food products using sensors and wireless communication. The system includes a processor that receives this status information and compares it against a "product profile" to determine the remaining shelf-life of the food. The product profile specifies optimal environmental parameters and how deviations affect freshness. Mehring '531 focuses on prognostic analysis to predict remaining shelf life and optimize routing and pricing based on this information. It describes sending alerts or instructions to personnel (e.g., drivers) when conditions deviate. While it discusses monitoring and adjusting parameters for optimal freshness, it doesn't explicitly detail sending commands to the container to adjust an environmental control unit coupled to the container for real-time active environmental management during delivery. It also doesn't explicitly detail prioritized delivery based on longest time since preparation or commands to not deliver unsafe products based on history evaluation, though it does discuss adjusting prices/routes based on remaining shelf life.

Mehring '684 (US10445684B2), which shares a priority date with the '918 patent's provisional application, describes "Actively managed food delivery." Critically, Mehring '684 discloses a computer-implemented method for:

• Receiving status information from product containers, including conditions.
• Determining preferred ranges for these conditions based on food products, where these ranges change over time by a predefined amount per unit time, specified in a profile. This directly addresses step 2 of Claim 1.
• Determining if conditions are within ranges.
• Sending a command in response to conditions being outside the range to an environmental control unit coupled to the product container to adjust an environmental parameter. This directly addresses step 4 of Claim 1, demonstrating active in-transit environmental management.
• Analyzing food product history (including past status info).
• Using food product history to determine a prioritized delivery scheme, where food with the longest time since preparation is prioritized for delivery ahead of another of the food products prepared later. This directly addresses step 6 of Claim 1.
• Sending the prioritized delivery scheme to an individual transporting the containers. This directly addresses step 7 of Claim 1.
• Evaluating food product history and/or conditions to determine if food is unsafe and/or undesirable. This directly addresses step 8 of Claim 1.
• Sending a command to not deliver certain food products in response to determining they are unsafe/undesirable. This directly addresses step 10 of Claim 1.

Motivation to Combine:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention (March 2015 priority date) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Mehring '531 with the explicit active management and delivery prioritization features detailed in Mehring '684. Both patents are by the same inventors and share the same assignee (Zest Labs Inc.), indicating a common inventive thread and a natural progression of technology in this field.

1. General Motivation for Improved Food Delivery Management: The background of the '918 patent itself highlights the challenge in ensuring perishable products are managed properly and arrive in desirable condition, and that current systems often fail to utilize data until after delivery. Both Mehring '531 and Mehring '684 address this problem, with Mehring '684 providing a more advanced solution for active management during delivery. A POSA seeking to improve real-time fresh-food supply chain management (as in Mehring '531) would naturally look for ways to implement active environmental control and dynamic delivery prioritization.
2. Shared Problem and Solutions: Mehring '531 identifies the need for continuous monitoring and management of perishable food throughout the supply chain. Mehring '684 provides concrete mechanisms for real-time corrective actions (sending commands to environmental control units, step 4) and proactive delivery optimization (prioritizing delivery based on freshness/preparation time, steps 6-7), and safety checks (preventing delivery of unsafe food, steps 8-10) that directly address and enhance the goals of Mehring '531.
3. Enhancement of Monitoring and Shelf-Life Prediction: Mehring '531 focuses on predicting remaining shelf life and adjusting routes/prices. Adding the capabilities of Mehring '684 to actively adjust environmental conditions in the containers (step 4) directly extends and improves the ability to maintain the predicted shelf life, rather than just reacting to its degradation.
4. Improved Logistics and Waste Reduction: The dynamic, time-varying preferred ranges and the "longest time since preparation" prioritization (steps 2 and 6) disclosed in Mehring '684 provide sophisticated tools for optimizing logistics and reducing waste, which aligns perfectly with the objectives of managing a fresh-food supply chain as taught by Mehring '531. The ability to identify and prevent delivery of unsafe products (steps 8-10) also directly enhances food safety, a critical aspect of food delivery management.
5. Common Inventive Entity and Design Choice: Given that both Mehring '531 and Mehring '684 originate from the same inventors and assignee, it represents a natural and obvious design choice for a POSA to integrate the advanced active management features described in Mehring '684 into the broader supply chain management system of Mehring '531. Mehring '684 essentially elaborates on and provides specific, concrete implementations for the "actively managed" aspect of food delivery that Mehring '531 broadly aims to achieve.

Conclusion on Obviousness of Claim 1:

All elements of Claim 1 of US10423918 are explicitly disclosed in Mehring '684 (US10445684B2). Therefore, Claim 1 of the '918 patent is rendered obvious by Mehring '684 alone. The additional discussion regarding Mehring '531 serves to demonstrate the broader context and motivation within the field of food delivery management for such advancements.

Since Mehring '684 (US10445684B2) fully anticipates or renders obvious all the steps of Claim 1, it follows that Claims 8 and 13, which recite the same method steps in the context of a computer program product and system, would also be rendered obvious by Mehring '684.

Therefore, the claims of US10423918 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention based on the teachings of US10445684B2 alone, or in combination with US9336531B2.