DCT
4:22-cv-00032
P S Products Inc v. Focus Technology Co Ltd doing Business As Wwwmadeinchinacom
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: P.S. Products, Inc. (Arkansas) and Billy Pennington, Individually
- Defendant: Focus Technology Co. Ltd., d/b/a www.madeinchina.com (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Stewart Law Firm
- Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00032, E.D. Ark., 01/18/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the actions giving rise to the claims occurring in Little Rock, Arkansas, and on the defendant’s alleged substantial and continuous business dealings with customers in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s online marketplace offers for sale and sells stun guns that infringe a U.S. design patent for a stun gun shaped like brass knuckles.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of personal security devices, where the ornamental appearance of a product can be a significant market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the individual plaintiff and inventor, Billy Pennington, granted a perpetual exclusive license to the corporate plaintiff, P.S. Products, Inc., to manufacture and sell the product embodying the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-07-14 | '294' Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2008-02-05 | '294' Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-21 | Alleged first date of Defendant's infringing sales |
| 2022-01-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D561,294 S - "Stun Gun"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D561,294 S, titled "Stun Gun," issued on February 5, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, ornamental, and non-functional appearance of a manufactured article rather than solving a technical problem (Compl. ¶15). The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a specific visual design for a stun gun.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design of a stun gun that resembles brass knuckles. The design, as depicted in the patent’s figures, features a main body with a scalloped top edge, four prominent finger holes, and a curved palm rest. The overall visual impression is the claimed invention (’294 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The complaint states that this patented design is embodied in its “Blast Knuckle Stun Gun” product (Compl. ¶17).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product embodying this design is the plaintiff’s “most sought after and sold product” and the source of most of its revenue, suggesting the design’s commercial significance (Compl. ¶17, ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: “The ornamental design for a stun gun, as shown and described.” (’294 Patent, Claim).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are stun guns offered for sale and sold through the defendant’s website, www.madeinchina.com (Compl. ¶32). The complaint provides numerous hyperlinks to product listings and refers to them collectively as the "Accused Devices" (Compl. ¶32a-k).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Devices are "illegal copies" and "counterfeit versions" of Plaintiff's patented product (Compl. ¶6, ¶24). The core accused feature is the overall visual appearance of the stun guns, which are alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design. The complaint includes a photograph of what it describes as a "knock-off device" purchased from the defendant's website. This photograph depicts a stun gun with four finger holes and a scalloped top, similar in form to the patented design (Compl. ¶34, Fig. 2). The complaint also alleges these products are sold at a significantly lower price than Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶50).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
For design patents, infringement occurs if, in the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the Accused Devices meets this standard.
D561,294 S Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a stun gun, as shown and described. | The Accused Devices are alleged to have an overall visual appearance that is substantially the same as the patented design. The complaint identifies these as "illegal copies," "counterfeit versions," and "knock-off device[s]" that embody the '294' patent. A visual provided in the complaint shows an accused product with a four-finger-hole body and scalloped top edge, which mirrors the overall configuration of the patented design. | ¶6, ¶22, ¶34, ¶36, Fig. 2 | '294' Patent, Figs. 1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the scope of the design patent's protection. The complaint alleges that "[n]o goods of this design existed prior to the Plaintiffs' designs and patents" (Compl. ¶15). If this assertion about the lack of close prior art is proven, it could support a broader scope of protection. Conversely, if prior art showing similar stun gun designs exists, the scope of protection may be narrower, and small differences between the accused and patented designs could become more significant.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison. The complaint provides an image of the patented design and an image of an accused "knock-off" device (Compl. ¶13, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶34, Fig. 2). The question for the fact-finder will be whether the visual differences, if any, between the patented design figures and the various accused products are substantial enough to preclude a finding of infringement from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of words is rare. The central issue is the scope of the claimed design as a whole.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a stun gun"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on this because the outcome will depend on whether the design is considered a broad concept of a "brass-knuckle-shaped stun gun" or is limited to the precise contours and proportions shown in the patent drawings.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint’s assertion that the design is "one of a kind" and that no similar prior designs existed could support a broader interpretation where the patent covers the overall visual impression of a stun gun integrated into a four-finger knuckle form factor (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures show a very specific ornamental design with particular curves, proportions, and surface features. A defendant may argue that these specific details, such as the exact shape of the scallops or the curvature of the palm rest, define and limit the claim, and that any accused product that deviates from these specific details does not infringe (’294 Patent, Figs. 1-6).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint includes a count for induced infringement, alleging Defendant had "knowledge of PSP's patent rights" and induced infringement by allowing third-party sellers to offer for sale and sell the Accused Devices on its online platform (Compl. ¶58, ¶59). The mechanism of inducement is alleged to be the operation of the website itself, which facilitates the infringing sales (Compl. ¶40, ¶59).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported "knowledge of PSP's patent rights" and continued infringing activity, which is characterized as being in "disregard of, and with indifference to, the rights of PSP" (Compl. ¶55, ¶61). The complaint does not specify the source or timing of the defendant's alleged knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the accused stun guns sold on Defendant's platform substantially the same as the design claimed in the '294' patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
- A second key question will relate to the scope of protection: The novelty of the patented design will be critical. The court will likely have to determine how much the prior art, if any, limits the scope of the '294' patent, which will in turn dictate how similar an accused product must be to infringe.
- The case also raises a significant question of platform liability: What level of knowledge, control, and direct action must Plaintiff prove to hold an online marketplace operator like Defendant liable for direct infringement, inducement of infringement, and willful infringement for products sold by third parties on its site?