DCT
4:22-cv-00034
P S Products Inc v. DC Mach
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: P.S. Products, Inc. and Billy Pennington (Arkansas)
- Defendant: DC MACH, INC d/b/a Carvers Olde Iron (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stewart Law Firm
- Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00034, E.D. Ark., 01/18/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is predicated on the defendant’s business dealings with customers in Arkansas and the allegation that actions giving rise to the claims occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s concealment flag display case infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of concealment furniture, where decorative items are designed with hidden compartments for storing valuables or firearms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-01-27 | D'449 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date) |
| 2018-01-02 | D'449 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-12-XX | Plaintiff alleges it learned of Defendant's infringing product |
| 2022-01-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D806,449 - "Flag Display Container," issued January 2, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The filing suggests an effort to create a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, namely a flag display case with a concealed compartment (D'449 Patent, Figs. 1, 8).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "flag display container" as depicted in its drawings (D'449 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of a triangular display case mounted on a rectangular base. Key visual elements shown in solid lines include the overall shape of the case, its proportions relative to the base, and its ability to pivot open from the base to reveal an interior space (D'449 Patent, DESCRIPTION; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that "No goods of this design existed prior to the Plaintiffs' designs and patents," suggesting the design's perceived novelty in the market at the time (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a flag display container, as shown and described" (D'449 Patent, CLAIM).
- This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article as depicted in the solid-line portions of the patent's figures. Features shown in broken lines, such as internal hook-and-loop straps, are explicitly disclaimed and do not form part of the protected design (D'449 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is a concealment flag case marketed as the "Remington" under Defendant's "American Furniture Classics" product line (Compl. ¶29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the product via a website link describing it as a "military-3x5-flag-box-quick-access-pistol-jewelry-concealment-safe-urn-memorial" (Compl. ¶31.a). This indicates the product functions as both a flag display case and a quick-access concealment device. The complaint provides a photograph of what it identifies as a "knock-off FLAG" received from the Defendant (Compl. ¶38, Fig. 3). The photograph shows a triangular flag case on a rectangular base, in an open position revealing a foam-lined interior (Compl. ¶38, Fig. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the "infringing FLAG is substantially the same design" as the patented one (Compl. ¶70). The visual evidence provided offers a basis for this comparison.
| Patented Design Feature (from D'449 Figs.) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Compl. Fig. 3) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An overall configuration of a triangular display case mounted atop a separate rectangular base. | The accused product consists of a triangular case portion resting on a rectangular base. | ¶38, Fig. 3 | Figs. 1, 8 |
| A design where the triangular display portion pivots upward from the base to reveal a concealed compartment. | The photograph of the accused product shows it in an open state, consistent with the triangular portion hinging or pivoting away from the base. | ¶38, Fig. 3 | Fig. 1 |
| The specific proportions and visual relationship between the triangular case and the rectangular base. | The accused product appears to share a similar visual proportion between its triangular and rectangular components as shown in the patent drawings. | ¶38, Fig. 3 | Figs. 5, 11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Overall Visual Impression: The central question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. This analysis will compare the overall visual impression of the two designs, not minor differences.
- Scope Questions: The court may need to consider the effect of surface ornamentation present on the accused product (e.g., the stars visible on the flag face in the complaint's photograph) but not shown in the patent drawings, and whether such features are sufficient to differentiate the overall designs in the eye of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶38, Fig. 3).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction is generally resolved by referencing the patent's drawings. The scope of the claim is what is shown in the drawings in solid lines.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a flag display container" (D'449 Patent, CLAIM).
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term is defined exclusively by the visual representations in the patent's figures. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between elements depicted in solid lines, which are claimed, and those in broken lines, which are disclaimed as mere environment or context.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is not limited to any particular material, color, or surface texture, which could support an interpretation covering any container with the same shape and configuration shown in the solid lines.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is strictly defined by the solid-line drawings. The explicit disclaimer of internal features and fasteners via broken lines confirms that the claim is limited to the external shape and configuration of the case and base (D'449 Patent, DESCRIPTION; Fig. 3). Any significant deviation in the shape or proportions of an accused product could support a non-infringement argument.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads infringement by inducement, alleging Defendant encourages infringement by "individuals and companies" (Compl. ¶65) and that third-party sellers on its website operate with "CARVER's express permission" (Compl. ¶37). The act of offering the accused product for sale on Defendant's website is also presented as an inducing activity (Compl. ¶31.a, ¶45).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful (Compl. ¶62, ¶68) and that it acted with "knowledge of PSP's patent rights" (Compl. ¶66). However, the complaint does not specify facts indicating when or how Defendant became aware of the D'449 patent, which may be a focus during discovery.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "Remington" product substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'449 patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them in the mind of a typical purchaser?
- A key evidentiary question will concern knowledge and intent: What evidence will be produced to demonstrate that the Defendant had the requisite knowledge of the D'449 patent to support the claims for induced and willful infringement, and what facts will substantiate the claim for infringer’s profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289?