DCT

2:25-cv-04732

Zuru Inc v. Salus Brands LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-04732, D. Ariz., 12/16/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant engages in infringing activities within the district—including advertising, sales, and shipping—and maintains a regular and established place of business in Arizona.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SplatterBallz Reusable Water Balloons" infringe three design patents covering the ornamental appearance of reusable water toys.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns reusable water toys, a segment of the broader consumer toy market where ornamental design and brand recognition are significant competitive factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies Plaintiff as the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges to the patents, are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-12-25 Priority Date for ’139 and ’929 Patents
2023-11-21 Priority Date for ’861 Patent
2024-05-07 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,026,139 S Issued
2024-06-11 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,030,929 S Issued
2024-07-09 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,861 S Issued
2025-10-01 (Approx.) Plaintiff allegedly discovered infringement
2025-12-16 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,026,139 S - "WATER BALL"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The implicit problem addressed is the need for a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for a water toy to distinguish it in the marketplace.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a water ball as depicted in its nine figures. The design consists of a spherical object composed of two hemispheres, with its surface covered by a distinct pattern of continuous, undulating wavy lines. The patent illustrates the design in both a closed state (D’139 Patent, FIG. 1) and an open state, which reveals its two-part construction (D’139 Patent, FIG. 9; Description).
  • Technical Importance: The significance of the design is aesthetic; it provides a unique visual identity for a consumer product in the competitive toy industry (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "the ornamental design for a water ball, as shown and described" (D’139 Patent, Claim).
  • The claimed design is defined by the visual characteristics shown in the patent's drawings, which include:
    • An overall spherical shape.
    • A surface ornamentation comprised of a repeating, wavy line pattern.
    • A construction from two separable hemispheres.

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,030,929 S - "SPHERICAL TOY WATER BALL"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a distinct ornamental design for a spherical toy water ball.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a spherical toy water ball as depicted in its figures. The design features a spherical body with surface ornamentation. Figures show the ball in a closed state (D’929 Patent, FIG. 1) as well as an open, two-hemisphere state (D’929 Patent, FIGS. 2-3). The broken lines in the figures depict portions of the article, such as the hinge and internal rims, that do not form part of the claimed design (D’929 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides an alternative aesthetic for a reusable water toy, contributing to product differentiation in the consumer market (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single asserted claim is for "the ornamental design for a spherical toy water ball, as shown and described" (D’929 Patent, Claim).
  • The claimed design is defined by the visual elements depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
    • A spherical overall form.
    • Specific surface ornamentation.
    • A two-hemisphere configuration shown in the "open" views.

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,861 S - "TOY WATER BALL"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,861 S, entitled “TOY WATER BALL,” issued July 9, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects a third distinct ornamental design for a reusable toy water ball. The claimed design, shown in four figures, consists of a spherical object with a particular surface pattern, and is depicted in both closed and open configurations (D’861 Patent, Description; Compl. ¶18).
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in the patent's figures (D’861 Patent, Claim).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of Defendant’s "SplatterBallz Reusable Water Balloons" infringes the design claimed in the ’861 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are identified as "SplatterBallz Reusable Water Balloons" (Compl. ¶24).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused products as reusable water balloons sold by Defendant directly through its websites and as a wholesale supplier to third-party retailers including Target, QVC, Nordstrom, and Toys 'R Us (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 29). Plaintiff alleges it conducted test purchases of the accused products to confirm infringement (Compl. ¶31). The complaint states that photographs of a test-purchased product are attached as Exhibit 5 to provide visual evidence of the infringing design (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "SplatterBallz" products infringe the three asserted design patents (Compl. ¶23). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the design of the accused product is substantially the same as the claimed design, considering the design as a whole. The complaint asserts that the accused products are "identical or near identical to the WATER BALL Patents" (Compl. ¶30). While the complaint references claim charts in "Composite Exhibit 6" that purportedly illustrate the infringement, those exhibits were not filed with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶35). The infringement theory rests on a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the designs claimed in the patents-in-suit.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute will be a visual one: is the overall ornamental appearance of the "SplatterBallz Reusable Water Balloons" substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’139, ’929, and ’861 patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer? This analysis will involve comparing the shapes, surface patterns, and overall visual impression of the products.
    • Technical Questions: While the focus is ornamental, any functional differences that create a distinct visual appearance could become relevant. A key question will be whether any minor dissimilarities between the accused product and the patented designs are sufficient to avoid a finding of substantial similarity in the eyes of an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction of terms is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the scope of the article of manufacture may be considered.

  • The Term: "water ball" / "spherical toy water ball"
  • Context and Importance: These terms in the patent titles and claim define the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Practitioners may focus on these terms to understand the context of the design. The dispute is not likely to concern whether the accused product is a "water ball," but rather the visual similarity of its design to the patented one.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent descriptions are minimal, simply identifying the article as a "water ball" or "toy water ball" (D’139 Patent, Description; D’929 Patent, Description). The lack of further textual limitations could suggest the design applies broadly to articles of this type.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The drawings themselves provide the primary limitation on scope. The specific visual features—the particular wavy patterns, proportions, and two-hemisphere construction shown in solid lines—define the boundaries of the claimed design. The explicit disclaimer of features shown in broken lines, such as the hinge mechanism in the ’929 Patent, further defines and limits what is protected (D’929 Patent, FIGS. 2-3).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of "indirectly" infringing the patents but provides no specific factual basis to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶39).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "willful and deliberate because Defendant had notice of or knew of the WATER BALL Patents" (Compl. ¶43). It does not, however, allege specific facts regarding the timing or method of this alleged notice (e.g., a cease-and-desist letter or other communication) prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

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 "SplatterBallz" product substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’139, ’929, and ’861 patents, considering the designs as a whole? The case will likely depend heavily on side-by-side visual evidence.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of scienter: What evidence does Plaintiff possess to support its claim that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, a crucial element for establishing willful infringement for any conduct that occurred before the complaint was filed?