DCT
2:14-cv-05558
Bluelounge Pte Ltd v. Wui Yuh Ooi
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bluelounge Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
- Defendant: WUI YUH OOI, an Individual d/b/a COSMOS and/or COSMOS TECH & LEISURE (Maryland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller IP
- Case Identification: 2:14-cv-05558, C.D. Cal., 07/17/2014
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant allegedly deriving substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products into the Central District of California via the internet.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cable management box infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff’s “CableBox” product.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics accessory market, specifically concerning products designed to organize and conceal cable clutter, where aesthetic design is a significant product differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-10-22 | '697 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-01-01 | Plaintiff allegedly began selling its CABLEBOX product (approximate, based on "at least early 2009") |
| 2010-04-13 | U.S. Patent No. D613,697 Issued |
| 2014-07-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D613,697, Container with Lid for Storing Power Cords and Cables for Electronic Devices, issued April 13, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the problem of "loose tangled cables" creating "untidy dust traps" under or on a desk, next to a computer, or behind a television (Compl. ¶22). This frames the issue as one of aesthetic clutter and disorganization in home and office environments.
- The Patented Solution: The ’697 Patent protects an ornamental design for a container intended to solve this problem. The patent's figures depict a minimalist, clean-lined box with a generally rectangular shape, rounded vertical edges, a flat, removable lid, and elongated openings on the two shorter sides to allow for cable ingress and egress (D'697 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The design's value lies in its specific visual appearance rather than any functional utility.
- Technical Importance: The complaint positions the patented design as a product of an "award-winning, international design studio" whose "elegant and sophisticated products" have received "international acclaim" (Compl. ¶1, ¶15). This suggests the aesthetic design itself is the key innovation and source of market value.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a container with lid for storing power cords and cables for electronic devices, as shown and described" (D'697 Patent, CLAIM).
- The core ornamental elements defining the design include:
- A generally rectangular prism form factor.
- Prominently rounded vertical corners.
- A flat, removable lid that sits atop the body.
- Elongated, rounded openings centered on the two shorter side faces.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is identified as the “Cosmos® Black household patch board/ac adapter/charger/usb hub/collect redundant cable Cable Box/Cable management box with Cosmos Fastening Strap” (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a container for organizing and hiding cables, power adapters, and other electronic accessories (Compl. ¶28). It is allegedly sold nationwide to consumers through internet storefronts, including Amazon.com (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes a screenshot from an Amazon.com product listing for the accused device. A screenshot of the accused product's Amazon.com listing shows it is sold by "Cosmos Tech & Leisure" and fulfilled by Amazon (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges the product is a "copy" of Plaintiff's CABLEBOX product (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central infringement allegation is that the ornamental design of the accused product is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’697 Patent. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison showing Figure 1 from the patent next to a photograph of the accused product in use (Compl. ¶34).
D'697 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Key Ornamental Features from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a container with lid for storing power cords and cables for electronic devices. | The complaint alleges the accused product misappropriates the patented design, presenting a visual comparison that highlights the similarity in overall appearance. | ¶34 | D'697 Patent, CLAIM |
| A generally rectangular prism-shaped body with rounded vertical edges. | The accused product is depicted as a rectangular box with rounded vertical edges, consistent with the overall form of the patented design. | ¶34 | D'697 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| A removable lid that sits atop the body. | The accused product is shown with a removable lid that covers the main body of the container. | ¶34 | D'697 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| Elongated, rounded openings on the two shorter side faces for cable egress. | The accused product is shown with elongated openings on its side faces, through which cables are passed. | ¶34 | D'697 Patent, FIG. 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Overall Visual Impression: The primary legal question in a design patent case is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The dispute will center on a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the accused Cosmos box and the design shown in the ’697 Patent figures.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of whether any subtle differences in proportions, the specific curvature of the side openings, or the seam between the lid and the body are sufficient to alter the overall visual impression and thus avoid infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings, and formal construction of textual terms is uncommon. The scope of the ’697 Patent's claim is the overall ornamental design "as shown and described" in its figures (D'697 Patent, CLAIM). The complaint does not present facts that would suggest a dispute over the meaning of any specific term.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful and committed with knowledge of Plaintiff’s patent rights (Compl. ¶36). This allegation is based on the assertion of "blatant copying" and the constructive notice allegedly provided by Plaintiff's marking of its own commercial products (Compl. ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused Cosmos product substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’697 Patent, such that an observer would be deceived? The side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint will be a central piece of evidence in this analysis (Compl. ¶34).
- A key question for damages will be willfulness: Do the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, particularly the claim of "blatant copying," support a finding that the Defendant infringed knowingly or with reckless disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights, which could justify an award of enhanced damages?