DCT

2:15-cv-04479

Noam Kraniansky v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:15-cv-04479, C.D. Cal., 06/12/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on acts of infringement having been committed within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various "telephone wire" style hair bands on its website infringes five of Plaintiff's design patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of coiled, elastic hair bands, a common consumer hair accessory.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant on May 18, 2015, identifying the patents-in-suit and the accused products. The complaint further alleges that Defendant did not respond to the letter and continued the accused activity, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-04-13 Priority Date for all five patents-in-suit
2012-08-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D665,852 S
2012-09-25 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D667,890 S
2012-09-25 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D667,996 S
2013-05-14 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D682,470 S
2014-02-04 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D698,996 S
2015-05-18 Plaintiff's counsel sends cease and desist letter to Defendant
2015-06-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D665,852 S - "Triangle Hair Band," issued August 21, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '852 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. It seeks to protect a specific ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶9; ’852 Patent, p. 10).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific aesthetic and visual appearance of a coiled hair band, which is formed into a toroid or ring shape. The distinctive feature of the design, as depicted in the patent's figures, is that the individual coils have a cross-section that is generally triangular or wedge-shaped, creating a visually sharp outer circumference ('852 Patent, FIGS. 1-3). The sole claim is for "the ornamental design for a triangle hair band, as shown and described" (’852 Patent, p. 10, CLAIM).
  • Technical Importance: The patent protects a unique ornamental appearance for a common consumer product, which can be a key market differentiator in the fashion and accessories industry (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the sole claim of the patent (Compl. ¶18).
  • Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a triangle hair band, as shown and described."

U.S. Design Patent No. D667,890 S - "Double Cylindrical Hair Band," issued September 25, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent protects the novel ornamental appearance of a hair band, not a functional solution to a technical problem (Compl. ¶10; ’890 Patent, p. 15).
  • The Patented Solution: The '890 Patent claims the ornamental design for a coiled hair band where the filament making up the coil has a "double cylindrical" or grooved cross-section. The figures show a design that appears as two thin cylinders fused together side-by-side and then coiled, creating a distinct furrowed texture along the length of the band (’890 Patent, FIGS. 1-3). The claim protects this specific visual appearance (’890 Patent, p. 15, CLAIM).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides another distinct aesthetic for a hair accessory, intended to be visually distinguishable from other products on the market (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the sole claim of the patent (Compl. ¶18).
  • Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a double cylindrical hair band, as shown and described."

U.S. Design Patent No. D667,996 S - "Convex Hair Band," issued September 25, 2012

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D667,996 S, "Convex Hair Band," issued September 25, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a coiled hair band. The design's primary characteristic is a smooth, rounded, or convex cross-section of the individual coils (’996 Patent, FIGS. 1-3).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Accused Features: Various "telephone wire" style hair bands sold on Defendant's website are accused of embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶¶13, 18).

U.S. Design Patent No. D682,470 S - "Rectangular Hair Band," issued May 14, 2013

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D682,470 S, "Rectangular Hair Band," issued May 14, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a coiled hair band where the filament has a distinctly rectangular or flattened cross-section, giving the coil a ribbed, tape-like appearance (’470 Patent, FIGS. 1-3).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that various elastic coiled hair bands offered for sale on Defendant's e-commerce platform infringe this design (Compl. ¶¶13, 18).

U.S. Design Patent No. D698,996 S - "Cylindrical Hair Band," issued February 4, 2014

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D698,996 S, "Cylindrical Hair Band," issued February 4, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a coiled hair band characterized by a simple, circular or cylindrical cross-section, resembling a standard coiled cord (’996 Patent, FIGS. 1-3).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that coiled "telephone wire" hair bands sold by Defendant infringe this design (Compl. ¶¶13, 18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," which are described as "telephone wire hair ties" and "elastic cord hair ties" sold on the website www.amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶3, 13). Exhibit E to the complaint provides a list of 297 accused product listings by their Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) (Compl. Ex. E, pp. 38-50).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are elastic, coiled plastic bands used for securing hair, commonly known as ponytail holders (Compl. Ex. E, p. 52). The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale, sold, and distributed by Defendant throughout the United States (Compl. ¶¶13, 17). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website showing various accused products, such as one titled "Eforcase 10pcs Elastic Circle Hair Tie Ponytail Holder Band Multi-color Telephone Wire Cord Elastic Head Tie Hair..." (Compl. Ex. E, p. 52). This visual depicts a set of multi-colored, coiled hair ties that appear to be made from a simple, round elastic cord.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or an element-by-element analysis of infringement. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the "Infringing Products" embody the designs protected by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶18, 19). For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the overall visual appearance of the hair ties sold on Defendant's website is substantially the same as the ornamental designs claimed in the five asserted patents. The complaint lumps all accused products together against all five patents, without specifying which products are alleged to infringe which specific patented design (Compl. ¶18).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute will likely involve comparing the specific visual features of the accused products to the specific designs claimed in each patent. A question for the court will be whether a generic, coiled "telephone wire" hair tie is "substantially similar" in its overall ornamental appearance to the more detailed designs claimed in patents like the '852 Patent ("Triangle" cross-section) or the '890 Patent ("Double Cylindrical" cross-section). The patents claim five distinct cross-sectional profiles, and the infringement analysis will have to address each one separately against the accused products.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be establishing the actual design of the numerous products sold on Defendant's platform. The complaint provides a list of 297 ASINs, but it does not provide evidence of the specific design of each one (Compl. Ex. E, pp. 38-50). The case may require a product-by-product comparison to determine if any of them, in the eye of an ordinary observer, infringes one of the five distinct patented designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim's scope is defined by the patent's drawings, not by textual descriptions. Formal claim construction of specific terms is therefore uncommon. The analysis is a visual comparison between the claimed design and the accused product.

  • The "Term": The overall ornamental design of the hair band as shown in the collective figures of each asserted patent.
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis will depend on the scope of the visual design protected by each patent. Practitioners may focus on how broadly the protection afforded by the drawings extends—i.e., does it cover only the exact article shown, or does it also cover other articles with a substantially similar overall visual impression?
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might emphasize the overall visual effect created by the designs, such as the general impression of an "angular" coil (’852 Patent, FIG. 1) or a "grooved" coil (’890 Patent, FIG. 1), suggesting that minor variations in proportion or angle do not change the substantially similar appearance.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope would point to the precise details shown in all figures, including the front and side views that define the specific cross-sectional shape (’852 Patent, FIGS. 2-3). This position would suggest that the claim is limited to a hair band with the exact profile and proportions depicted, and any deviation (e.g., a simple round cord) would fall outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been "actively and knowingly inducing others to make, use, sell, [or] offer for sale" the infringing products (Compl. ¶19). This allegation appears to be directed at Defendant's role in providing an e-commerce platform for third-party sellers. The factual basis provided for the required elements of knowledge and intent is primarily the pre-suit notice allegedly provided by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been "knowing, intentional, and willful" (Compl. ¶20). This allegation is supported by the claim that Defendant was put on notice of its alleged infringement via an electronic submission and a formal cease and desist letter dated May 18, 2015, but continued its conduct (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 16).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of visual scope: Can the specific ornamental designs for hair bands with distinct triangular, double-cylindrical, convex, rectangular, and cylindrical cross-sections be construed to cover the designs of the various "telephone wire" hair ties sold on Defendant's platform, many of which may have a more generic, simple round-cord appearance?
  • A key question will be one of liability: What level of evidence will be required to establish Defendant's liability for direct or induced infringement for products sold by numerous, potentially third-party, vendors on its platform, particularly concerning the scienter requirements for inducement and willfulness in light of the pre-suit notice provided?
  • A central evidentiary challenge will be differentiation: The complaint asserts five distinct design patents against a group of 297 accused product listings. A significant question is how the court will manage the necessary product-by-product and patent-by-patent analysis required to determine infringement, as opposed to the complaint's collective allegations.