DCT
2:17-cv-04586
Laltitude LLC v. Amazon.com Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Laltitude, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Vincent Y. Lin
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-04586, C.D. Cal., 06/21/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant conducts business in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of certain Bluetooth speakers infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a "Bluetooth Shower Speaker," and separately alleges trademark infringement related to the "SoundBot" mark.
- Technical Context: The patent-in-suit relates to the ornamental design of portable, water-resistant Bluetooth speakers, a high-volume product category in the consumer electronics market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was assigned to the Plaintiff from the inventor after its issuance. Notably, the complaint’s first count for relief is incorrectly titled "UTILITY PATENT INFRINGEMENT" despite asserting a design patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-12-25 | ’359 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date) |
| 2015-11-03 | U.S. Patent No. D742,359 Issues |
| 2016-02-12 | ’359 Patent Assigned to Laltitude, LLC |
| 2017-06-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D742,359 - "Bluetooth Shower Speaker"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D742,359, "Bluetooth Shower Speaker," issued November 3, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’359 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Instead, it addresses the aesthetic challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental appearance for a product in the established category of Bluetooth speakers intended for use in a shower environment (D’359 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the speaker as depicted in the patent's figures (D’359 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Key ornamental features include the product's overall circular, puck-like shape, the specific layout and iconography of the five control buttons (power, play/pause, previous/next track, and telephone handset symbol) arranged in a cross pattern on the top surface, and the integrated suction-cup base (D’359 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 6). The claim explicitly covers the design "as shown and described" (D’359 Patent, col. 2:43-45).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct aesthetic for a consumer electronic device, combining user interface controls and a mounting feature into a specific visual presentation.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design.
- The claim is: "The ornamental design for a bluetooth shower speaker, as shown and described." (D’359 Patent, col. 2:43-45). The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the seven figures of the patent.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which in the context of this single-claim design patent, refers to the entire patented design (Compl. ¶9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name, model number, or other identifier (Compl. ¶12). It refers generally to "products" sold by Amazon in the category of "bluetooth shower speaker" (Compl. ¶12, ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint makes general allegations that Amazon is "manufacturing, using, marketing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing" products that are covered by the ’359 Patent (Compl. ¶12). No specific functionalities or features of any accused product are described. The patent's perspective view, FIG. 1, included as part of Exhibit A to the complaint, shows the overall ornamental design that unspecified Amazon products are alleged to infringe (Compl. Ex. A, p. 15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for determining infringement of a design patent is 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 complaint makes a general allegation of infringement without providing a side-by-side comparison or identifying specific features of an accused product.
D742,359 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Single Design Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a bluetooth shower speaker, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that Amazon infringes by "manufacturing, using, marketing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing products covered by the ’359 Patent." | ¶12 | col. 2:43-45 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint does not contain pictures of the accused products or provide any factual basis for the infringement allegation beyond a conclusory statement. A primary question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the overall visual appearance of a specific Amazon product is substantially the same as the patented design.
- Technical Question: A central issue in design patent cases is the comparison of the overall visual impression. The question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially similar, considering the claimed design as a whole and in comparison to the prior art in the field of portable speakers.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the "claim" is defined by the drawings, and the construction of specific text terms is not typically a central point of dispute as it is in utility patent cases. The analysis focuses on a visual comparison between the claimed design as a whole and the accused product. The key question is not the meaning of a word, but the overall visual impression created by the patented design shown in Figures 1-7 (D’359 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶12). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support these claims, such as alleging that Amazon instructs third parties on how to infringe or sells a component that has no substantial non-infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Amazon having had "actual and/or constructive knowledge of the Patent" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notice letter or evidence of copying.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The Identification Question: A threshold issue for the case will be the Plaintiff's identification of the specific Amazon product(s) accused of infringement. The complaint's lack of specificity on this point will need to be resolved before any substantive infringement analysis can occur.
- The Visual Comparison Question: The core of the dispute will be one of visual similarity. Once an accused product is identified, the central question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would find the accused product's design to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’359 Patent.
- The Willfulness Basis Question: A key evidentiary issue will be whether Plaintiff can uncover facts to support its willfulness allegation. The analysis will focus on what evidence emerges, if any, demonstrating that Amazon had knowledge of the ’359 Patent before the lawsuit and engaged in conduct that could be considered egregious or akin to piracy.