DCT

2:18-cv-03932

Cart Supply Inc v. Everstrong Commercial Products LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Cart & Supply, Inc. v. Everstrong Commercial Products, LLC, et al., 2:18-cv-03932, C.D. Cal., 05/10/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue in the Central District of California is alleged based on Defendants transacting, doing, and soliciting business in the District, and a substantial part of the relevant events having occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendants’ commercial laundry cart bases infringes a design patent covering the appearance of a cart support with rotating wheels.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of commercial laundry and material handling equipment, concerning the visual design of wheeled platforms used to support and move large baskets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-05-13 '414 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2014-06-17 U.S. Patent D707,414 Issued
"Since 2014" Plaintiff alleges it began development, manufacture, and sale of laundry carts
2018-05-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D707,414 - Cart Support Having Rotating Wheels

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '414 Patent does not articulate a technical problem to be solved. Instead, it protects the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture ('414 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "cart support having rotating wheels" ('414 Patent, Title). The design, depicted in seven figures, consists of a minimalist, tubular frame featuring two parallel, U-shaped upper rails connected to a lower rectangular frame by four vertical posts. Each post is mounted on a rotating caster ('414 Patent, Fig. 1). The overall visual impression is defined by the specific proportions, curvatures, and arrangement of these elements as depicted in the patent's drawings ('414 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint suggests a commercial application for this design, stating that Plaintiff has been engaged in the development, manufacture, and sale of laundry carts and related accessories since 2014 (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the design as shown in the drawings.
  • The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a cart support having rotating wheels, as shown and described" ('414 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article in the patent's seven drawing figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "Everstrong Heavy Duty Wire Basket Laundry Carts with size of Large or Standard and with Double Pole and Single Pole" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are mobile bases designed to hold and transport commercial laundry baskets (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges these products are sold on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.com and directly from the Defendants’ website (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides photographic evidence of the accused product's design in a side-by-side comparative chart (Compl. pp. 4-8). For example, a perspective view of the accused product shows a wheeled base with a tubular frame construction (Compl. p. 4, "Accused Product").

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The complaint presents its infringement theory through a series of direct visual comparisons rather than a traditional textual claim chart.

Visual Comparison Summary

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "almost identical or at least substantially similar in appearance" to the patented design (Compl. ¶13). To support this, "Chart 1" juxtaposes each of the seven figures from the '414 Patent with corresponding photographs of an accused product (Compl. pp. 4-7).

  • The comparison between the patent’s perspective view (FIG. 1) and a photo of the accused product highlights a similar overall configuration, including the U-shaped upper rails, lower support members, and placement of four casters (Compl. p. 4).
  • A comparison of the top-down views (FIG. 6 vs. accused product) shows a similar rectangular footprint and arrangement of the upper and lower frame elements (Compl. p. 6).
  • The complaint also provides a detailed visual comparison of the rotating caster wheels, though the level of detail in the patent drawings for this element is less specific than in the photographs of the accused product (Compl. p. 7).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central issue will be whether the similarities between the two designs are ornamental, as claimed in the patent, or are instead dictated by the function of a laundry cart base. The scope of the '414 Patent will be defined by its novel ornamental features in light of the prior art, which is not yet part of the record. The defense may argue that the basic shape is functional or common in the industry.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison. The court will need to determine if any minor differences in proportion, tube diameter, or caster design are significant enough to be noticed by an ordinary observer and to alter the overall visual impression, such that the accused product would not be confused with the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the court does not construe claim terms in the traditional sense; rather, it determines the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings.

The "Term": The Claimed Design as a Whole

Context and Importance

The entire dispute rests on comparing the overall visual impression of the accused product with the scope of the design claimed in the '414 Patent. This analysis is guided by the patent's drawings, which define the claimed ornamental features.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

The scope of the design is defined by all features shown in solid lines in Figures 1 through 7 of the '414 Patent ('414 Patent, Description, Figs. 1-7). This includes the specific shape of the U-shaped top rails, the rectangular configuration of the lower frame, the four vertical posts, and the presence of four rotating casters, all in the arrangement and proportion depicted. The statement that "broken line showing of environment is for illustrative purposes only" is standard but not applicable here, as the patent figures do not contain any broken lines ('414 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement based on Defendants "selling or offering to sell and/or importing the Accused Products to their customers and by marketing and promoting the sales of the Accused Products to customers" (Compl. ¶16).

Willful Infringement

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infringement "has been and continues to be willful and intentional," making the case "exceptional" and entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶19, 23). The complaint does not plead specific facts concerning pre-suit knowledge, basing the allegation on "information and belief."

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

  1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central question for the court is one of visual perception: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Everstrong cart base "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '414 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived?
  2. The Impact of Prior Art: A critical, and currently unknown, factor will be the landscape of prior art for commercial laundry cart bases. The ultimate determination of infringement will depend on whether the shared design features are novel and ornamental, or whether they are functional elements common to pre-existing designs in the field.
  3. The Question of Willfulness: A key evidentiary issue will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendants had knowledge of the '414 Patent and its infringement. The high degree of visual similarity alleged in the complaint's charts may be used to argue that the copying was not accidental, which could support a finding of willfulness.