DCT
2:18-cv-08218
Holly Hunt Enterprises Inc v. Neven Zeremski
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Holly Hunt Enterprises, Inc. (Illinois)
- Defendant: Neven Zeremski d/b/a OLIVYA STONE d/b/a OLIVYASTONE.COM (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-08218, C.D. Cal., 09/21/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the Defendant residing and having a principal place of business within the judicial district, as well as committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s luxury furniture products infringe five of its design patents and associated trade dress rights.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental designs of high-end, custom-made furniture and lighting within the luxury home furnishings market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references pre-suit correspondence, stating that Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendant on August 9, 2018. The complaint alleges Defendant responded defiantly on the same day and again on August 16, 2018, questioning the scope of Plaintiff's design patents, which may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-05-22 | U.S. Design Patent D'861 Priority Date |
| 2015-11-30 | U.S. Design Patent D'472 Priority Date |
| 2015-11-30 | U.S. Design Patent D'130 Priority Date |
| 2015-11-30 | U.S. Design Patent D'824 Priority Date |
| 2016-05-19 | U.S. Design Patent D'713 Priority Date |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Design Patent D'472 Issued |
| 2017-02-28 | U.S. Design Patent D'861 Issued |
| 2017-06-13 | U.S. Design Patent D'130 Issued |
| 2017-06-20 | U.S. Design Patent D'713 Issued |
| 2017-12-26 | U.S. Design Patent D'824 Issued |
| 2018-08-09 | Plaintiff sends demand letter to Defendant |
| 2018-08-16 | Defendant sends second response to Plaintiff |
| 2018-09-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D772,472 - "Table Lamp," issued November 22, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead seeks to protect a unique ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶8; D'472 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a table lamp base. The design is defined by a continuous, open-frame structure with a generally rectangular profile, rounded corners, and inwardly curving sides, which supports a central vertical post. (D'472 Patent, Figs. 1-2). The broken lines in the patent drawings indicate that the lampshade and internal electrical components are not part of the claimed design, focusing protection on the lamp's distinctive base form. (D'472 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The design's importance lies in its aesthetic contribution to the luxury furniture market, where Plaintiff alleges its designs have achieved "substantial success" and are protected by intellectual property rights. (Compl. ¶¶6-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a table lamp, as shown and described." (D'472 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of this design claim include:
- A base with a continuous, open-frame structure.
- The frame having a generally rectangular profile with rounded corners and curved sides.
- A central vertical post passing through the open frame.
- A circular element depicted on the central post within the open frame.
U.S. Design Patent No. D779,861 - "Side Table," issued February 28, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent protects a purely ornamental design for a side table. (Compl. ¶9; D'861 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a side table featuring a circular top supported by an asymmetrical, three-legged base. The legs have an organic, branching form that evokes a stylized, sculptural tree-like structure, with legs tapering and diverging from a central point beneath the tabletop. (D'861 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design's value is in its unique aesthetic within the high-end furniture market, where Plaintiff claims to have "pioneered a variety of innovations." (Compl. ¶6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a side table, as shown and described." (D'861 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of this design claim include:
- A circular or near-circular tabletop.
- A pedestal base composed of three legs.
- An organic, branching, and asymmetrical arrangement of the legs.
- Tapered, sculpted legs that diverge from a central point below the tabletop.
U.S. Design Patent No. D789,130 - "Chair," issued June 13, 2017
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a lounge chair featuring a continuous metal frame that forms the legs and armrests. The design is characterized by the distinctive profile where the rear legs curve upward to become the armrests and then support the separate, upholstered backrest. (Compl. ¶10; D'130 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "Hisano Lounge Chair" of infringing this design. (Compl. ¶100). The complaint includes a side-by-side photograph of the accused chair and a drawing from the D'130 Patent to illustrate the alleged similarity. (Compl. ¶100).
U.S. Design Patent No. D789,713 - "Side Table," issued June 20, 2017
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a side table with a hollow, C-shaped form. The design consists of a rectangular-prism-like shape with rounded corners that is open on two opposing sides, creating a tunnel-like appearance. (Compl. ¶11; D'713 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "Caden Side Table" of infringing this design. (Compl. ¶101).
U.S. Design Patent No. D805,824 - "Chair," issued December 26, 2017
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a low-slung lounge chair. The design's key feature is a continuous, sled-like base that supports a unified seat and backrest, creating a distinct, angular profile. (Compl. ¶12; D'824 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "Henna Lounge Chair" of infringing this design. (Compl. ¶102).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses specific products by name, including the "Eli Table Lamp," "Calum Side Table," "Hisano Lounge Chair," "Caden Side Table," and "Henna Lounge Chair," among many others identified in the trade dress claims. (Compl. ¶¶98-102).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are luxury home furnishing products sold by Defendant through the website olivyastone.com. (Compl. ¶¶13, 111). The complaint alleges these products are "identical copies" or "slavish copies" of Plaintiff's patented designs and proprietary trade dress. (Compl. ¶¶103, 111). As visual evidence of alleged misconduct, the complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's Instagram page purportedly showing a photograph of Plaintiff's own studio and furniture, which Defendant allegedly re-captioned to market the products as its own. (Compl. ¶89).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer might be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The analysis focuses on the overall ornamental appearance.
D772,472 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from "The ornamental design for a table lamp, as shown and described") | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of the lamp base, including its open, rounded rectangular frame and central post. | The complaint alleges Defendant's "Eli Table Lamp" has a design that would appear to an ordinary observer to be substantially similar to the claimed design. A visual comparison shows a lamp base with a similar open-frame shape and central post. | ¶98 | D'472 Patent, Figs. 1-7 |
D779,861 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from "The ornamental design for a side table, as shown and described") | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of the side table, including its circular top and asymmetrical, three-legged, branching base. | The complaint alleges Defendant's "Calum Side Table" has a design that would appear to an ordinary observer to be substantially similar to the claimed design. A visual comparison shows a table with a similar three-legged, organic base structure. | ¶99 | D'861 Patent, Figs. 1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute will concern the visual similarity between the accused products and the patent drawings. A question for the court is whether any minor differences in proportion, curvature, or finish between the accused products and the patent drawings are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression for the ordinary observer. Defendant's pre-suit letter suggests a potential defense strategy focusing on perceived differences between the 2D patent drawings and the "physical furniture built." (Compl. ¶92).
- Visual Questions: The infringement case hinges on the side-by-side comparisons provided in the complaint. For the ’472 patent, the analysis will focus on whether the accused "Eli Table Lamp" (Compl. ¶98) creates the same aesthetic impression as the patented open-frame base. For the ’861 patent, the key question is whether the accused "Calum Side Table" (Compl. ¶99) is visually equivalent to the patented organic, three-legged base design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as depicted in the drawings, rather than on textual terms. The interpretation of what is claimed versus what is unclaimed environment is critical.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a table lamp, as shown and described" (D'472 Patent)
- Context and Importance: The scope of this claim is defined by the elements depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures. The lampshade and other components shown in broken lines are explicitly not part of the claimed design. (D'472 Patent, Description). Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it clarifies that the infringement analysis must compare the accused lamp's base to the patented design, not the entire lamp assembly.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the claim covers any lamp base creating the same overall visual impression as the solid-line drawings, regardless of minor variations. The description's express disclaimer of the lampshade ("The broken lines in the figures show unclaimed detail") supports focusing the "ordinary observer" test on the core ornamental structure of the base. (D'472 Patent, Description).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the claim is limited to the exact proportions, curvatures, and specific features shown, such as the small circular element on the central post. (D'472 Patent, Fig. 2). Any deviation in the accused product could be framed as creating a different overall visual impression, thus avoiding infringement.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful and intentional. (Compl. ¶103). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant had "actual knowledge" of the patents, that Plaintiff's designs are "well-known throughout the furniture industry," and that the accused products are "identical copies." (Compl. ¶103). The complaint further substantiates this claim by citing pre-suit correspondence in which Plaintiff allegedly put Defendant on notice of its patent rights, and Defendant allegedly continued its infringing conduct. (Compl. ¶¶90-92, 98).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on allegations of direct copying of distinctive furniture designs. The resolution will likely depend on the answers to three key questions:
A central issue will be one of visual comparison: For each of the five asserted design patents, is the accused product "substantially similar" in its overall ornamental appearance to the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer, particularly in light of the side-by-side photographic evidence presented in the complaint? (e.g., Compl. ¶¶98-102).
A key factual question will be one of intent: Does the evidence, including the alleged "identical" copying and the defiant pre-suit correspondence, support a finding of willful infringement, which could expose Defendant to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284? (Compl. ¶¶90-92, 103).
Finally, a question of overlapping rights will be present: How will the court and jury navigate the dual allegations of design patent infringement and trade dress infringement for the same product designs, particularly concerning the legal requirement that protectable trade dress be non-functional?