DCT

2:19-cv-06431

Tailai Ting v. Covina Accessories LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-06431, C.D. Cal., 07/24/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendants conduct business in California and have committed the alleged acts of infringement within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' adjustable truck racks infringe two design patents covering the ornamental appearance of such products.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to aftermarket automotive accessories, specifically adjustable racks designed to be mounted on pickup truck beds to facilitate the transport of oversized items like ladders and lumber.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Tailai Ting is the sole owner of the patents-in-suit and has granted an exclusive license to co-plaintiff Calhome Inc. to manufacture, sell, and use products embodying the patented inventions. No prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-05-24 '007 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date)
2015-02-03 '007 Patent Issue Date
2016-10-11 '922 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date)
2019-03-11 Plaintiff allegedly ordered an accused product from Defendants
2019-03-26 '922 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D722,007 S, "Truck Rack" (Issued Feb. 3, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes a need for truck accessories that allow consumers to "haul bigger and longer items that the average pick-up truck bed cannot fit" (Compl. ¶18).
  • The Patented Solution: The '007 Patent protects the specific ornamental design for a two-bar truck rack system. The visual appearance is characterized by two upright supports connected by a telescoping cross-bar, with the ends of the cross-bar extending slightly upwards and beyond the upright supports (D'007 Patent, Fig. 1). The uprights have a distinctive triangular bracing structure and a flat, L-shaped mounting base.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic for a functional product in the automotive aftermarket accessory space, combining adjustability features with a particular visual presentation (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim, which covers the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a truck rack, as shown and described" (D'007 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Design Patent No. D843,922 S, "Truck Rack" (Issued Mar. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '007 Patent, this design addresses the need to transport oversized items using a pickup truck (Compl. ¶18, ¶35).
  • The Patented Solution: The '922 Patent protects an alternative ornamental design for a truck rack. It shares a similar overall structure with the '007 Patent design, including the two-bar system with triangular bracing. However, a key distinguishing visual feature is a completely flat top cross-bar that extends horizontally past the upright supports, without the upward-swooping ends seen in the '007 Patent (D'922 Patent, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶37).
  • Technical Importance: This patent protects a distinct visual variation of the truck rack concept, focusing on a "flat cross bar" aesthetic (Compl. ¶37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a truck rack, as shown and described" (D'922 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies two lines of accused products:
    1. "AA-Racks Model X35" (also referred to as "AA X35"), accused of infringing the '007 Patent (Compl. ¶25-26).
    2. "AA-Racks Universal 800lbs Pick-Up Truck Ladder Rack...Carrier Rack" (also referred to as "AA X3502"), accused of infringing the '922 Patent (Compl. ¶39-40).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges that the accused products are adjustable steel ladder racks for pickup trucks, sold through online channels including Amazon.com, eBay.com, and the Defendants' own websites (Compl. ¶22, ¶27, ¶41).
    • Plaintiffs allege that Defendants market their products using nearly identical descriptions, features (e.g., 800 lb. capacity, adjustable width), and even product names, which is purported to cause customer confusion as to the source of the products (Compl. ¶29, ¶42, ¶49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. Instead, it advances its infringement theory through narrative allegations and side-by-side visual comparisons. For a design patent, 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 device believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that the design of the "AA X35" product is "substantially the same as the design that is the subject matter of the '007 Design Patent" (Compl. ¶25). To support this, the complaint presents a direct visual comparison of figures from the '007 Patent alongside a photograph of the accused "AA X35" product. (Compl. p.10, ¶30). This image juxtaposes the patented design's perspective view with the accused product's photograph, highlighting their alleged visual similarity. (Compl. p.10, ¶30).

Similarly, the complaint alleges that the design of the "AA X3502" product is "substantially the same as the design that is the subject matter of the '922 Patent" (Compl. ¶39). This allegation is supported by another side-by-side visual comparison. (Compl. p.16, ¶43). This exhibit compares figures from the '922 Patent, which show a flat cross-bar, with a photograph of the accused "AA X3502" product, which also appears to feature a flat cross-bar design. (Compl. p.16, ¶43).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be a factual comparison of the products' overall ornamental appearance. The question for the court is whether the visual differences between the patented designs and the accused products are minor enough that an ordinary observer would still be confused.
    • Role of Prior Art: The infringement analysis must be conducted in the context of the prior art. The scope of protection afforded to a design patent is influenced by how different it is from previous designs. A key question, not addressed in the complaint, will be what the relevant prior art for truck racks looks like and how it affects the "ordinary observer" analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, traditional claim construction focusing on the meaning of specific words is generally inapplicable. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the solid lines of the patent drawings. The scope of the claim is defined by the overall visual appearance of the design, not by a textual description. Therefore, the analysis will not center on construing terms but on comparing the overall visual impression of the patented designs with that of the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have indirectly infringed by "actively inducing infringement of, or contributorily infringing" the asserted patents (Compl. ¶58). The specific factual basis alleged is that Defendants have had the "specific intent to induce their customers or users of their products to infringe" (Compl. ¶57).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on "information and belief" that "Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs' rights before they began their infringing activity" (Compl. ¶50). The complaint further pleads that Defendants' infringement was "intentional, deliberate, and willful" and occurred "despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constitute infringement" (Compl. ¶56, ¶59).

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

  1. The Core Visual Question: The case will primarily turn on a factual determination of visual similarity. A central question is whether an ordinary observer would find the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' "AA X35" and "AA X3502" truck racks substantially the same as the respective designs claimed in the '007 and '922 patents, leading to purchasing confusion.
  2. The Impact of Prior Art: A critical evidentiary question will be the definition and scope of the prior art for truck racks. The level of novelty and ornamentality of the patented designs, when viewed against earlier designs, will be crucial in determining the scope of their protection and whether the accused products are close enough to infringe.
  3. Allegations of Copying and Confusion: Beyond the visual comparison, the court may consider the extensive allegations of nearly identical product marketing, naming conventions, and functional descriptions. A key question is whether this evidence of alleged intentional copying and market confusion (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 42) will influence the "ordinary observer" analysis for design patent infringement.