DCT
2:20-cv-05020
Highwave Inc v. Grand Innovations USA LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Highwave, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Grand Innovations USA LLC (California), VF & Co., LLC (California), and Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rincon Venture Law Group
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-05020, C.D. Cal., 06/05/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because each defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, has allegedly committed acts of infringement, and can be found within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "2-In-1 Pet Water Bottle & Bowl" product infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a portable water mug for dogs.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer pet products market, where the unique ornamental design of a product can be a significant factor in its commercial appeal and brand identity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided constructive notice of its patent rights by marking its own commercial products and also provided actual written notice of infringement to Defendants Grand Innovations and Grocery Outlet prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-08-18 | D'025 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-10-13 | D'025 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-01-01 | Accused Product allegedly launched (approx.) |
| 2020-06-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D741,025 - "Portable Water Travel Mug for Dogs"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D741,025, "Portable Water Travel Mug for Dogs", issued October 13, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'025 Patent does not address a functional problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, specifically a portable pet waterer (Compl. ¶¶9, 14; D'025 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the travel mug, which is defined by the drawings (D'025 Patent, Claim). The ornamental design consists of the combination and proportion of its features: a wide, flared, trough-like bowl integrated atop a bottle-like body, which itself has a distinct contoured, indented mid-section above a cylindrical base (D'025 Patent, Figs. 1, 3).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design has been commercially successful and recognized for its originality, having received innovation honors and features in national media, suggesting its aesthetic qualities are a key market differentiator (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a portable water travel mug for dogs, as shown and described" (D'025 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 9 of the patent.
- The key ornamental features that constitute the overall design include:
- A flared, open-top bowl element.
- A contoured, hourglass-shaped upper body with a recessed grip area.
- A cylindrical lower body.
- The overall proportions and visual interrelationship of these elements.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "2-In-1 Pet Water Bottle & Bowl," also referred to as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Product is a portable water bottle with an integrated bowl top, which the complaint describes as a "cheap knock-off" of Plaintiff's "Autodogmug®" product (Compl. ¶¶9, 11). The complaint alleges the Accused Product is imported, distributed, and sold by Defendants Grand Innovations and VF, including through retail stores operated by Defendant Grocery Outlet (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes an image of the Accused Product's packaging which highlights features such as "Squeeze to fill" (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Product has an overall appearance that is "confusingly similar to and substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'025 Patent" in the eye of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶19). The infringement argument is supported by side-by-side visual comparisons. A side perspective of the patented design is shown next to a photograph of the Accused Product (Compl. p. 6). A top-down view of the patented design's bowl is also compared to a photograph of the Accused Product's bowl (Compl. p. 6).
D'025 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature (from D'025 Patent Drawings) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Complaint Images) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall side-profile silhouette, including a flared bowl top, a narrow neck, and a contoured body with an indented grip section. | The complaint provides a side-view photograph of the Accused Product in its packaging that displays a visually similar silhouette. | ¶18, p. 6 | col. 1:31 |
| A wide, flared, trough-like bowl with a central aperture, as seen from a top-down perspective. | The complaint provides a top-view photograph of the Accused Product's bowl, which also depicts a wide, flared, trough-like shape with a central opening. | ¶18, p. 6 | col. 1:35 |
| The overall visual impression created by the combination of the constituent shapes and their proportions. | The complaint alleges the Accused Product's overall appearance would be viewed by an ordinary observer as substantially the same as the patented design. | ¶19 | col. 1:29-38 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question for infringement is whether the overall visual impression of the Accused Product is "substantially the same" as the patented design. The analysis will focus on whether any differences in proportion, curvature, or surface detail between the two designs are significant enough to create a different overall appearance in the eye of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: A factual question is whether the visual evidence presented in the complaint, such as the photograph of the Accused Product in its packaging, is a fair and accurate representation for comparison against the patent's line drawings. The court will need to compare the designs as a whole, rather than focusing on dissected elements, to determine if the resemblance is likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser.
V. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by actively encouraging and instructing customers and end users on how to use the Accused Product in its intended manner (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on allegations of both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendants had constructive knowledge from Plaintiff's marking of its authorized products and actual knowledge from written notices sent to Grand Innovations and Grocery Outlet (Compl. ¶23). The complaint further alleges that Defendants' executives saw an authorized product and "resolved to have a cheap knock-off of it made," which suggests intentional copying (Compl. ¶11).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: In the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' "2-In-1" product substantially the same as the holistic design protected by the D'025 patent, or are the differences sufficient to avoid infringement?
- A key evidentiary question will concern intent: Can the Plaintiff substantiate its allegations that Defendants deliberately copied the patented design to create a "knock-off"? Evidence supporting these claims would be central to the issue of willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages.