DCT

2:21-cv-09089

Laltitude LLC v. Shenzhen Jinnuo Precision Products Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-09089, C.D. Cal., 11/19/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because a substantial injury occurred in the district, a substantial part of the subject property is located there, and Defendants' conduct has been directed into the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Bluetooth shower speakers infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for such a speaker.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the market for portable, water-resistant consumer electronics, where ornamental design can be a significant driver of consumer choice.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent at least three unsuccessful takedown notices to Amazon.com regarding the accused products starting on or around October 27, 2021, prior to filing this complaint. This action may be relevant to the question of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-12-25 D'359 Patent Application Filed
2015-11-03 D'359 Patent Issued
2021-10-27 Plaintiff allegedly began filing takedown notices
2021-11-19 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: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent does not identify a technical problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for a Bluetooth shower speaker.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a shower speaker as depicted in its seven figures ('359 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The design features a circular, puck-like body with a prominent suction cup on its base for mounting ('359 Patent, Fig. 2). The top surface features a circular arrangement of five control buttons—power, play/pause, forward, back, and a phone icon—around a central point ('359 Patent, Fig. 6). The claim covers the ornamental design as shown in solid lines in the drawings ('359 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "success and novelty of the Patent prompted third parties... to manufacture and/or distribute blatant counterfeits," which suggests the design had significant market appeal (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a bluetooth shower speaker, as shown and described." ('359 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential elements of the design are its visual characteristics, including:
    • The overall circular, puck-like shape of the speaker body.
    • The arrangement of five distinct control buttons on the top surface.
    • The side profile, including the proportions of the upper body and the attached suction cup base.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • "Bluetooth shower speakers" offered for sale on Amazon.com under the brand "WYNCO" (Compl. ¶2, ¶4, ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a Bluetooth shower speaker sold on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶11). The core of the allegation is not its technical function but its ornamental appearance, which Plaintiff alleges is "substantially similar, if not identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶2, ¶12). The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison to support this allegation, showing a pink version of the accused product (Compl. ¶18). This comparison photo, showing a product with a nearly identical shape, button layout, and suction cup, forms the primary basis of the infringement claim (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a traditional claim chart exhibit. Instead, it alleges infringement under the "ordinary observer" test, stating that Defendants' product would appear "to an ordinary observer to be substantially similar to the claim of the Patent" (Compl. ¶24). The central evidence for this is a visual comparison chart presented in the complaint, which juxtaposes figures from the '359 Patent with photographs of the accused "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶18).

The chart presents three visual pairings:

  1. A perspective view from the '359 Patent (Fig. 1) is shown next to a perspective photo of the accused speaker, highlighting the similarity in overall form factor and top-surface button placement (Compl. ¶18).
  2. A side-view drawing from the patent is compared to a side-view photo of the accused product, illustrating a similar profile and suction cup base (Compl. ¶18).
  3. A top-down view from the '359 Patent (Fig. 6) is placed alongside a top-down photo of the accused product, showing a nearly identical layout of five control buttons in a circular pattern (Compl. ¶18).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the minor differences between the patent drawings and the accused product—such as the specific iconography on the control buttons and the coloration of the product—are sufficient to differentiate the designs in the mind of an ordinary observer, considering the prior art.
  • Technical Questions: While this is a design patent case, the application of the ordinary observer test is a question of fact. The key question is whether the accused product's design is "substantially the same" as the claimed design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, there are no textual claim terms to construe. The "claim" is the design itself, as depicted in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.

  • The "Term": The ornamental design for a Bluetooth shower speaker as shown in Figures 1-7.
  • Context and Importance: The entire case hinges on the visual comparison between the patented design and the accused product. The legal question is how an "ordinary observer" would perceive the two designs, which requires determining the overall visual impression created by the patent's drawings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's focus on the overall shape—a simple, round, puck-like speaker with a suction cup—could support an interpretation that the design's scope covers other speakers with this general configuration, even with minor variations in surface ornamentation (e.g., button icons).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific arrangement, shape, and iconography of the five buttons shown in Figure 6 are a prominent feature ('359 Patent, Fig. 6). A court could find these details to be a critical part of the overall visual impression, potentially narrowing the scope of protection to designs that replicate this specific button layout very closely. The broken lines in Figure 7 explicitly disclaim the ornamental design of a portion of the speaker's bottom surface, limiting the scope of the claim to the features shown in solid lines ('359 Patent, Fig. 7, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint focuses exclusively on direct infringement by Defendants for making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused product (Compl. ¶16). It does not allege facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[], intentionally, and willfully" undertaken (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges that "Defendants had actual knowledge of Plaintiff's right in the design claimed in the Patent" and that they were aware of these rights "before they began their infringing activities" (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Plaintiff’s unsuccessful takedown notices sent to Amazon beginning in October 2021 could be used to argue that, at a minimum, Defendants had knowledge and continued to infringe after that date (Compl. ¶19).

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

  1. Scope of the Design and the Ordinary Observer: The central issue is one of visual scope: Will an ordinary observer find the accused speaker "substantially similar" to the patented design, despite minor differences in button graphics and color? The outcome will depend on whether the observer's attention is captured more by the identical overall shape and layout or by the subtle variations in surface detail.
  2. Impact of Prior Art: While not mentioned in the complaint, the infringement analysis for a design patent requires comparing the accused and patented designs in light of the prior art. A key question will be whether the prior art is crowded with similar speaker designs, which would narrow the scope of the '359 Patent's protection to its specific details, or if the patented design was distinctive in the field, affording it a broader scope.
  3. Proof of Willfulness: A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: Can the Plaintiff prove its allegation that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '359 Patent? If not, the claim for willful infringement may depend on whether the Amazon takedown notices are sufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and deliberate disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights.