Solo Brands LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Solo Brands, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule "A"; Sheng Wu, an individual; DOES 1-10
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Call & Jensen
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-07407, C.D. Cal., 03/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants target and sell products to consumers in the district through interactive e-commerce stores, have sold infringing products to California residents, and have caused substantial injury to Plaintiff in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Bonstove Fire Pit" infringes two design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's smokeless fire pit and a related stand.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the consumer product category of portable, smokeless outdoor fire pits, a market where brand identity and distinctive product appearance are significant.
• Key Procedural History: The current filing is an Amended Complaint, filed on March 8, 2023, following an original complaint filed on October 11, 2022. The complaint also notes that a website previously used by Defendants, www.bonstove.com, was removed by the registrar, which may suggest a prior enforcement action or domain dispute.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-02-02	Filing Date for D'163 Patent
2019-02-25	Filing Date for D'858 Patent
2021-03-30	U.S. Patent No. D914,858 (’858 Patent) Issued
2021-06-22	U.S. Patent No. D923,163 (’163 Patent) Issued
2022-10-11	Original Complaint Filing Date
2023-03-08	Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D923,163 - "FIRE PIT", Issued June 22, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not its utility. As such, the patent does not articulate a technical problem to be solved (D’163 Patent).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific, non-functional ornamental design for a fire pit. Key visual features include its overall cylindrical shape, a row of circular holes around the bottom of the exterior wall, and a second row of smaller circular holes on the interior wall just below the top rim (D’163 Patent, Figs. 1, 7). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of this design, the Solo Stove Fire Pit, has become widely recognized by the public (Compl. ¶15).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive designs of the Solo Stove Fire Pits are a core component of their brand identity and market success (Compl. ¶¶17, 26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the patent’s single claim (Compl. ¶36).
• As a design patent, the claim protects the overall visual appearance of the fire pit "as shown and described" in the patent's drawings (D'163 Patent, Claim). The core visual elements are:
  • A cylindrical body with specific height-to-width proportions.
  • A uniform series of circular apertures arranged in a single row near the base of the exterior wall.
  • An angled upper rim.
  • A uniform series of circular apertures arranged in a single row on the upper portion of the interior wall.

U.S. Design Patent No. D914,858 - "BONFIRE PIT STAND", Issued March 30, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This design patent protects the ornamental appearance of a stand for a fire pit (D’858 Patent).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a ring-shaped stand. The design is characterized by a low-profile, circular band featuring two staggered, horizontal rows of circular perforations around its vertical face (D’858 Patent, Figs. 1, 2). The complaint identifies this as the design for Plaintiff's "bonfire pit stand" (Compl. ¶14).
• Technical Importance: The stand is an accessory within the product line that the complaint alleges is "innovative" and has become "enormously popular" (Compl. ¶¶11, 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the patent’s single claim (Compl. ¶43).
• The claim protects the overall visual appearance of the stand "as shown and described" (D'858 Patent, Claim). The essential visual elements are:
  • A low-profile, ring-shaped structure.
  • Two horizontal rows of staggered, circular perforations on the vertical wall of the ring.
  • A rolled or rounded top and bottom edge.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Bonstove Fire Pit" (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Bonstove Fire Pit is a "virtually identical copy" of the Plaintiff's Solo Stove Fire Pits (Compl. ¶30). The product is allegedly sold through e-commerce stores operating under various aliases on websites such as www.bonslife.com and www.offroadrock.com (Compl. ¶28). The complaint provides an image of the accused product, which appears to be a cylindrical metal fire pit. An image from the complaint shows the accused "Bonstove Fire Pit" in an outdoor setting (Compl. p. 11, ¶30). The complaint further alleges that Defendants use Plaintiff's own product images and descriptions to market the accused products, creating the impression that they are the same as or originate from Solo Stove (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D923,163 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1, as shown in figures)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A cylindrical body with specific overall proportions.	The accused Bonstove Fire Pit is a cylindrical body with an appearance and proportions that mirror the patented design.	¶30, ¶36	D’163 Patent, Fig. 1
A single row of circular ventilation holes around the base of the exterior wall.	The accused product displays a single row of circular holes around the base of its exterior wall, as seen in the complaint's visual evidence.	¶30 (image)	D’163 Patent, Fig. 3
An angled upper rim leading to an interior wall.	The accused product features an angled upper rim visually consistent with the patented design.	¶30 (image)	D’163 Patent, Fig. 1
A row of circular holes on the upper portion of the interior wall.	The complaint does not provide visual evidence showing the interior of the accused product to permit a comparison of this feature.	N/A	D’163 Patent, Fig. 1

D914,858 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Bonstove Fire Pit infringes claim 1 of the D’858 Patent" but provides no visual evidence of an accused fire pit stand (Compl. ¶43). The image of the accused product does not clearly show a stand matching the patented design (Compl. p. 11, ¶30). This lack of visual evidence precludes a detailed, element-by-element comparison in a claim chart format. The infringement theory appears to rest on the textual allegation that an infringing stand is sold as part of, or in connection with, the accused "Bonstove Fire Pit."

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity (D’163 Patent): The central question for the '163 patent will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would find the accused "Bonstove Fire Pit" to be substantially the same as the patented design. While the provided image suggests a high degree of similarity, a defense may focus on any subtle differences in proportions, hole spacing, or material finish not apparent from the complaint's photograph.
• Evidentiary Burden (D’858 Patent): A primary point of contention for the ’858 patent will be evidentiary. The complaint makes a textual allegation of infringement but lacks visual support. Plaintiff will need to produce evidence that Defendants make, use, or sell a stand and that the stand's design is substantially the same as the one claimed in the ’858 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The analysis is typically a global visual comparison. However, disputes can arise over the scope of the claimed design.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a fire pit, as shown" (D'163 Patent)
• Context and Importance: The key legal question in design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer" would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. Practitioners may focus on which aspects of the drawing constitute the protected "ornamental design" versus which are purely functional and should be given less weight in the comparison.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described," which suggests the overall visual impression created by the combination of all depicted features—including the shape, proportions, and the specific arrangement and appearance of the holes—is what is protected (D’163 Patent, Claim).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that certain elements are dictated by function—for example, that a fire pit must be cylindrical and have ventilation holes. Such an argument would suggest that the infringement analysis should focus only on the non-functional, purely aesthetic choices, such as the exact size, spacing, and pattern of the holes, rather than their mere existence.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement is "knowing and willful" (Compl. ¶¶38, 45). The factual basis for this allegation is that, on "information and belief," Defendants were aware of the patents (Compl. ¶¶38, 45). The complaint also points to Defendants' alleged "direct and explicit copying of the Solo Stove Fire Pits, images, and third-party product reviews" as evidence of "bad faith" and intentional, malicious conduct (Compl. ¶33).

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

1. A threshold issue for the '858 patent claim will be evidentiary: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence that Defendants are in fact making, using, or selling a fire pit stand, and if so, does that stand's design appear substantially the same as the one claimed in the patent? The complaint currently lacks specific visual evidence to support this count.
2. The core substantive question for the '163 patent will be one of visual identity: In the eyes of an ordinary observer, considering the prior art, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "Bonstove Fire Pit" substantially the same as the design claimed in the '163 patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
3. A pivotal question for damages will be willfulness: Does the alleged "virtually identical" copying of the product design, combined with the alleged copying of marketing materials and product reviews, provide sufficient evidence to establish pre-suit knowledge and the "egregious" conduct required for a finding of willful infringement?