DCT
2:23-cv-00640
Covves LLC v. Target Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Covves, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc. (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The McArthur Law Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00640, C.D. Cal., 01/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Target has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including numerous retail stores and at least three distribution centers.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of unicorn-shaped inflatable pool floats and beverage holders infringes two of its design patents.
- Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental designs of recreational consumer products, specifically inflatable toys for use in swimming pools, a market where distinctive designs can be a significant commercial driver.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously sued Target for infringement of the same patents in October 2018. That case settled in January 2020. Plaintiff claims the settlement agreement was subsequently breached, which, by its terms, permitted Plaintiff to re-file the infringement claims. This history is central to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-08-24 | Priority Date for D787,617 and D783,370 Patents |
| 2016-2017 | Plaintiff allegedly popularized its unicorn float products |
| 2017-04-11 | U.S. Patent No. D783,370 Issued |
| 2017-05-23 | U.S. Patent No. D787,617 Issued |
| ~2017-2018 | Defendant allegedly began infringing sales |
| 2018-10 | Plaintiff filed initial infringement suit against Defendant |
| 2020-01 | Initial lawsuit settled |
| 2022 | Plaintiff allegedly learned of renewed infringing sales |
| 2023-01-27 | Current Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D787,617 - "Inflatable Toy," issued May 23, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that before Plaintiff's invention, "Unicorn floats did not exist" (Compl. ¶18). The implicit problem is the absence of an ornamental design for a large, unicorn-themed inflatable pool float.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of an inflatable toy shaped like a unicorn. The design consists of a main inflatable ring body for flotation, from which an elongated neck and head of a unicorn protrude (Compl. ¶30). The design is characterized by the overall proportions and specific configuration of the unicorn's head, horn, mane, and tail, as depicted in the patent's figures (’617 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The broken lines in the figures indicate that the inner portion of the ring is not part of the claimed design (’617 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this design was novel and "popularized... worldwide beginning in 2016-17" (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an inflatable toy, as shown and described" (’617 Patent, Claim).
- The ornamental design is defined by the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings, including:
- A raft-like body with a central opening.
- An elongated neck extending from the body.
- A head affixed to the neck, featuring a horn and two pointed ears.
- A raised, three-dimensional mane along the neck.
- A tail with a "swooping bend" affixed to the rear of the body (Compl. ¶30).
U.S. Patent No. D783,370 - "Inflatable Beverage Holder," issued April 11, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its larger counterpart, the patent addresses the lack of a specific ornamental design for a small, unicorn-themed inflatable designed to function as a floating beverage holder (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The '370 Patent claims the ornamental design for a miniaturized version of the unicorn float, adapted to hold a beverage. The design features a rounded, compact body with a central recess for a cup, an attached unicorn head with a horn and mane, and a tail (’370 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The overall aesthetic is a scaled-down, proportionally distinct version of the '617 patent design, intended for a different function (Compl. ¶31).
- Technical Importance: The design applies the popular unicorn motif to the specific market for novelty poolside accessories (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an inflatable beverage holder, as shown" (’370 Patent, Claim).
- The ornamental design is defined by the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings, including:
- A rounded body with a central empty space for a beverage.
- An elongated neck affixed to the body.
- A head with a horn, two pointed ears, and a raised mane.
- An eye comprised of a black circle with a smaller white circle inside.
- A tail with a "swooping bend" affixed to the rear of the body (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products include several versions of large unicorn floats sold by Target, collectively referred to as "Target Unicorn Floats," such as the "Glitter Wing Unicorn Pool Float," "Unicorn Lil Float," "Unicorn Pride Pool Float," and "Rainbow Unicorn Inflatable Swimming Pool Tube Ring Float" (Compl. ¶¶25, 43). The accused beverage holders are referred to as "Unicorn Bev Boats" and the "Rainbow Drink Holder" (Compl. ¶¶26, 48).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are inflatable vinyl toys for recreational use in water. The complaint alleges Target incorporated these products into its "Sun Squad" collection, which is Target's house brand for summer-themed toys and games (Compl. ¶27). The complaint provides side-by-side photographic comparisons of the patented designs and the accused products to illustrate the alleged copying. One such image juxtaposes the patent figure for the '617 patent with Target's "Glitter Wing Unicorn Pool Float" (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The core allegation for a design patent is that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device, supposing it to be the patented design. The complaint supports this with narrative descriptions and visual comparisons.
D787,617 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| A raft body with an elongated neck | The accused Target Unicorn Floats are alleged to feature a "raft body with an elongated neck" (Compl. ¶30). Visuals show a large, ring-like float body with a prominent unicorn neck extending upwards (Compl. p. 5, 6, 9). | ¶30 |
| A head affixed with a horn and two pointed ears | The accused floats feature a head with a horn and two pointed ears, which the complaint alleges copies the patented design (Compl. ¶30). A visual comparing Plaintiff's product to a Target float shows both with similar head, horn, and ear structures (Compl. p. 7). | ¶30 |
| A raised, three-dimensional mane | The accused floats possess a raised mane that "begins behind the horn and rests atop the head and neck between the pointed ears" (Compl. ¶30). A visual comparison of Plaintiff's "Giant Unicorn Float" and Target's "Rainbow Ring Float" shows both with prominent manes along the neck (Compl. p. 9). | ¶30 |
| A tail with a swooping bend | A "tail with swooping bend is affixed to the rear of the raft body" on the accused products, allegedly copying the patented design feature (Compl. ¶30). A visual of Target's "Unicorn Pride Float" shows a multi-colored, curved tail at the rear of the float body (Compl. p. 6). | ¶30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the scope of the patent's line drawings, which claim shape and configuration, is broad enough to cover the accused products that include different surface ornamentation, such as rainbow color schemes and glitter-infused vinyl.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison. The court will need to determine if differences in the specific colors, proportions, or additional features (like the "Glitter Wing" on one accused float) are sufficient to distinguish the accused products from the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
D783,370 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| A rounded body with a rounded empty space | The accused "Unicorn Bev Boat" is alleged to have a "rounded body with a rounded empty space in the center" designed to hold a drink (Compl. ¶31). A visual shows Target's "Unicorn Bev Boat" with this configuration (Compl. p. 6). | ¶31 |
| An elongated neck and head with horn and mane | Affixed to the body is an "elongated neck," a "head affixed with a horn, two pointed ears, and a raised, three-dimensional mane," which the complaint alleges copies the patented design (Compl. ¶31). A visual comparison shows Target's "Rainbow Drink Holder" next to Plaintiff's "Mini Unicorn Cupholder," both with these features (Compl. p. 10). | ¶31 |
| An eye comprised of a black circle with a smaller white circle | The complaint alleges this specific eye design is copied (Compl. ¶31). The photographs of the accused products appear to show a similar stylized eye (Compl. p. 6, 10). | ¶31 |
| A tail with a swooping bend | The accused beverage holders feature a tail with a "swooping bend... affixed to the rear of the rounded body," allegedly matching the patented design (Compl. ¶31). | ¶31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: As with the '617 patent, the dispute may focus on whether the claimed design as a whole is limited to the exact proportions and features shown, or if it covers the general concept of a unicorn-shaped beverage holder with minor variations.
- Technical Questions: Does the overall visual impression of the accused "Unicorn Bev Boat," with its specific color patterns and proportions, create the same aesthetic as the patented design, or are the differences significant enough to avoid infringement?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the claimed design as a whole, rather than the definition of specific words. The key analysis is determining the scope of the design and identifying its ornamental aspects.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for an inflatable toy, as shown and described" (’617 Patent).
- Context and Importance: The scope of this "design" is the crux of the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on whether the claim is limited to the precise, uncolored line drawings in the patent or if it is broad enough to read on products with different color patterns, textures (e.g., glitter), and minor proportional differences.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of broken lines to disclaim the inner part of the float ring suggests the claim is focused on the overall ornamental shape of the unicorn and its attachment to a generic ring, not the ring's specific dimensions (’617 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An accused infringer may argue that the specific, unadorned shapes and proportions of the head, horn, and tail as illustrated in the side and front elevation views are limitations, and any significant deviation, including the addition of color or features like wings, creates a different overall visual impression (’617 Patent, Figs. 4-6).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Target's purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit stemming from the prior lawsuit filed in October 2018 (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 51, 64, 70). The allegation is that Target continued to sell infringing products in 2022, long after the original suit was filed and settled, thus acting with deliberate disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 64).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Under the "ordinary observer" test, are the accused Target floats—with their different color schemes, glitter elements, and minor proportional variations—"substantially the same" as the ornamental designs claimed in Plaintiff's patents, which are depicted in simple line drawings? The case will likely depend on a detailed, fact-intensive comparison of the overall visual impressions.
- A second key issue will be willfulness and damages: Assuming infringement is found, what was the effect of the 2018 lawsuit and subsequent 2020 settlement? The court will need to determine if this history establishes that Target's alleged infringement in 2022 and beyond was willful, potentially exposing Target to enhanced damages and making the case "exceptional" for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees.