DCT
2:24-cv-01040
Souper Products LLC v. Jammin Butter LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Souper Products, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Jammin' Butter, LLC d/b/a That Daily Deal (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hankin Patent Law, A Professional Corporation
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01040, C.D. Cal., 02/07/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant conducts business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and those acts have a severe negative effect on the Plaintiff, which is located in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s silicone freezer trays infringe two of its design patents, in addition to related trademark and copyright claims.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns silicone trays designed for freezing and portioning foods like soups and stocks, a product category relevant to the home meal preparation market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a cease and desist letter on November 8, 2023, identifying the alleged patent, trademark, and copyright infringement. Defendant did not reply but allegedly removed the accused products from its website the following day.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-03-06 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D887,460 |
| 2019-04-30 | Filing Date for U.S. Patent No. D905,133 |
| 2020-06-16 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D887,460 |
| 2020-12-15 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D905,133 |
| 2023-11-06 | Earliest alleged sale date of Accused Products |
| 2023-11-08 | Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendant |
| 2024-02-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D887,460 S - "Tray," issued June 16, 2020
The Invention Explained
As this is a design patent, it does not describe a technical problem or solution but instead protects the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture.
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not contain a background section describing a technical problem. The implicit goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for a freezer tray.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a tray as depicted in its figures (’460 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a rectangular tray with a prominent, rounded peripheral rim and four equally-sized, rectangular internal compartments with tapered side walls ('460 Patent, Figs. 1, 5, 7). A key feature is a rectangular embossed area on one of the short exterior walls, where branding is intended to be placed ('460 Patent, Fig. 3). The patent specifies that broken lines showing wording and measurement lines are not part of the claimed design ('460 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying this design, sold under the SOUPER CUBES mark, are part of a "well-known kitchen supply brand" built since 2018 (Compl. ¶11-12, ¶27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a tray, as shown and described."
- The essential visual elements of this design include:
- The overall configuration of a rectangular tray with four internal compartments.
- A continuous, raised peripheral rim.
- Tapered side walls for the compartments.
- The specific size, shape, and placement of an embossed panel on an exterior wall.
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶99).
U.S. Patent No. D905,133 S - "Tray," issued December 15, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’460 Patent, the ’133 Patent does not describe a technical problem but rather claims a specific ornamental design.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a tray as shown in its figures ('133 Patent, Claim). This design is a variation of the ’460 Patent design, featuring a rectangular tray with only two larger, rectangular internal compartments ('133 Patent, Fig. 1). It shares the characteristic features of a prominent rounded peripheral rim, tapered compartment walls, and a rectangular embossed area on an exterior short wall ('133 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 5). As with the parent patent, broken lines depicting text and measurements are disclaimed ('133 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: This design provides an alternative configuration within the same product family aesthetic established by the design in the ’460 Patent.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a tray, as shown and described."
- The essential visual elements include:
- The overall configuration of a rectangular tray with two internal compartments.
- A continuous, raised peripheral rim.
- Tapered side walls for the compartments.
- The specific size, shape, and placement of an embossed panel on an exterior wall.
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶107).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as "EXTREME SGD - Super Soup Cubes Extra-Large (1-Cup) Silicone Freezing (and Baking) Tray With Lid" (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as silicone trays used for freezing and baking, sold online via Defendant's website, thatdailydeal.com (Compl. ¶13, ¶16). The complaint alleges the products are "exact duplicates" of Plaintiff's products, created and patented by Plaintiff, and were offered for sale at a "price far under-cutting Plaintiff's pricing" (Compl. ¶24, ¶49). The complaint provides a screenshot of the accused product listing, which references "16,000+ 5-star reviews" on Amazon for a similar item to suggest product demand and quality (Compl. ¶16, Ex. E).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges the accused product and patented designs are "identical" (Compl. ¶51, ¶53). The complaint includes side-by-side visual comparisons of the patented designs and the accused products. For example, a table compares an image from the '460 patent with a photograph of the accused product (Compl. ¶51).
D887,460 S Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of a rectangular tray with four internal, rectangular compartments. | The accused product is a rectangular tray with four internal, rectangular compartments of the same visual configuration. | ¶51 | Fig. 1 |
| A continuous, raised peripheral rim with rounded corners. | The accused product is alleged to have an identical raised peripheral rim with rounded corners. | ¶51, ¶53 | Fig. 1 |
| An embossed rectangular panel on one of the exterior short walls of the tray. | The accused product is alleged to be an "exact duplicate[]," including the embossed "SOUPER CUBES Mark." | ¶49, ¶51 | Fig. 3 |
D905,133 S Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of a rectangular tray with two internal, rectangular compartments. | The complaint alleges infringement by a product that appears to be a two-compartment version of the accused tray. | ¶52-¶53 | Fig. 1 |
| A continuous, raised peripheral rim with rounded corners. | The accused product is alleged to have an identical raised peripheral rim with rounded corners. | ¶53 | Fig. 1 |
| An embossed rectangular panel on one of the exterior short walls of the tray. | The complaint alleges the accused products are "exact duplicates...down to the embossed SOUPER CUBES Mark." | ¶49, ¶53 | Fig. 3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The complaint's allegation that the products are "exact duplicates" and "identical" suggests that Plaintiff's infringement theory rests on near-literal identity rather than a broader interpretation of the design's scope (Compl. ¶49, ¶51, ¶53).
- Technical Questions: A central issue may be the separation of ornamental features from functional ones. A defendant could argue that basic features like rectangular compartments or a peripheral rim are primarily functional for creating food blocks and handling the tray, and that any visual similarity derives from this shared function rather than appropriation of the claimed ornamental design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is typically not construed in the same manner as a utility patent. The figures themselves define the scope of the claim. However, the distinction between ornamental and functional features is a critical part of the analysis.
- The Term: "The ornamental design"
- Context and Importance: The core of the dispute will be defining the scope of the claimed "ornamental design" and filtering out any purely functional aspects. The infringement analysis depends on comparing the ornamental aspects of the accused product to the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on this issue because if the similarities are dictated by function, there can be no design patent infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claimed design is the overall visual impression created by the combination of all depicted features (the rim, the compartment layout, the proportions, the embossed panel). The complaint alleges the accused product is an "exact duplicate," suggesting the overall visual appearance is identical, which may support a finding that the entire aesthetic has been appropriated (Compl. ¶49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents themselves do not explicitly disclaim any features as functional. However, a court would likely consider the fundamental purpose of a freezer tray. Elements such as the rectangular shape of the compartments or the presence of a rim for structural integrity could be viewed as driven by function. The patents' disclaimer of "wording, design, and measurement lines" explicitly narrows the scope to the visual shape and configuration, excluding the specific text or volume markings shown in broken lines ('460 Patent, Description; '133 Patent, Description).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶100, ¶108). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as alleging that Defendant instructed a third party to manufacture the infringing design.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful and intentional (Compl. ¶102, ¶110). This allegation is supported by the claim that the accused products are "exact duplicates" of Plaintiff's patented products, including the embossed brand name (Compl. ¶49), and that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's rights via a cease and desist letter sent on November 8, 2023, which explicitly identified the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶75).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be one of visual identity: will a side-by-side comparison confirm the complaint's allegation that the accused trays are "exact duplicates" of the patented designs, thereby satisfying the "ordinary observer" test for infringement?
- The case may turn on the interplay of intellectual property rights: how will the court separate the design patent infringement analysis from the parallel allegations of trademark infringement and passing off? Specifically, can infringement of the ornamental design be established independently of any consumer confusion caused by the alleged use of the disclaimed "SOUPER CUBES" mark on the accused product?
- A key defense may focus on functionality: will the Defendant be able to argue successfully that the similarities between the products are dictated by functional necessity (e.g., the basic shape required for a freezer tray), thereby narrowing the scope of the claimed ornamental design and avoiding infringement?