2:24-cv-03539
Guangzhou Nuolin Electronic Technology Co Ltd v. Laltitude LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangzhou Nuolin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Norline (China)
- Defendant: Laltitude LLC d/b/a PicassoTiles (California) and Howard Wang (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-03539, C.D. Cal., 04/30/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Laltitude’s principal place of business in the district, Defendant Howard Wang’s residence in the district, and the occurrence of a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its magnetic tile toys do not infringe Defendants' design patent and that the patent is invalid, following Defendants' infringement complaints to Amazon which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of magnetic building tiles, a popular and competitive category of educational toys for children.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was precipitated by Defendants' assertion of their patent rights through infringement complaints filed with Amazon. Plaintiff alleges these complaints led to the de-listing of its products, creating the actual controversy required for jurisdiction. The complaint notes that the patent was assigned from the inventor, Howard Wang, to Laltitude LLC on January 10, 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-24 | Publication date of CN 303050982 S, a prior art reference cited by Plaintiff |
| 2019-06-17 | Priority date for U.S. Patent No. D929,505 |
| 2021-08-31 | Issue date for U.S. Patent No. D929,505 |
| 2022-01-10 | Alleged assignment of the '505 Patent to Defendant Laltitude |
| 2024-04-30 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D929,505, "Toy brick set," issued August 31, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. As such, the '505 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a set of magnetic building tiles.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "toy brick set" comprising multiple geometric shapes, including squares and triangles of various sizes (’505 Patent, Claim). The core visual characteristics shown in the figures include transparent or semi-transparent tiles with a raised peripheral frame containing embedded magnets (’505 Patent, Figs. 1, 29). A key ornamental feature of the square pieces is a surface pattern of intersecting diagonal lines forming an "X" that extends across the face of the tile (’505 Patent, Fig. 15). The triangular pieces are depicted with a plain, unadorned surface within the frame (’505 Patent, Fig. 29).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific aesthetic for magnetic tile toys, which may serve to distinguish them in a crowded consumer market (Compl. ¶4, ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a toy brick set, as shown and described" (’505 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the overall visual appearance of the toy brick pieces depicted in the patent's 70 figures. Key visual elements include:
- The overall configuration of various tile shapes (square, equilateral triangle, long triangle, short triangle).
- The combination of a raised outer frame with a recessed, transparent central surface.
- The specific surface ornamentation, particularly the intersecting diagonal lines on the square pieces.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are Plaintiff's magnetic tile building sets, including a set identified by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) B087FBDL6P (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are magnetic tile toys sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶4, ¶13). The complaint describes them as "top selling products" and alleges that their removal from Amazon could lead to the "total annihilation of Plaintiff's business," suggesting a significant market presence (Compl. ¶17). The complaint includes an image showing several of the Accused Products, which illustrates their geometric shapes and coloration (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As a declaratory judgment action, the complaint sets forth Plaintiff's arguments for non-infringement. The central test 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. Plaintiff's position is that the visual differences are significant enough to avoid such deception.
Claim Chart Summary
The following table summarizes the key visual distinctions Plaintiff alleges between its products and the patented design.
| Patented Design Feature (’505 Patent) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature (Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a toy brick set, as shown and described, including a square piece with a surface pattern of intersecting diagonal lines forming an "X". | The accused square block contains a smaller, distinct square shape embedded at its center, rather than an "X" pattern. | ¶22 | Fig. 15 |
| The ornamental design for a toy brick set, as shown and described, including triangular pieces with a flat, unadorned surface inside the peripheral frame. | The accused equilateral and isosceles triangle blocks each feature a smaller, distinct triangular shape embedded in the middle of the piece. | ¶22 | Figs. 29, 43 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Overall Visual Impression: A primary issue will be whether the "embedded shape" motif of the Accused Products creates a different overall visual impression from the '505 Patent's design, which features an "X-pattern" on squares and plain surfaces on triangles. The image of the accused products provided in the complaint highlights this different surface treatment (Compl. p. 8).
- Role of Prior Art: The infringement analysis must be conducted in the context of the prior art. Plaintiff has presented an extensive list of prior art references (Compl. ¶28, pp. 9-15). A crowded prior art field may narrow the effective scope of the patented design, making relatively small differences between the patented design and the accused product more significant and potentially sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement. The complaint includes an image of a prior art Chinese patent, CN 303050982 S, which appears to show a square magnetic tile with a similar X-pattern to the '505 patent design (Compl. p. 9).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is typically not subject to construction of specific terms in the same manner as a utility patent. The "claim" is understood to be the visual design as a whole, depicted in the patent's drawings. The central analysis is the "ordinary observer" test, which compares the overall visual impression of the patented design with the accused product in light of the prior art. Therefore, construction of individual claim terms is not anticipated to be a central issue in this case.
VI. Other Allegations
Invalidity
Plaintiff asserts that the '505 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (Compl. ¶27).
- Anticipation (§ 102): Plaintiff alleges the patent is invalid for lack of novelty because the prior art discloses the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶29).
- Obviousness (§ 103): Plaintiff alleges the patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination (Compl. ¶30). The complaint provides a table with numerous U.S. and foreign prior art patents and images asserted to support these invalidity contentions (Compl. ¶28, pp. 9-15).
Exceptional Case
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling it to attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 16, Prayer D). This request is based on the allegation that Defendants filed "fraudulent Patent infringement complaint[s] to Amazon," which caused Plaintiff financial harm (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on three fundamental questions for the court:
- A Question of Visual Distinction: In the infringement analysis, will the "embedded shape" design of the Plaintiff's products be found to create an overall visual impression that is "plainly dissimilar" to the patented design, or will an ordinary observer be deceived into thinking the two designs are the same?
- A Question of Validity in a Crowded Field: Given the numerous prior art references cited by Plaintiff showing various designs for magnetic tiles, does the specific ornamental design of the '505 patent possess the requisite novelty and non-obviousness to be valid, or is it merely a minor variation of what was already known?
- A Question of Enforcement Conduct: Did the Defendants' pre-suit enforcement activity on the Amazon platform constitute bad faith or litigation misconduct sufficient to render this an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285?