DCT
2:25-cv-08301
TA3 Inc v. Fashion Nova LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TA3, Inc. d/b/a TA3 Swim (Delaware)
- Defendant: Fashion Nova, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: KJC Law Group, A.P.C.; Banner Witcoff
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-08301, C.D. Cal., 09/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains a principal place of business in the district and has made, used, sold, or imported the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s one-piece swimsuits infringe two design patents covering the ornamental appearance of women's swimwear.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of apparel design, where the ornamental and aesthetic appearance of a product is a primary driver of consumer choice and brand differentiation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided constructive notice to the public via virtual patent marking on its website and also provided Defendant with actual notice of the asserted patents at least two months prior to filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-10-24 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,789 Priority Date |
| 2023-07-12 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,253 Priority Date |
| 2024-08-27 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,789 Issues |
| 2025-05-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,253 Issues |
| 2025-07-07 | Plaintiff Alleges Providing Actual Notice to Defendant |
| 2025-09-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,789 - "Swimsuit"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,789, titled "Swimsuit," issued on August 27, 2024 (’789 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than solving a technical problem (Compl. ¶19-20). The patent secures rights to a specific aesthetic design for a swimsuit.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a swimsuit as depicted in its figures (’789 Patent, Claim). The claimed design features a one-piece swimsuit with a structured bust, defined side contouring, and a prominent corset-style lacing system on the back of the garment (’789 Patent, Figs. 1-2). The patent specifies that the broken lines showing a model and stitching are not part of the claimed design (’789 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the designs are "award-winning" and central to Plaintiff's position as an "industry leader," indicating the aesthetic's commercial significance (Compl. ¶7, 11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a swimsuit, as shown and described." (’789 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,253 - "Body sculpting garment"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,253, titled "Body sculpting garment," issued on May 6, 2025 (’253 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent protects the unique ornamental design of a body-sculpting garment, distinct from its utilitarian function (Compl. ¶28-29).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design shown in its figures (’253 Patent, Claim). Key visual features include a high mock-neck collar, cap sleeves, a vertical zipper running down the front of the torso, distinctive side paneling that creates an hourglass silhouette, and a corset-style lacing feature on the back (’253 Patent, Figs. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: This design is associated with Plaintiff’s commercially successful "SURFY®" and "LIFTY®" product lines, suggesting its value lies in creating a recognizable and desirable product appearance (Compl. ¶7, 15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a body sculpting garment as shown and described." (’253 Patent, Claim). The patent's drawings define the bounds of the claimed design.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies at least the "Delvina Snatched Sculpting Lace Up Corset 1 Piece Swimsuit" (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are "knock-offs" of Plaintiff’s "award-winning 'SURFY®' and 'LIFTY®' swimsuits" (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges that the products are manufactured in China and imported into the United States for sale by Defendant, a "fast fashion company" (Compl. ¶2, 13, 15). The complaint provides photographic evidence of the accused products, which are one-piece swimsuits featuring corset-style back lacing (Compl. pp. 6-7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The core of the infringement allegation is that the overall visual appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented designs, such that an "ordinary observer" would be deceived (Compl. ¶20, 29). The complaint presents this argument through side-by-side visual comparisons.
Table 1 in the complaint visually compares the ’789 Patent design to an accused product, showing similarities in the bust structure, torso shape, and back lacing (Compl. p. 6).
’789 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression of a one-piece swimsuit with a structured bust and corset-style back lacing. | The accused product is a one-piece swimsuit that allegedly creates a substantially similar overall visual impression. | ¶20 | Figs. 1-8 |
| A structured bust area with the appearance of distinct cups and underwire support. | The accused product incorporates a visually similar structured bust area. | p. 6 | Fig. 1 |
| A corset-style lacing system on an open back panel, extending from the mid-back to the lower back. | The accused product features a nearly identical corset-style lacing system on its back. | p. 6 | Fig. 2 |
Table 2 in the complaint provides a similar side-by-side comparison for the ’253 Patent, highlighting features like the high neckline, front zipper, and back lacing (Compl. p. 7).
’253 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression of a one-piece garment with a high neck, front zipper, cap sleeves, and corset back. | The accused product is a one-piece garment that allegedly creates a substantially similar overall visual impression. | ¶29 | Figs. 1-8 |
| A high, mock-neck collar combined with short cap sleeves. | The accused product displays a high collar and cap sleeves of similar proportion and placement. | p. 7 | Fig. 1 |
| A vertical zipper running down the center of the front torso. | The accused product includes a visually prominent vertical front zipper. | p. 7 | Fig. 1 |
| A corset-style lacing system on the back combined with contoured side panels. | The accused product features a similar corset-style back lacing system and side contouring. | p. 7 | Fig. 2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer. A defense may focus on any visual differences, however minor, to argue that the overall impressions are distinct.
- Technical Questions: A key issue will be how prior art, which is not discussed in the complaint, affects the scope of the claimed designs. If the general features (e.g., corset-style lacing on swimwear) are common in the prior art, the scope of patent protection may be narrowed to the specific overall visual impression created by the combination of all elements shown in the patent figures.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, formal claim construction is rare, as the figures themselves define the claim scope. The primary focus is on the overall visual appearance depicted in the drawings rather than the interpretation of textual terms. However, the identification of the article of manufacture can sometimes be relevant.
- The Term: "Swimsuit" (’789 Patent) and "Body sculpting garment" (’253 Patent).
- Context and Importance: These terms define the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Practitioners may focus on these terms if a defendant were to argue that its accused product is a different article of manufacture entirely (e.g., a lingerie bodysuit rather than a swimsuit), thereby falling outside the patent's scope. Given the context, such an argument appears unlikely to be a central point of contention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent titles and the visual context provided by the figures, which clearly depict items worn as one-piece swimsuits or similar garments, provide the primary evidence for the meaning of these terms (’789 Patent, Title; ’253 Patent, Title).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both constructive and actual notice (Compl. ¶22-23, 31-32). Constructive notice is based on Plaintiff's alleged virtual marking practices (Compl. ¶12). The claim of actual pre-suit knowledge is based on an allegation that Defendant was provided with notice of the Asserted Patents "at least as early as July 7, 2025," approximately two months before the lawsuit was filed (Compl. ¶16).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to three central questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the overall ornamental designs of Defendant's accused swimsuits substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '789 and '253 patents, such that a typical purchaser would be deceived?
- A critical evidentiary question will relate to the scope of patentability: What does the relevant prior art for swimwear design reveal? The existence of prior art with similar features could narrow the scope of the patents' protection and magnify the importance of any small differences between the patented designs and the accused products.
- A key question for damages will be the sufficiency of notice: Can Plaintiff prove its allegation of pre-suit actual notice as of July 7, 2025? Substantiating this claim would be critical to establishing willful infringement and the potential for enhanced damages.