DCT
2:25-cv-10379
DNA Specialty Inc v. Sharkroad Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DNA Specialty, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Sharkroad, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: VAKILI & LEUS, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-10379, C.D. Cal., 12/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is a California corporation with facilities in the district, has a registered agent for service in the district, and has allegedly offered to sell and sold the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aftermarket motorcycle wheels infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a spiral wheel spoke, in addition to asserting related trade dress and unfair competition claims.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the aftermarket automotive and motorcycle parts industry, specifically concerning the aesthetic design of custom wheels, where visual appearance is a key market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant’s CEO on June 16, 2025, providing notice of the imminent issuance of the patent-in-suit and demanding that Defendant cease and desist its allegedly infringing activities. This pre-suit notice is cited as a basis for willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001 (approx.) | Plaintiff begins marketing its 52 cylindrical-spoke wheel |
| 2023-01-01 (early) | Plaintiff begins marketing its spiral-spoke wheel |
| 2023-04-19 | Application filed for the patent-in-suit |
| 2024-05-15 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant regarding 52 cylindrical-spoke wheel trade dress |
| 2025-06-16 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding imminent issuance of the '968 Patent |
| 2025-08-05 | '968 Patent issues |
| 2025-12-04 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,086,968 - "Spiral Wheel Spoke"
Issued August 5, 2025 (the "'968 Patent")
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems in the manner of utility patents; rather, they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The '968 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a single motorcycle wheel spoke. The design features a central body with a spiral or twisted appearance, transitioning into cylindrical, threaded ends ('968 Patent, FIG. 1). The claim covers only the aesthetic appearance of the spoke itself, as depicted in the patent's drawings ('968 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: In the custom vehicle market, unique aesthetic designs for components like wheel spokes can create significant brand identity and consumer demand (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a spiral wheel spoke, as shown and described." ('968 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual impression created by the drawings in the patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Spiral-Spoke Products," which are aftermarket motorcycle wheels that incorporate spiral spokes (Compl. ¶5, ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant manufactures, imports, distributes, and sells aftermarket motorcycle wheels that feature a spiral spoke design (Compl. ¶7, ¶34).
- A screenshot from Defendant's website shows a complete motorcycle wheel with numerous spiraled spokes, advertised for sale. This image depicts the "Accused Spiral-Spoke Product" as sold to consumers (Compl. p. 5).
- The complaint alleges these products are sold in competition with Plaintiff's products and that Defendant copied Plaintiff's design to avoid its own research and development costs (Compl. ¶7, ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Infringement occurs if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused design is such as to deceive the observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The complaint alleges that the accused spokes are "substantially similar" to the patented design (Compl. ¶33).
'968 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a spiral wheel spoke, as shown and described. | The "Accused Spiral-Spoke Products" are motorcycle wheels that include spokes alleged to be "substantially similar to the subject of the '968 Patent." A visual provided in the complaint shows the accused wheel has spokes with a twisted or spiral central portion. | ¶12, ¶33 | FIG. 1, FIG. 2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The core question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived by the similarity between the accused spoke design and the design claimed in the '968 Patent. The analysis will compare the overall visual effect of the two designs.
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be a direct visual comparison of Defendant's product with the figures of the '968 Patent. The complaint provides an image of the patented design from a figure in the patent, facilitating this comparison (Compl. p. 4). Any subtle differences in the pitch of the spiral, the length of the central body, or the transition to the ends may become focal points of the dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the visual design depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction is rare, but disputes often center on the scope of the claimed design.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a spiral wheel spoke"
- Context and Importance: The scope of the design is the central issue. The dispute will turn on how broadly or narrowly the visual elements shown in the patent's figures are interpreted and whether the accused product falls within that scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope may contend that the overall visual impression of a "twisted spoke" is the core of the design and that minor variations in proportion or angle do not change this impression. The patent's title, "Spiral Wheel Spoke," may be cited to support this focus on the general spiral concept ('968 Patent, Title).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope may focus on the precise details shown in the solid lines of the drawings, such as the number of twists, the specific curvature, and the proportions of the central body relative to the ends ('968 Patent, FIG. 1-4). The patent's description explicitly disclaims the broken lines shown in the drawings, stating they "form no part of the claimed design," which confines the protected design strictly to the elements shown in solid lines ('968 Patent, Description).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful since at least the issuance date of the patent (Compl. ¶35). This allegation is based on a letter Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly sent on June 16, 2025, which provided Defendant notice of the allowed patent application that would soon issue as the '968 Patent (Compl. ¶13, ¶35). The complaint alleges Defendant "failed to investigate its issuance" and continued its allegedly infringing conduct "knowingly, irresponsibly, and willfully" (Compl. ¶35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: would an ordinary observer of aftermarket motorcycle wheels be deceived into believing Defendant's spiral-spoke wheel design is the same as the design protected by the '968 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them?
- A second central question relates to willfulness: did the pre-suit letter, which notified Defendant of the imminent issuance of the '968 Patent, create an affirmative duty for Defendant to investigate and cease its conduct upon the patent's grant, thereby making any post-issuance infringement willful?