DCT

2:25-cv-12140

Clickit Trading Inc v. Enor Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-12140, C.D. Cal., 12/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendants being residents within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "ROCKET TORCH" lighter product does not infringe Defendant Enor's design patent for a lighter.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of consumer products, specifically cigarette lighters, where visual appearance is a key market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed following a series of pre-suit communications. Defendant Enor allegedly accused Plaintiff of infringement via an email and a subsequent warning letter. Plaintiff denied the allegations, and after receiving no further response from Defendant, filed this action to seek a judicial declaration of non-infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-01-05 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,092,835 Application (Priority) Date
2025-09-09 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,092,835 Issues
2025-09-10 Defendant Enor sends email alleging infringement
2025-09-26 Defendant Enor sends warning letter to Plaintiff
2025-09-29 Plaintiff sends letter denying infringement
2025-10-14 Plaintiff sends a second letter to Defendant's counsel
2025-12-23 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,092,835 - "Lighter"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,092,835 ("Lighter"), issued September 9, 2025 (’835 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but instead protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a new, original, and non-obvious aesthetic design for a product, in this case, a lighter (D835 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual characteristics of a lighter shaped like a stylized rocket. Key ornamental features shown in solid lines include an elongated, smooth body, a rounded nose cone at the top, and a set of fins at the base (D835 Patent, FIG. 1). The patent explicitly disclaims certain functional or non-ornamental features, such as the ignition mechanism, by depicting them in broken lines (D835 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer goods market for products like lighters, a distinctive ornamental design can be a significant commercial asset, distinguishing a product from competitors.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the design as illustrated in the patent's drawings.
  • The sole claim of the ’835 Patent is for "The ornamental design for lighter, as shown and described" (D835 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The essential elements of the claim are the visual features depicted in solid lines in Figures 1-7, including:
    • The overall rocket-like shape and proportions.
    • The smooth, curved surface of the main body and nose cone.
    • The specific shape, number, and placement of the fins at the base.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiff's "ROCKET TORCH" lighter, identified by SKU number GH-7500 (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused product as a cigarette lighter sold by the Plaintiff, placing it in direct competition with the Defendants' lighter products (Compl. ¶6, ¶10). The complaint references a product image of the ROCKET TORCH lighter, attached as Exhibit A to the complaint, as the basis for the non-infringement analysis (Compl. ¶14). The core of the dispute is the product's external appearance, which Plaintiff alleges is not substantially similar to the patented design (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations from the defendant. Instead, as a declaratory judgment action, it presents the plaintiff's theory of non-infringement. Plaintiff's central argument is that its ROCKET TORCH lighter does not meet the legal test for design patent infringement (Compl. ¶¶26-27). This test, known as the "ordinary observer" test, asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design (Compl. ¶27). The complaint asks the Court to conduct this comparison and find non-infringement (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific feature-by-feature comparisons.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary legal question is the scope of the ’835 Patent's protection. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the design as a whole, not minor similarities in individual features. The use of broken lines to disclaim the ignition mechanism will be a key factor in defining what is and is not part of the claimed design (D835 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Questions: The central factual question is one of visual comparison: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the ROCKET TORCH lighter substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’835 Patent? The complaint suggests this comparison must be made "in light of the relevant prior arts," raising the question of how crowded the design field is for rocket-shaped lighters (Compl. ¶27).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the visual design itself, as depicted in the drawings. There are no traditional textual terms to construe. Instead, the analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.

  • The Term: The ornamental design for a lighter as shown in Figures 1-7.
  • Context and Importance: The entire case turns on the visual comparison between the accused product and the patented design. The scope of the design—what it does and does not cover—is therefore the central issue. Practitioners may focus on identifying the novel ornamental features of the design and comparing them to the prior art to determine the breadth of protection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the overall visual impression of the design. Arguments for a broader scope may contend that any lighter with a similar rocket-like silhouette, rounded nose, and finned base falls within the scope, even if there are minor differences in surface ornamentation or proportions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific proportions, curvatures, and arrangement of the solid-line features in the drawings define the design. The patent’s statement that "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the lighter that form no part of the claimed design" explicitly limits the claim’s scope to only the elements shown in solid lines (D835 Patent, DESCRIPTION). Arguments for a narrower scope will emphasize any visual differences between the accused product and the precise design shown in Figures 1-7.

VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's ROCKET TORCH lighter substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’835 Patent, such that an observer would be deceived into thinking it was the patented product?
  • A key contextual question will be the role of prior art: As raised in the complaint, how does the landscape of prior art designs for lighters, particularly those with rocket or novelty themes, affect the scope of the ’835 Patent? A crowded field could narrow the patent's protection to only those designs that are virtually identical to the drawings, potentially favoring the Plaintiff's non-infringement position.