DCT
5:13-cv-01078
Bluelounge Pte Ltd v. Blingberry LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bluelounge Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
- Defendant: Blingberry, LLC. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller IP
- Case Identification: 5:13-cv-01078, C.D. Cal., 06/17/2013
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is deemed to reside in the district, has committed acts of infringement there, and conducts business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wall-mounted charging dock for electronic devices infringes its design patent for an electrical device charger.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to accessories for personal electronic devices, specifically wall chargers that incorporate a dock to hold a device, eliminating the need for charging cables to rest on the floor.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant on April 29, 2013, to cease and desist from infringing the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-04-22 | U.S. Patent No. D649,932 Application (Priority) Date |
| 2011-12-06 | U.S. Patent No. D649,932 Issued |
| 2013-04-29 | Plaintiff's counsel sends cease-and-desist letter |
| 2013-04-29 | At least 10,939 infringing units allegedly sold |
| 2013-06-13 | At least 12,546 infringing units allegedly sold |
| 2013-06-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D649,932, “Electrical Device Charger,” issued December 6, 2011.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: While design patents do not contain a background section describing a problem, the asserted product's function, as described in marketing materials supplied in the complaint, is to keep a smartphone "off the floor and free of a tangled charging cable" during charging (Compl., Exh. 3 at 18).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an electrical device charger. The design consists of a main body with a contoured, tray-like front surface to support a device, a connector port on that surface, and a pass-through structure on the back designed to mate with a standard USB power adapter ('932 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The overall visual impression is of a compact, integrated cradle that holds a device flush against a wall outlet.
- Technical Importance: This design provides a "cord-free" solution for charging, which simplifies the user experience and reduces clutter associated with traditional charging cables (Compl., Exh. 5 at 21).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The single claim of the '932 Patent is for "The ornamental design for an electrical device charger, as shown" ('932 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the device depicted in the patent's seven figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are identified as the "iPhone Wall Dock" and "iDock" (collectively, "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The accused products are wall-mountable docks that plug into a user's existing USB adapter, allowing a smartphone (such as an iPhone) or other device to be charged while resting in the dock directly at the electrical outlet (Compl., Exh. 3 at 18).
- The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and the accused product, highlighting their visual similarity (Compl. ¶17). A screenshot from a third-party seller, LivingSocial, shows the accused product marketed as a "$9 ($30 value) for an iPhone wall dock" (Compl., Exh. 5 at 21). The complaint alleges significant sales, stating that at least 12,546 units had been purchased as of June 13, 2013 (Compl. ¶21, Exh. 6 at 31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
For a design patent, infringement occurs if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the two designs are substantially the same, and the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The analysis below compares the ornamental features of the patented design to the accused product based on the evidence provided. The complaint includes a direct side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product (Compl. ¶17).
| Ornamental Feature of the Patented Design ('932 Patent) | Alleged Corresponding Feature of the Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A main body with a shallow, concave front surface designed to cradle a device. | The accused product features a main body with a similarly shaped shallow, concave front surface. | ¶17 | FIG. 1 |
| A raised connector port positioned centrally on the front surface. | The accused product has a raised connector port in a similar central position on its front surface. | ¶17 | FIG. 6 |
| A distinct, stepped side profile with a forward-sloping upper portion. | The accused product exhibits a nearly identical stepped side profile with a forward-sloping upper section. | ¶17 | FIG. 4, FIG. 5 |
| A rear structure configured to receive a USB power adapter, allowing the unit to be mounted flush against a wall outlet. | The accused product's rear shows a recess designed to fit over a USB power adapter in the same manner. | ¶17 | FIG. 7 |
| The overall visual impression of a compact, integrated wall-mounted charging cradle. | The complaint alleges the accused product misappropriates the overall visual appearance of the patented design. | ¶17 | FIGS. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question is whether the overall visual impression of the accused "iDock" is "substantially the same" as the claimed design. A defense may focus on any minor differences in proportion, surface curvature, or edge treatment between the two designs to argue they create a different overall appearance to an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the packaging for the accused product sold in the district uses the name "iDock" and a photograph of Plaintiff's "MiniDock®" product (Compl. ¶17, Exh. 4). A key question will be what evidence exists to show that the product inside this packaging is the same as the "blingberry" branded product shown in other exhibits, and to what extent the use of Plaintiff's own product image on Defendant's packaging influences the infringement analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In a design patent case, the single claim refers to the design "as shown" in the drawings. Claim construction is typically limited to determining the scope of the claimed design based on the figures, rather than construing specific text-based terms. The dispute is expected to focus on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the designs as a whole, not on the definition of any particular term.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by the assertion that Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant on April 29, 2013, to demand that it cease and desist its infringing activity, but Defendant continued to sell the accused products (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "iDock" product substantially the same as the design claimed in the '932 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing one believing it to be the other?
- A second key question will relate to willfulness and damages: Given the allegation that Defendant continued to sell the product after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, and allegedly used a photograph of Plaintiff's own product on its packaging, the court will need to determine whether Defendant’s conduct was willful, which could lead to enhanced damages.