DCT

5:17-cv-00089

Olivet Intl Inc v. Travelers Club Luggage Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:17-cv-00089, C.D. Cal., 01/19/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant's place of business within the judicial district and its alleged commission of infringing acts, such as selling accused products, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hard-sided suitcases infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a suitcase, and further alleges claims for trade dress infringement and unfair competition based on the same product design.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the consumer luggage industry, a market where a product's aesthetic and ornamental design can be a significant factor in purchasing decisions and brand identity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-10-13 '355 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2012-07-31 '355 Patent Issue Date
2017-01-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D664,355 - "HARD SUITCASE"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D664,355, "HARD SUITCASE," issued July 31, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the field of consumer goods like luggage, creating a novel and distinctive visual appearance is a way to differentiate a product in a crowded market. The complaint asserts that Olivet has protected its "innovative designs" through patents (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a hard suitcase, as shown and described" ('355 Patent, Claim 1). The design, depicted in seven figures, consists of the overall visual appearance of a hard-sided, four-wheeled suitcase. Its prominent ornamental feature is a repeating pattern of raised, interlocking geometric shapes with curved edges on the front and rear surfaces, creating a unique texture and look (Compl. ¶15; '355 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: A unique ornamental design for a product like a suitcase can acquire distinctiveness and serve to identify the product's source to consumers (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings.
  • Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a hard suitcase, as shown and described."
  • The complaint asserts infringement of the '355 patent generally, which encompasses this single claim (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as Travelers Club Luggage ("TCL") models HS-69003-EX and HS-69920-EX (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are hard-sided suitcases. The complaint alleges these products are sold through various online retailers, including eBay, Overstock.com, eBags, Jet.com, Newegg.com, and Kohls (Compl. ¶29). The core accused feature is the overall ornamental design of the suitcases, which allegedly copies the design protected by the '355 Patent (Compl. ¶33). The complaint provides perspective and front views of the patented design, taken from the patent's figures, to illustrate the design allegedly infringed (Compl. ¶15, p. 6). However, the complaint does not contain images of the accused TCL products themselves.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or reference a claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent is based on a visual comparison. The complaint alleges infringement under the "ordinary observer" test, stating that "The design of TCL’s luggage so closely resembles the invention disclosed in the ‘355 Patent that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing TCL’s luggage in the mistaken belief that it includes the invention disclosed in the ‘355 Patent" (Compl. ¶33). The central allegation is that the overall visual impression of the accused TCL suitcases is substantially the same as the claimed design.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be to determine the scope of the claimed design by separating its purely ornamental aspects from its functional ones. While features like wheels, a telescoping handle, and the general rectangular shape of a suitcase are functional, the plaintiff's case will likely focus on the specific surface ornamentation as the core protectable element of the design.
    • Technical Questions: The dispositive issue will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused TCL products and the design claimed in the '355 Patent. Because the complaint does not include images of the accused products, a direct comparison based on the pleading is not possible. The outcome will depend on evidence, such as the products themselves or photographs, showing whether the specific size, shape, depth, and layout of the patterns on the TCL suitcases are substantially similar to those in the patent's drawings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, "claim construction" is primarily a visual exercise focused on the scope of the design as a whole, rather than the textual definition of specific terms. The key "term" is the overall design itself.

  • The "Term": The "ornamental design for a hard suitcase" as depicted in Figures 1-7 of the '355 Patent.
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the interpretation of this visual claim. Its scope—specifically, which elements an ordinary observer would consider part of the ornamental design and the level of detail required for a match—is determinative.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for a broader interpretation by focusing on the overall visual impression and general configuration of the surface pattern, suggesting that minor differences in the proportions or specific curves of the geometric shapes do not alter the design's fundamental character ('355 Patent, FIG. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a narrower scope by emphasizing that the claim is limited to the exact visual representation in the drawings. This interpretation would require the accused design to replicate the specific shapes, arrangement, and surface texturing shown in the solid lines of the patent figures, treating any deviation as significant ('355 Patent, FIG. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement, alleging that TCL "has been, and presently is, infringing the ‘355 Patent... by manufacturing or importing into, using, selling and/or offering for sale luggage that embodies the patented invention" (Compl. ¶31). No specific allegations supporting induced or contributory infringement are made.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that TCL's conduct is "in every instance, willful and without Olivet's consent" (Compl. ¶32) and requests enhanced damages in the prayer for relief (Compl. ¶F, p. 17). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit notice of the patent or deliberate copying with knowledge of the patent.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of visual comparison: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art luggage, is the overall ornamental design of the accused TCL suitcases substantially the same as the design claimed in the '355 Patent? The resolution of this factual question will require a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent drawings.
  2. The case may also involve a question of design scope: To what extent are the similarities between the products attributable to the purely ornamental surface patterns claimed in the patent, versus functional or commonplace features of hard-sided luggage?
  3. A final point of analysis will be the interplay of intellectual property rights: How will the court distinguish the scope of protection afforded by the '355 design patent (under the ordinary observer test) from that afforded by the concurrently asserted trade dress rights (under the likelihood of confusion test), as both claims seek to protect the non-functional appearance of the same product?