DCT

8:17-cv-00299

Privacy Pop LLC v. Marketfleet Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:17-cv-00299, C.D. Cal., 02/18/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including alleged acts of infringement, occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Winterial Privacy Bed Tent" infringes its design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a bed tent.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves bed-mounted tents designed to provide a user with privacy in a shared sleeping environment, a product category with applications in dormitories, shared bedrooms, and other co-living situations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on December 12, 2016, putting Defendant on notice of the patent. Defendant allegedly responded on December 28, 2016, refusing to stop selling the accused product. The complaint also notes other pending patent infringement lawsuits against the Defendant in other districts to suggest a pattern of conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-05-07 D'146 Patent Application Filing Date
2013-04-30 U.S. Design Patent No. D681,146 Issued
Late 2016 Plaintiff learns of Defendant's accused product sales
2016-12-12 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant
2016-12-28 Defendant responds, refusing to cease sales
2017-01-16 Plaintiff sends follow-up cease-and-desist demand
2017-02-18 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D681,146 - “BED TENT FOR PRIVACY”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D681,146, “BED TENT FOR PRIVACY,” issued April 30, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a bed tent intended to provide privacy (D'146 Patent, Title; Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses the ornamental design for a bed tent, characterized by a generally rectangular, fabric-covered structure with rounded vertical corners and a curved top surface (D'146 Patent, Fig. 1). Key ornamental features include large, arched zippered openings on the long sides of the tent and a specific visual relationship between the tent's solid-line features and the dashed-line bed frame it is shown upon (D'146 Patent, Figs. 1, 2, 6). The patent's DESCRIPTION section clarifies that the dashed-line portions, such as the bed frame, are for illustrative environmental purposes and "form no part of the claimed design" (D'146 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the patent covers Plaintiff's "innovative bed tent design" (Compl. ¶10). In the market for consumer goods like bed tents, a distinctive ornamental design can be a significant driver of commercial success and brand identity.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "the ornamental design for a bed tent for privacy, as shown and described" (D'146 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the bed tent as depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings. Key visual elements contributing to the overall design include:
    • A soft-sided, generally cuboid structure with rounded corners.
    • Large, U-shaped arched openings centered on the long sides of the tent.
    • The overall proportions and aesthetic impression created by these elements in combination.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Winterial Privacy Bed Tent" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint also alleges the product was at one point called a "Privacy Pop Up Tent" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused product as a bed tent that is "essentially identical" to the design covered by the D'146 Patent (Compl. ¶11). It is allegedly sold by Defendant Marketfleet through its d/b/a Winterial.com (Compl. ¶2, ¶9). The complaint frames the accused product as a "knock off" of a successful product, alleging Defendant has an established pattern of such activity (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges direct infringement by a direct assertion of similarity rather than through a detailed element-by-element comparison typical for utility patents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The core of the infringement allegation is the statement that Defendant's "Winterial Privacy Bed Tent" embodies the design covered by the D'146 Patent (Compl. ¶16). This is supported by the factual allegation that the accused product is an "essentially identical bed tent" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide images of the accused product or a side-by-side comparison with the patent figures.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be a factual comparison of the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Winterial tent against the design shown in the D'146 Patent's figures. The Defendant’s alleged position that its design is "unique and of its own making" directly contradicts the Plaintiff’s allegation of it being "essentially identical," setting up a classic design patent dispute for the fact-finder (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).
    • Evidentiary Basis: A key question for the court will be what evidence exists to support the claim of substantial similarity. As the complaint lacks visual evidence, the case will depend on discovery to produce the accused product and any marketing materials for a direct comparison with the patent’s drawings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, formal claim construction is less frequent than in utility patent cases, as the drawings themselves are generally held to define the scope of the claimed design. The analysis focuses on identifying the ornamental features shown in solid lines versus the environmental or functional aspects shown in dashed lines.

  • The Term: "the ornamental design for a bed tent for privacy, as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: The primary "construction" issue will be to determine the boundaries of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual elements contribute to the overall protected "look and feel." The court's interpretation of the design's scope will dictate the comparison against the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses multiple embodiments, including versions for a twin bunk bed (Fig. 1), a queen size bed (Fig. 7), and a twin bed (Fig. 13). The assertion of these alternate embodiments may support an interpretation that the protected design covers the core aesthetic concept (rounded cuboid shape, large arched doors) across minor variations in size and proportion (D'146 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly disclaims the bed frame shown in dashed lines as part of the environment, limiting the claim to the tent itself (D'146 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION). The consistent depiction of the specific U-shape of the side openings and the particular curvature of the corners across all embodiments suggests these are core, limiting features of the design, not general concepts.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "willfully infringed the D681,146 patent, selling the accused infringing product with full knowledge of Plaintiff's existing patent rights" (Compl. ¶17). This allegation is factually supported by the claim that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter on December 12, 2016, and Defendant subsequently refused to stop selling the product, thus providing a basis for post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Will an ordinary observer, when conducting a side-by-side comparison, find the overall ornamental design of the accused "Winterial Privacy Bed Tent" to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'146 Patent? The outcome will depend entirely on this factual, visual analysis.
  • A second key question will be one of culpability and damages: Did the Defendant’s alleged continuation of sales after receiving a cease-and-desist letter constitute willful infringement? The court's determination on this point, potentially influenced by the complaint's allegations of a broader "pattern of 'knocking off' products," will be critical to the potential for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶14, ¶17).