8:21-cv-01712
Flying Eagle Furniture Design Inc v. Best Choice Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flying Eagle Furniture Design, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Best Choice Products, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKown Bailey
- Case Identification: 8:21-cv-01712, C.D. Cal., 10/14/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is a California corporation that transacts business within the state, and a substantial part of the alleged infringing acts occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s outdoor propane gas heaters infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a brazier heater.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of outdoor fire pit tables, a product category within the consumer market for outdoor furniture and amenities.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior commercial relationship wherein Defendant purchased products embodying the patented design from the inventor's company. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant then ceased these purchases and began manufacturing and selling a "virtually identical" copied product. The patent was assigned to the Plaintiff approximately one month before the complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-08-30 | '865 Patent Priority Date |
| Early 2017 | Defendant allegedly began ordering patented products from inventor's company |
| 2019 | Defendant allegedly ceased purchasing patented products and began selling accused products |
| 2019-08-27 | U.S. Design Patent No. D857,865 Issued |
| 2021-09-15 | '865 Patent assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2021-10-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D857,865 - “BRAZIER HEATER”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D857,865, “BRAZIER HEATER,” issued August 27, 2019. (’865 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamentation rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint asserts the patent covers an "ornamental design for the outlook of a brazier heater, which embodies an innovative, aesthetical and unique layout." (Compl. ¶14).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a brazier heater as depicted in its figures. (’865 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of a rectangular, table-like structure with a wide top surface, a recessed central fire element, horizontally slatted side panels situated between four corner leg posts, and a specific control panel arrangement. (’865 Patent, FIG. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic for products in the competitive consumer market for outdoor fire pit tables. (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the patent is asserted: "The ornamental design for a brazier heater, as shown and described." (’865 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential ornamental elements of the claimed design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, include:
- A rectangular table body with a wide, flat top surface surrounding a central, recessed burner area.
- Four primary side panels featuring horizontal slats.
- Prominent corner leg posts that frame the slatted side panels.
- The specific size, proportion, and arrangement of these features relative to one another.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are outdoor propane gas heaters sold by Defendant, referred to as the "Infringing Products." (Compl. ¶11). The complaint identifies specific product listings on websites including Defendant's own, Amazon.com, and Target.com (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are outdoor fire pit tables. The complaint alleges that these products are "virtually identical" to and "copy[] the exact design of the Patented Products." (Compl. ¶4, ¶21). The complaint provides visual evidence to support this allegation, showing a side-by-side comparison of the patent drawings and photographs of the accused product. (Compl. p. 8). This graphic presents the accused product alongside the patented design to demonstrate their alleged visual similarity. (Compl. p. 8, "[Overall – Infringing Products]"). The products are allegedly sold through major online and physical retail channels, including Home Depot and Walmart. (Compl. ¶5, ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the "ordinary observer" test, alleging that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived by the similarity of the accused product's design to the patented design. (Compl. ¶21, ¶29). The complaint uses extensive side-by-side visual comparisons to allege that the accused products copy the overall visual impression of the patented design.
'865 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the design "as shown") | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a rectangular table-like body with a wide, flat top surface surrounding a central recess. | The accused product is a rectangular fire pit table with a wide top surface and a central, recessed burner, creating a nearly identical overall impression. | ¶21; p. 8 | '865 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| Horizontally slatted side panels set between four corner leg posts. | The accused product features side panels with horizontal slats framed by four corner legs, mirroring the patented design's side profile. | ¶21; p. 8 | '865 Patent, FIG. 2 |
| A recessed, rectangular central burner assembly. | The top view of the accused product shows a recessed, rectangular burner assembly that is alleged to be visually indistinguishable from the patented design. | ¶21; p. 9 | '865 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| The specific proportions and arrangement of the control panel, side panels, legs, and top surface. | The complaint's side-by-side photographic comparisons allege that the proportions and arrangement of the accused product's features are the same as those claimed in the patent. | ¶21; p. 8 | '865 Patent, FIG. 1-2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the similarities between the accused product and the patented design are attributable to ornamental features or to purely functional aspects of a fire pit table. A defense may argue that features common to both designs are functional and thus should be disregarded in the infringement analysis.
- Technical (Visual) Questions: The infringement test hinges on the perception of the "ordinary observer." The key question for the court will be whether any visual differences between the accused product and the patent drawings are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived into believing the two designs are the same.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the drawings themselves, and formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the scope of the article of manufacture can be relevant.
The Term: "brazier heater"
This term, from the patent's title and description of the figures, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. (’865 Patent, Title & Description). Practitioners may focus on this term as it defines the field of endeavor, which is relevant for assessing prior art in any potential validity challenge.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint uses the terms "brazier heater" and "outdoor propane gas heater" interchangeably, suggesting a broader category of outdoor heating furniture. (Compl. ¶2, ¶14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures exclusively depict a specific type of rectangular, table-style fire pit, which could be argued to limit the scope of "brazier heater" to this particular embodiment. (’865 Patent, FIG. 1-7).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The prayer for relief includes requests related to inducing and contributing to infringement, but the factual allegations in the main body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by Defendant's making, using, and selling of the accused products. (Compl. ¶28; p. 13, ¶2.b).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges a basis for willfulness by asserting that Defendant had a prior business relationship with the inventor's company, during which Defendant purchased and resold the "Patented Products." (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges that "Defendant suddenly ceased any business with Wellife" and "instead copied the Design Patent." (Compl. ¶20). This alleged history is presented as evidence that Defendant "had or should have had actual knowledge of the Design Patent at least since 2017" and acted knowingly and willfully. (Compl. ¶31, ¶32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The Core Infringement Question: Will an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into purchasing the Defendant's product believing it to be the same as the one shown in the '865 Patent? The case will likely depend heavily on the visual evidence and the court's application of the "ordinary observer" test.
Willfulness and Prior Relationship: Did the Defendant's alleged prior history of purchasing the patented product before launching its own version constitute willful infringement? The allegations of direct copying after terminating a business relationship create a significant factual question that could expose the Defendant to enhanced damages if proven.
The Ornamentality/Functionality Divide: To what extent are the similar features between the products purely ornamental, as protected by the patent, versus functional elements that are unprotectable by a design patent? The defense may argue that the overall shape and configuration are dictated by function, which could narrow the effective scope of the patent's protection.