DCT
8:22-cv-01807
P&P Imports LLC v. Joyin Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: P&P Imports LLC (California)
- Defendant: Joyin Inc. (Arizona) and Joyin US Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hankin Patent Law, APC
- Case Identification: 8:22-cv-01807, C.D. Cal., 10/04/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendants conduct business in the district, operate a warehouse in Rancho Cucamonga, employ California citizens, and the alleged wrongful acts occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of pool toys and lawn games infringes three of Plaintiff's design patents covering ornamental designs for similar products.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer recreational products sector, specifically concerning the ornamental design of floating pool games and inflatable pool floats.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-02-11 | ’713 Patent Application Filed |
| 2019-03-08 | ’366 Patent Application Filed |
| 2020-03-10 | ’458 Patent Application Filed |
| 2020-04-28 | ’713 Patent Issued |
| 2022-05-31 | ’458 Patent Issued |
| 2022-08-30 | ’366 Patent Issued |
| 2022-10-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D962,366 - "Ball Game," issued August 30, 2022
The Invention Explained
- As this is a design patent, the "invention" is the specific ornamental appearance of the article, not its function.
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution in the manner of utility patents. The filing protects a novel ornamental design for a ball game.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "ball game" (D962,366 Patent, Title). The design, illustrated in figures such as Figure 1, consists of a floating game structure featuring a circular base ring connected by three angled vertical supports to a smaller circular upper ring, creating an overall frustoconical (cone-like with the top cut off) appearance (D962,366 Patent, Fig. 1). The specific visual impression is created by the combination of these elements, their proportions, and the clean, unadorned surfaces of the tubular components.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of this design, the "Splash Hoop 360®," is a patented product, suggesting the design's commercial value to the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is Claim 1.
- Claim 1 recites: "The ornamental design for a ball game, as shown and described." (D962,366 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict:
- A lower circular base structure.
- An upper circular target ring, smaller in diameter than the base.
- Three support members connecting the base to the upper ring at an inward angle.
- The specific T-shaped joints connecting the support members to the rings.
U.S. Design Patent No. D953,458 - "Ball Game," issued May 31, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent protects a novel ornamental design for a ball game.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "ball game" (D953,458 Patent, Title). The design, shown in figures like Figure 3, features a floating goal structure. It is characterized by two upwardly and inwardly angled support posts that rise from a straight, horizontal base tube. These posts culminate in a large circular ring that serves as the target (D953,458 Patent, Fig. 3). The design's overall aesthetic is defined by this A-frame-like support structure holding a prominent circular goal.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's "Splash Pass®" game practices the claim of the ’458 Patent, indicating the design's application in a commercial product (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is Claim 1.
- Claim 1 recites: "The ornamental design for a ball game, as shown and described." (D953,458 Patent, Claim). The claim's scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings, which show:
- A single horizontal tube forming the base.
- Two support posts extending upward and inward from the ends of the base tube.
- A large circular ring attached to the top of the two support posts.
- The particular angles and proportions of the base, supports, and ring.
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D882,713, "Inflatable Pool Float," issued April 28, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent covers the ornamental design for an inflatable pool float. The design features a central inflatable ring from which ornamental shark-like features extend, including a head with teeth, a dorsal fin, two side fins, and a tail fin, all with specific shapes and proportions as depicted in the patent's figures (D882,713 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Sloosh – Inflatable Shark Pool Float Tube" and "Sloosh – Inflatable Shark Pool Float Raft" of infringing the ’713 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 83-84).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are various pool and lawn games sold by Defendants under the "Sloosh" and "FIELDAY" brands (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 55, 56, 57). Specifically, the "Floating Pool Games" (including the "Basketball and Football Hoop Game Set") are accused of infringing the ’366 and ’458 Patents, and the "Infringing Shark Floats" are accused of infringing the ’713 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 145, 152, 159).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are recreational items intended for use in swimming pools or on lawns (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 55). The complaint alleges that Defendants' products are sold on major online retail platforms like Amazon.com, Joyin.com, and Walmart, directly competing with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 72). The complaint further alleges that the accused products are "direct cop[ies]" of Plaintiff's products and are "manufactured and sold with lower quality materials and construction," which has allegedly harmed the reputation of Plaintiff's games (Compl. ¶¶ 73, 75, 80).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device believing it to be the patented design. The complaint presents its infringement theory through side-by-side visual comparisons.
A visual provided in the complaint shows the patented design for a "Ball Game" next to an image of the accused "Infringing Floating Pool Games," highlighting their alleged identity (Compl. p. 29).
D962,366 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the '366 Patent Drawings) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a ball game | The complaint alleges Defendants' "Floating Pool Games" appear "identical to the design claimed by the '366 Patent." | ¶146 | D962,366 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A frustoconical frame created by three angled supports | Defendants' "Floating Pool Games" are alleged to be "direct copies" and embody the same frame structure. | ¶¶ 79, 102 | D962,366 Patent, Fig. 2 |
| A circular base ring and a smaller circular upper ring | The accused products are depicted with a circular base and a smaller upper ring, matching the patented design's configuration. | ¶146 | D962,366 Patent, Fig. 4-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question is one of visual identity. Does the overall visual impression of the accused "Floating Pool Games" deceive an ordinary observer into believing it is the same as the patented design? The complaint alleges the designs are "identical" (Compl. ¶146). The court will need to assess whether any minor differences in proportion or construction are sufficient to differentiate the designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: While not a technical case, an evidentiary question is whether the images provided in the complaint are representative of all accused product variants and whether the products in the market are as visually close to the patented design as alleged.
A visual provided in the complaint shows the patented design for a second "Ball Game" next to an image of the accused "Infringing Floating Football Game" (Compl. p. 31).
D953,458 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the '458 Patent Drawings) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a ball game | The complaint alleges the "Infringing Floating Football Game appears identical to the design claimed by the '458 Patent." | ¶153 | D953,458 Patent, Fig. 2 |
| An A-frame-like structure with two angled supports rising from a horizontal base | Defendants' game is alleged to be a "direct copy" that "practices the claim of P&P's '458 Patent." | ¶73 | D953,458 Patent, Fig. 3 |
| A large circular ring mounted atop the supports | The accused product is depicted with a large circular ring mounted in the same manner as shown in the patent's drawings. | ¶153 | D953,458 Patent, Fig. 5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: As with the '366 patent, the central issue is the application of the ordinary observer test. The complaint alleges the accused product is a "direct copy" of Plaintiff's "Splash Pass®" game, which is alleged to practice the patent (Compl. ¶73). The court's analysis will focus on whether the visual similarities are strong enough to cause marketplace confusion.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the same accused product, the "Basketball and Football Hoop Game Set," infringes both the '366 and '458 patents (Compl. ¶77). This raises the question of how a single product design can be a "direct copy" of two distinct patented designs. The resolution may depend on which specific components of the accused "Game Set" are alleged to infringe each patent.
A final visual comparison shows the patented "Inflatable Pool Float" design next to an image of the accused "Infringing Shark Floats" (Compl. p. 32).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself, as depicted in the patent's drawings. Formal claim construction of written terms is rare. Instead, the analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a ball game, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The scope of protection is defined by the visual appearance of the article in the drawings. The key issue is not the meaning of the words "ball game," but what visual features are included in the "design as shown." The dashed lines in the patent drawings represent subject matter that is not part of the claimed design, while the solid lines define its scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The title "Ball Game" is general, suggesting the design is not limited to a specific sport (e.g., basketball or football). The focus is on the structure's overall shape and configuration, not its end-use.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific proportions, angles, and joinery shown in the solid lines of the patent figures (e.g., D962,366 Patent, Figs. 1-10) define the precise design being claimed. Any significant deviation from these visual details in an accused product could potentially take it outside the claim's scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of indirect infringement, stating Defendants are "aiding, assisting, and encouraging the infringement" by others and that their infringement constitutes "contributory infringement, and/or knowing and intentional inducement" (Compl. ¶¶ 145, 148, 152, 155).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "willful, deliberate, and objectively reckless" (Compl. ¶¶ 149, 156, 163). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that the accused products are "direct cop[ies]" of Plaintiff's patented products, which suggests Defendants had knowledge of the designs.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Visual Identity vs. Deceptive Similarity: The core of the case for all three design patents is the "ordinary observer" test. A central question will be whether the accused products are, as the complaint alleges, "identical" or "direct copies" of the patented designs, or if there are sufficient visual differences that an ordinary observer would not be deceived. The complaint's strong allegations of direct copying may frame this as a key factual dispute.
- Infringement of Multiple Designs by a Single Product: The complaint alleges that the "Infringing Floating Football Game" infringes both the '366 Patent and the '458 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 73, 77). This raises an evidentiary question: how can a single accused product design be a copy of two separate and distinct patented designs? The Plaintiff will need to clarify whether different components of a single product kit, or the same component, are alleged to infringe both designs.
- Harm and Damages: Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that Defendants' products are of "inferior quality" and were sold using Plaintiff's patented designs, thereby harming the reputation of Plaintiff's commercial products (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 75, 81, 86). A key issue for the damages phase will be substantiating this claim and disentangling the alleged harm caused by design patent infringement from the alleged harm caused by lower quality manufacturing.