DCT

8:25-cv-02494

P P Imports LLC v. Vevor Store LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:25-cv-02494, C.D. Cal., 12/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having regular and established places of business within the Central District of California, conducting business in the district, and committing alleged wrongful acts within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sports training nets and a golf mat infringe six of Plaintiff's design patents covering the ornamental appearance of such products.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental designs of sports training equipment, a market where visual appearance and product differentiation are significant commercial factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed pre-suit history, including a February 2025 cease and desist letter, a subsequent written acknowledgment of infringement and a promise to cease from Vevor, and Vevor’s alleged failure to honor that promise. A second cease and desist letter was allegedly sent in July 2025. This history is presented as the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-10-24 Earliest Priority Date for '933, '985, and '355 Patents
2020-11-03 U.S. Patent No. D900,933 Issues
2021-04-28 Priority Date for '254 Patent
2021-05-13 Priority Date for '214 Patent
2022-08-16 U.S. Patent No. D960,985 Issues
2023-07-31 Priority Date for '263 Patent
2023-10-31 U.S. Patent No. D1,003,355 Issues
2024-01-23 U.S. Patent No. D1,012,214 Issues
2024-10-22 U.S. Patent No. D1,048,254 Issues
2024-11-12 U.S. Patent No. D1,051,263 Issues
2025-02-28 Plaintiff allegedly discovers infringement and sends first cease and desist letter
2025-07-23 Plaintiff allegedly sends second cease and desist letter
2025-12-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,051,263 - *Sport Training Net*, issued November 12, 2024 (’263 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamentation, not function. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead provides an ornamental design for a sport training net (Compl. ¶42-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a sport training net as depicted in its figures (’263 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The design consists of a rectangular net featuring a three-by-three grid of square-shaped pockets. Each pocket is depicted with a downward-pointing, V-shaped opening at its top (’263 Patent, Fig. 2). The overall impression is one of a structured, multi-target training apparatus.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct visual appearance for a multi-pocket practice net used for sports like baseball or softball.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in the patent's drawings.
  • The essential visual elements of the design include:
    • The overall appearance of a sport training net.
    • A rectangular net surface.
    • An array of nine pockets arranged in a three-by-three grid.
    • Each pocket having a V-shaped upper opening.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of the single claim of the '263 Patent (Compl. ¶207).

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,048,254 - *Sports Net*, issued October 22, 2024 (’254 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent protects the ornamental design for what the complaint identifies as a "Sports Net" (Compl. ¶48).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design illustrated in its figures (’254 Patent, Figs. 1-6). Key features of the design include a generally rectangular frame with bowed upper and lower members and straight vertical side members. Centered within the net is a prominent hexagonal target area, visually distinct from the surrounding netting (’254 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a specific aesthetic for a practice net, characterized by its curved frame elements and hexagonal target feature.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
  • The essential visual elements of the design include:
    • The overall appearance of a sports net.
    • A frame with bowed horizontal members and straight vertical members.
    • A central, hexagonal-shaped target zone within the net.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of the single claim of the '254 Patent (Compl. ¶215).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D900,933 - *Football Toss Trainer*, issued November 3, 2020 (’933 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a football training net. The design features a rectangular net with three vertically aligned, recessed target pockets of a particular shape and proportion (’933 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim of the patent (Compl. ¶223).
  • Accused Features: The design of the "VEVOR 8 x 8 ft Football Trainer Throwing Net," "VEVOR 7x7ft Football Training Launch Net," and "VEVOR 6 x 6 ft Football Trainer Throwing Net" are alleged to be "identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶99, 224; p. 21).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D960,985 - *Toss Trainer*, issued August 16, 2022 (’985 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, which is a continuation of the application that led to the ’933 Patent, protects an ornamental design for a toss trainer. The design is visually very similar to that of the ’933 Patent, showing a rectangular net with three vertically aligned, recessed target pockets (’985 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim of the patent (Compl. ¶231).
  • Accused Features: The same Vevor football training nets are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶99, 232; p. 21).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,003,355 - *Toss Trainer*, issued October 31, 2023 (’355 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, which is a continuation in the same family as the '933 and '985 patents, also protects an ornamental design for a toss trainer. The design again features a rectangular net with three vertically aligned, recessed target pockets, appearing visually consistent with the parent designs (’355 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim of the patent (Compl. ¶239).
  • Accused Features: The same Vevor football training nets are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶99, 240; p. 21).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,012,214 - *Sports Pylon*, issued January 23, 2024 (’214 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a sports pylon. The design consists of an elongated, six-sided prismatic shape (’214 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim of the patent (Compl. ¶247).
  • Accused Features: Vevor’s "Infringing Mat" (a 5x4ft Golf Hitting Mat) is alleged to be "substantially similar to" and to infringe the claim of the pylon patent, apparently by incorporating features that embody the patented pylon design (Compl. ¶103, 248; p. 22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Infringing Nets" and an "Infringing Mat" (Compl. ¶85-86). The nets include various VEVOR-branded "9 Hole Baseball Net" models, a "Baseball Softball Practice Net," and several sizes of "Football Trainer Throwing Net" (Compl. ¶85). The mat is identified as the "Vevor 5x4ft Golf Hitting Mat" (Compl. ¶86).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are sports training aids sold by Defendants on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.com, Vevor.com, and HomeDepot.com (Compl. ¶90). The complaint alleges that the accused products are direct copies of or substantially similar to Plaintiff's own GoSports® products that practice the patented designs (Compl. ¶91, 95). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the patented design for a sport training net and an image of the accused "Vevor B0CQY53QRJ" product (Compl. p. 19). Further allegations suggest the accused products were made with "lower quality materials and construction," thereby harming the reputation and goodwill of Plaintiff's products by association (Compl. ¶92, 96-97).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges infringement by presenting side-by-side visual comparisons.

D1,051,263 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a Sport Training Net as shown and described. The accused VEVOR 9 Hole Baseball Nets feature an overall visual appearance that the complaint alleges is a "direct copy" of the patented design. This includes a rectangular net with a three-by-three grid of pockets, each with a V-shaped opening, mirroring the patented design. ¶91; ¶207-208; p. 19 Figs. 1-6

D1,048,254 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a Sports Net as shown and described. The accused VEVOR Baseball Softball Practice Net features an overall visual appearance that the complaint alleges is a "direct copy" of the patented design. This includes a frame with bowed top and bottom members and a central hexagonal target area, consistent with the visual elements of the patented design. ¶95; ¶215-216; p. 20 Figs. 1-6

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '214 Patent is whether the claim to an ornamental design for a "Sports Pylon" can be infringed by features integrated into a different article of manufacture, a "Golf Hitting Mat" (Compl. ¶103; p. 22). The court may need to determine if the scope of a design patent is limited to the article named in the patent's title and description or if the ornamental design itself is protected when applied to other articles.
  • Technical Questions: For the net patents, the dispute will likely focus on a comparison of the designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The complaint's side-by-side images suggest a high degree of visual similarity (Compl. pp. 19-21). A key question for the court will be whether any subtle differences in proportion, curvature, or construction between the patented designs and the accused products are sufficient to prevent a finding of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the figures typically define the claim scope. However, the title of the article can be a source of dispute.

  • The Term: "Sports Pylon" (from the '214 Patent title)
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the accused product is not a standalone pylon but a golf mat that allegedly incorporates the pylon design (Compl. ¶103). The case may turn on whether the patent protects the ornamental design of a pylon (which could be applied to any article) or the ornamental design as applied to a pylon (which would limit the claim to pylon-like articles). Practitioners may focus on this term because it directly addresses the applicability of the patent to the accused product's form.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim protects the ornamental configuration itself, and the title "Sports Pylon" merely identifies one embodiment or intended use for that design.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures exclusively show a standalone, three-dimensional pylon object (’214 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The description states the claim is for "the ornamental design for a sports pylon" (’214 Patent, Description). This language may support an interpretation that limits the claim's scope to articles that would be identified by an ordinary observer as a pylon.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of contributory infringement and inducement, stating that Vevor's activities aid, assist, and encourage infringement by others (Compl. ¶207, 215, 223). The primary factual allegations, however, focus on direct infringement through Defendants' own manufacture, use, and sale of the accused products.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It alleges Vevor had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement via cease and desist letters sent on February 28, 2025, and July 23, 2025 (Compl. ¶31, 37). The complaint further alleges that Vevor acknowledged the infringement in writing, promised to cease selling the products, and then failed to do so (Compl. ¶32-34, 38). Finally, it alleges Vevor attempted to conceal its ongoing infringement by removing the "VEVOR" brand name from online listings and using the brand "SKYHALO," while still shipping VEVOR-branded products to purchasers (Compl. ¶111-114). A photograph from a test-buy allegedly shows a delivered product with "VEVOR" printed on it, despite the logo being "artificially removed from the SKYHALO listing" (Compl. p. 24).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: For the five asserted net patents, do the accused Vevor products appear so similar to the patented designs that they would deceive an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient ornamental differences to avoid infringement?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Can the ornamental design for a "Sports Pylon," as claimed in the '214 Patent, be infringed by its application as a feature on a different article of manufacture—a golf mat—or is the claim's scope limited to standalone pylon products?
  • A central evidentiary battle will likely concern willfulness: Do Plaintiff's detailed allegations—including Vevor's purported written admission of infringement, subsequent continued sales, and alleged attempts to conceal its branding online—constitute the type of egregious conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and potential for enhanced damages?