DCT

2:22-cv-02222

Trove Brands LLC v. TRRS MAGNATE LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-02222, E.D. Cal., 05/10/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as each Defendant resides or has a principal place of business in the judicial district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shaker bottles, lids, and agitators infringe three of its design patents and associated trade dress.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the ornamental design of shaker bottles used for mixing and consuming dietary supplements and protein drinks in the fitness and wellness consumer market.
  • Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint follows at least three pre-suit communications from Plaintiff to Defendants. Plaintiff alleges it sent cease-and-desist letters regarding the asserted intellectual property on January 21, 2021, March 21, 2022, and August 17, 2022, putting Defendants on notice of the alleged infringement prior to the original filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-09 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D510,235
2005-10-04 U.S. Design Patent No. D510,235 Issued
2012-09-07 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D696,551
2013-06-06 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D697,798
2013-12-31 U.S. Design Patent No. D696,551 Issued
2014-01-21 U.S. Design Patent No. D697,798 Issued
2021-01-21 Plaintiff sends first cease-and-desist letter to Defendant Hydra Cup
2022-03-21 Plaintiff sends follow-up letter to Defendant Hydra Cup
2022-08-17 Plaintiff sends second follow-up letter to Defendant Hydra Cup
2023-12-13 Deposition of Defendant Thomas Raymus
2024-05-10 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D510,235, "BOTTLE," issued October 4, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff "revolutionized" the market for dietary supplement shakers through "pioneered innovative technology and path-breaking designs" (Compl. ¶8). In this context, the design patent addresses the need for a distinct and ornamental appearance for a shaker bottle.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a bottle, as depicted in its figures (’235 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design consists of the overall visual characteristics of the bottle, including its shape, proportions, and surface ornamentation, separate from its utilitarian function (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying the patented designs became "go-to products for outdoor enthusiasts, gym goers, [and] serious protein drinkers" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings. The claim of the '235 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a bottle, as shown and described" ('235 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Design Patent No. D696,551, "BOTTLE LID HAVING INTEGRATED HANDLE," issued December 31, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Consistent with its overall branding and design strategy, Plaintiff sought to create an ornamental design for a bottle lid that was both distinctive and integrated with the overall product aesthetic (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 14).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a bottle lid featuring an integrated handle (’551 Patent, Claim). The design includes the specific visual appearance of the lid's domed top, a pivoting arm, a spout closure element, and an integrated carrying loop, as illustrated in the patent's figures ('551 Patent, Figs. 1-5).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint positions this lid design as a key component of its "Lid Trade Dress," which it alleges is a distinctive indicator of origin for its products (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim of the '551 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a bottle lid with an integrated handle, as shown and described" ('551 Patent, Claim).

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D697,798, "CONTAINER," issued January 21, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a container, specifically the shaker cup portion of a bottle. The claimed design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a specific tapered profile and surface features intended for a shaker bottle (’798 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
  • Asserted Claims: The single design claim for the ornamental design of a container as shown and described (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The overall design of the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" is alleged to infringe the '798 Patent (Compl. ¶69).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles," which include the bottles, the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid," and associated agitators and labels (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50, 52).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are shaker bottles used to mix powdered supplements with liquids (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 49). The complaint alleges that Defendants manufacture, use, sell, and import these products into the United States (Compl. ¶49). The core of the infringement allegation is not the utility of the bottles, but that their ornamental design is "substantially the same" as Plaintiff's patented designs and "confusingly similar" to its trade dress (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 67-69). The complaint provides a gallery of ten different accused "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" to illustrate the products at issue (Compl. ¶49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of three design patents. The legal standard for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, considering the design as a whole (Compl. ¶70). Because design patents claim ornamental appearance rather than discrete functional elements, a traditional claim chart with column-and-line citations to a specification is not applicable. The analysis is primarily visual.

The complaint presents its infringement theory through direct side-by-side visual comparisons. For the '551 Patent, the complaint provides a detailed comparison table showing five figures from the patent next to corresponding photos of the accused "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid" (Compl. pp. 23-24). A side-by-side comparison table shows a top-down view of the patented lid design from the '551 Patent (Fig. 3) next to a photograph of the accused Hydra Cup lid from the same perspective (Compl. p. 23). This comparison highlights alleged similarities in the overall circular shape, the placement and rectangular profile of the pivoting arm mount, and the circular spout closure element.

For the '235 Patent and '798 Patent, the complaint provides figures from each patent alongside galleries of the various accused "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" (Compl. pp. 21-22, 26). A figure from the '235 Patent is shown alongside a gallery of ten different "Infringing Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" to allege substantial similarity in overall design (Compl. pp. 21-22). These comparisons form the factual basis for the allegation that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it was the patented one (Compl. ¶67).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will be the degree of similarity required for infringement. The question for the court is whether the visual differences between the patented designs and the accused products are significant enough to defeat the claim of substantial similarity in the eye of an ordinary observer.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on specific visual elements. For the '551 Patent lid, a potential point of contention is whether the shape of the accused product's integrated handle, which appears to have a different curvature and lacks the distinct inner ring shown in the patent's figures, is a sufficient departure from the claimed design (Compl. p. 23; '551 Patent, Fig. 3).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For design patents, claim construction is significantly different than for utility patents, as the single claim consists of the design "as shown and described" in the drawings. The scope is defined by the visual depiction in the patent's figures, and detailed verbal construction is generally considered inappropriate.

  • The Term: The scope of what is claimed, as depicted in solid lines in the drawings.
  • Context and Importance: The central issue is defining what the drawings show. Practitioners may focus on which aspects of the drawings constitute the claimed ornamental design versus unclaimed functional elements or environmental structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression of the design, not just isolated features. The complaint argues for infringement based on the overall resemblance that would deceive an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶¶ 67-69).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of a design patent is limited to what is shown in the drawings. For the '551 Patent, the patent specification explicitly states that the broken lines showing a bottle in Figure 6 "illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design" ('551 Patent, Description). Any defense would likely focus on specific, visible differences between the accused product and the solid-line drawings of the patents.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the individual defendant, Thomas Raymus, is personally liable for infringement. The allegations state he acted as the "owner, CEO, sole employee, and thus driving force" behind the corporate defendant, and that he "knowingly and willfully directed Hydra Cup's infringing activities" (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 68, 69).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowingly, intentionally, and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 68, 69). The factual basis for this allegation is the series of cease-and-desist letters sent by Plaintiff starting in January 2021, which allegedly provided pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringement claims (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 53, 54). The complaint notes that despite these letters, Defendants continued to sell the accused products (Compl. ¶55).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Are the accused Hydra Cup bottles and lids "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the '235, '551, and '798 patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer, or are the visual differences in shape, proportion, and specific features sufficient to distinguish them and avoid infringement?
  2. A second key question will concern willfulness and damages: If infringement is found, will Defendants' alleged continuation of sales after receiving multiple cease-and-desist letters rise to the level of willful infringement, justifying enhanced damages or an award of Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289?
  3. A final determinative question will be the scope of personal liability: Do the facts support piercing the corporate veil or otherwise holding the individual defendant, Thomas Raymus, personally liable for the alleged infringement based on his role as "owner, CEO, sole employee, and... driving force" of the corporate defendant?