DCT
2:22-cv-02222
Trove Brands LLC v. TRRS MAGNATE LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Trove Brands, LLC d/b/a The Blenderbottle Company (Utah)
- Defendant: TRRS Magnate LLC d/b/a Hydra Cup (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-02222, E.D. Cal., 12/14/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having its principal place of business within the district and allegedly committing acts of infringement, such as selling infringing products, within the Eastern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hydra Cup" line of shaker bottles and lids infringes three of its design patents covering the ornamental appearance of its own bottle, container, and lid designs.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods sector, specifically focusing on shaker bottles used for mixing and consuming powdered dietary supplements, a large and competitive market.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent Defendant three separate cease-and-desist letters prior to filing suit. The first letter, dated January 21, 2021, identified the D235 and D798 patents. Subsequent letters in March 2022 and August 2022 reiterated demands and identified infringement of the D551 patent. This history may be used to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-09 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D510,235 |
| 2005-10-04 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D510,235 |
| 2012-09-07 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D696,551 |
| 2013-06-06 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D697,798 |
| 2013-12-31 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D696,551 |
| 2014-01-21 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D697,798 |
| 2021-01-21 | Plaintiff sends first cease-and-desist letter |
| 2022-03-21 | Plaintiff sends second cease-and-desist letter |
| 2022-08-17 | Plaintiff sends third cease-and-desist letter |
| 2022-12-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
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: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a shaker bottle (Compl. ¶ 9; D’235 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a bottle as depicted in its figures. The design features a generally cylindrical container with a slightly tapered upper section, a screw-on lid, and a distinctive flip-top cap with an integrated carrying loop (D’235 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The bottle body also includes vertically oriented, recessed grip panels with a ribbed texture (D’235 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinctive aesthetic in the crowded market for fitness and supplement-related consumer products (Compl. ¶ 7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in the drawings (D’235 Patent, Claim).
- The essential ornamental elements include:
- The overall shape and proportion of the bottle and lid combination.
- A tapered upper portion of the bottle body.
- Recessed, vertically-oriented grip panels on the sides of the bottle.
- A lid with a flip-top cap and an integrated, rigid carrying loop.
U.S. Design Patent No. D696,551 - "BOTTLE LID HAVING INTEGRATED HANDLE," issued December 31, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent claims a new, original, and ornamental design for a bottle lid, separate from the bottle itself (Compl. ¶ 10; D’551 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patented design is for a bottle lid featuring a distinctive, integrated, and flexible carrying handle. Key visual aspects include a domed top surface, a circular drinking spout, a flip-cap that pivots to cover the spout, and a unique handle structure that loops from a base opposite the spout, connecting to the pivot point of the flip-cap (D’551 Patent, Figs. 1-5).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a unique visual identity for a bottle lid, focusing on the integration of the handle and cap mechanism (Compl. ¶ 7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design of the bottle lid as depicted (D’551 Patent, Claim).
- The essential ornamental elements include:
- The overall profile of the lid, including its domed top.
- A flip-cap with a specific shape and texture.
- A pivoting arm and integrated, flexible handle loop.
- The relationship and arrangement of the spout, flip-cap, and handle elements.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D697,798
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D697,798, "CONTAINER," issued January 21, 2014 (Compl. ¶ 11).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for the container portion of a shaker bottle. The design is characterized by its specific profile, which includes a slight taper, a recessed gripping area, and volume measurement markings integrated as a design element (D’798 Patent, Figs. 1, 3).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design of a container as shown and described (D’798 Patent, Claim).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the container bodies of the accused "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" infringe the design claimed in the ’798 Patent (Compl. ¶ 57).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" and the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid" (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 42). The complaint provides visual examples of at least ten different versions of the accused bottles, marketed with various colors and graphics (Compl. p. 14-16). A representative example of the accused "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid" is also depicted (Compl. p. 16).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are shaker bottles intended for consumers to mix and drink powdered supplements (Compl. ¶ 41). The complaint alleges that the Defendant manufactures, uses, sells, and imports these bottles and lids, which are "confusingly similar" to Plaintiff's products and patented designs (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 50). The complaint includes a table showing the "Infringing Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles," illustrating the variety of accused products (Compl. ¶ 41, p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement analysis for a design patent is based on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design (Compl. ¶ 58). The complaint alleges infringement by presenting side-by-side visual comparisons.
D'235 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the overall visual impression of the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" is substantially the same as the D'235 patent design (Compl. ¶ 55).
| Claimed Design Feature (from D'235 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Hydra Cup Bottles) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a bottle as shown in the figures. | The overall design of the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles," which allegedly creates the same visual impression. The complaint provides a collection of images of the accused bottles to support this comparison. (Compl. p. 20). | ¶55 |
| A generally cylindrical body with a tapered upper section and recessed, vertical grip panels. | The accused bottles are alleged to have a similar overall shape, proportions, and feature comparable recessed side grip areas. | ¶55 |
| A lid with a flip-top cap and an integrated carrying loop. | The accused lids are alleged to incorporate a visually similar flip-top cap and integrated handle structure. | ¶55, ¶56 |
D'551 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a detailed, multi-angle, side-by-side comparison of the patented lid design and the accused "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid" to argue that they are substantially similar (Compl. ¶ 56, p. 21-23). The complaint presents a direct visual comparison of the patent figures and photographs of the accused lid from multiple perspectives (Compl. p. 21).
| Claimed Design Feature (from D'551 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Hydra Cup Lid) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a bottle lid with an integrated handle as shown in the figures. | The overall design of the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid," which is alleged to be substantially the same in the eyes of an ordinary observer. | ¶56 |
| A domed top surface with a pivoting flip-cap. | The accused lid is depicted as having a similar domed profile and a pivoting flip-cap of a comparable size and placement. | ¶56, p. 21 |
| A flexible, integrated handle that loops from the rear of the lid to the flip-cap's pivot point. | The accused lid features an integrated handle that allegedly mimics the location, function, and general shape of the patented handle design. | ¶56, p. 21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for all three design patents will be whether the overall visual impression is "substantially the same." A defendant may argue that differences in specific curves, proportions, or surface textures between the accused products and the patent drawings are significant enough to differentiate the designs in the mind of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: For the D’551 patent, a point of contention may be the specific shape and structure of the handle. The court will need to determine if the visual differences between the patented handle and the accused handle are minor and trivial, or if they create a distinct overall visual appearance.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design as shown in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of written terms is typically not a central issue. The complaint does not identify any specific terms from the patent titles or descriptions that would require judicial construction. The dispute will likely focus on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the designs as a whole, rather than the construction of any particular word or phrase.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, asserting that Defendant itself makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 55-57). No specific facts are alleged to support separate claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and continues to be "knowingly, intentionally, and willfully" carried out (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 56, 57). This allegation is supported by factual claims that Plaintiff sent three cease-and-desist letters notifying Defendant of the asserted patents, with the first notice dating back to January 21, 2021, nearly two years before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to be a classic design patent and trade dress dispute centered on the overall look and feel of competing consumer products. The resolution of the patent claims will likely depend on the answers to two key questions:
- A core issue will be one of holistic visual comparison: In applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the accused Hydra Cup bottles and lids "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the D'235, D'551, and D'798 patents, or are the visual differences sufficient to create a distinct overall appearance?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of intent and knowledge: Do the pre-suit cease-and-desist letters sent by the Plaintiff establish that any infringement by the Defendant was "willful," potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?