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., 03/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a principal place of business in the judicial district, has committed acts of infringement by selling products within the district, and resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shaker bottles and associated lids infringe three of its design patents and related trade dress.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to shaker bottles, a widely used consumer product for mixing and consuming powdered dietary supplements.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent Defendant a cease-and-desist letter on January 21, 2021, identifying the D'235 and D'798 patents. Follow-up letters were sent on March 21, 2022, and August 17, 2022, the latter of which identified the D'551 patent. Plaintiff's allegations of willful infringement are predicated on Defendant's alleged continued sales after receiving these notices.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-09 | D'235 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-10-04 | D'235 Patent Issued |
| 2012-09-07 | D'551 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-06-06 | D'798 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-12-31 | D'551 Patent Issued |
| 2014-01-21 | D'798 Patent Issued |
| 2021-01-21 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-03-21 | Plaintiff sends follow-up letter to Defendant |
| 2022-08-17 | Plaintiff sends second follow-up letter to Defendant |
| 2023-03-03 | First 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 patent itself, as a design patent, does not articulate a specific technical problem. However, the complaint frames the context as an industry where Plaintiff "revolutionized the way dietary supplements are mixed and consumed" through innovative designs (Compl. ¶7).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a bottle as depicted in its figures (D'235 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The design consists of a tall, slightly tapered cylindrical container featuring a lid with a flip-top closure and integrated loop, and distinctive indented side panels with vertical ribbing, which the complaint also identifies as part of its "Bottle Trade Dress" (Compl. ¶17-18).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying these proprietary designs were "path-breaking" and became "go-to products for... gym goers, serious protein drinkers and more" (Compl. ¶7, ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The claim is for "The ornamental design for a bottle, as shown and described" (D'235 Patent, Claim).
- The essential ornamental features shown in the drawings include:
- A tall, cylindrical, and slightly tapered overall bottle shape.
- A lid assembly featuring a flip-top cap and an adjacent integrated loop.
- Indented, vertically-ribbed grip panels on opposing sides of the bottle body.
- A set of graduated volume markings.
U.S. Design Patent No. D696,551 - “BOTTLE LID HAVING INTEGRATED HANDLE,” Issued December 31, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, but its title and form suggest a focus on the ornamental appearance of a bottle lid that combines a closure mechanism with a carrying feature.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a bottle lid (D'551 Patent, Figs. 1-6). Key visual features of the design, which the complaint aligns with its "Lid Trade Dress," include a recessed domed top, a conical spout on one side, and a prominent pivoting arm with an integrated handle loop on the opposite side (Compl. ¶16).
- Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes the designs as "pioneered innovative technology and path-breaking designs" that are central to its brand identity (Compl. ¶7, ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a bottle lid with an integrated handle, as shown and described" (D'551 Patent, Claim).
- The essential ornamental features shown in the drawings include:
- A bottle lid with a recessed, domed top surface.
- A conical spout protruding from one edge of the domed top.
- A pair of mounting brackets on the side opposite the spout.
- A pivoting arm, featuring an integrated handle loop, which is hosted by the brackets and contains a circular element for closing the spout.
U.S. Design Patent No. D697,798 - “CONTAINER,” Issued January 21, 2014
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for the container portion of a shaker bottle. The design features a generally cylindrical, tapered body with a distinct flared base and prominent external threads at the top opening for securing a lid (D'798 Patent, Figs. 1-8). It presents an alternative bottle design to that shown in the D'235 patent.
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design for a container as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" infringes the claimed design (Compl. ¶64).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles" and the "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid" (Compl. ¶48, ¶49).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentalities are shaker bottles used to mix and dispense liquid and powdered supplements (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges that Defendant manufactures, uses, sells, and imports these products into the United States (Compl. ¶14). The complaint provides a table of ten representative "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottles," showing various colors and printed graphics (Compl. ¶48, pp. 15-17). A photograph of a representative infringing "Hydra Cup Shaker Bottle Lid" is also provided (Compl. ¶49).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would find the accused design to be substantially the same as the patented design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing one supposing it to be the other (Compl. ¶65).
D'235 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a direct side-by-side comparison for the D'235 Patent. The infringement allegation is based on a comparison between the patent figures and images of the various accused Hydra Cup bottles (Compl. ¶62; p. 21).
| Key Ornamental Feature (from D'235 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Hydra Cup Bottles) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tall, generally cylindrical container body with a slight taper. | The accused bottles possess a tall, generally cylindrical container body with a similar taper. | ¶62; p. 21 | Figs. 1-5 |
| A lid featuring a flip-top closure and an integrated carrying loop. | The accused bottles are sold with a lid that features a flip-top closure and an integrated loop. | ¶62; p. 21 | Fig. 1 |
| Indented side panels with vertical ribbing for grip. | The accused bottles incorporate indented side panels. | ¶62; p. 21 | Figs. 1, 2, 5 |
D'551 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a detailed side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and the accused lid (Compl. p. 22).
| Key Ornamental Feature (from D'551 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Hydra Cup Lid) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A bottle lid with a recessed and domed top surface. | The accused lid is depicted with a recessed and domed top surface. | ¶63; p. 22 | Figs. 1, 2, 5 |
| A conical spout protruding from one side of the top. | The accused lid incorporates a conical spout protruding from its top surface. | ¶63; p. 22 | Fig. 1 |
| A pair of brackets on the side opposing the spout. | The accused lid shows a pair of brackets opposite the spout. | ¶63; p. 22 | Fig. 2 |
| A pivoting arm with an integrated handle, hosted by the brackets. | The accused lid features a pivoting arm with an integrated handle mounted on the brackets. | ¶63; p. 22 | Figs. 1, 3, 5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused Hydra Cup bottles and lids is "substantially similar" to the patented designs in the eye of an ordinary observer. A defense may focus on any visual differences, arguing they create a distinct overall appearance.
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the D'235 and D'798 patents is what visual weight, if any, should be given to the prominent branding and graphics printed on the accused bottles, which are not part of the claimed designs. For the D'551 patent, the analysis may focus on whether minor differences in the curvature and proportions of the accused lid's handle are sufficient to create a different visual impression from the patented design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, there are no textual claim terms to construe in the traditional sense. The "claim" is the visual design itself as depicted in the patent's drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall ornamental appearance rather than the definition of specific words. However, the description of the design provides context for the claimed scope.
- The Term: "ornamental design for a bottle lid with an integrated handle" (from D'551 Patent claim and title).
- Context and Importance: The similarity of the handle and closure mechanism is central to the infringement allegation against the Hydra Cup lid. Practitioners may focus on this element because the visual identity between the patented handle design and the accused product's handle will be a critical factor in the "ordinary observer" test.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that the claim covers the overall visual configuration of the lid—a domed top with an offset spout and a pivoting handle opposite it—and is not limited to the exact curvatures and proportions shown. The claim is for the design "as shown and described," and the description is minimal, suggesting the focus is on the overall appearance (D'551 Patent, Claim; Description).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim is limited to the precise ornamental design shown in the patent figures. Any deviation in the shape, proportions, or surface appearance of the handle or other features, as depicted in Figures 1-6, could be argued to result in a design that is not "substantially similar" (D'551 Patent, Figs. 1, 5).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and is "knowingly, intentionally, and willfully" infringing all three asserted patents (Compl. ¶62, ¶63, ¶64). The allegations are based on Defendant's continued manufacturing and selling of the accused products after receiving multiple pre-suit cease-and-desist letters from Plaintiff, dated January 21, 2021, March 21, 2022, and August 17, 2022, which identified the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶50, ¶52, ¶53, ¶54).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: In the eye of an ordinary observer, are the accused Hydra Cup products "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the D'235, D'551, and D'798 patents? This determination will depend on a holistic comparison of the designs, weighing both similarities and differences.
- A key evidentiary question will be the impact of surface branding: For the D'235 and D'798 bottle patents, the court will need to consider how the prominent logos and graphics on the accused products affect the overall design comparison against the unadorned patented designs.
- For the D'551 lid patent, the analysis will likely focus on feature-level similarity: Are the visual differences between the accused lid's handle and closure mechanism and the patented design significant enough to create a distinct overall appearance, or are they minor variations that an ordinary observer would overlook?