DCT
3:25-cv-06039
Pro Troll v. Cronk
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: PRO-TROLL (California)
- Defendant: TIMOTHY CRONK, an individual dba X2 FISHING; Axis Wholesale LLC (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Guided Growth Legal
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-06039, N.D. Cal., 07/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business and distribute, offer for sale, sell, and advertise their products within the Northern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ fishing flasher products infringe the ornamental designs protected by four of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental appearance of fishing attractors, known as "flashers," which are designed to attract fish through visual stimuli like shape, color, and reflection.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with actual notice of the patents-in-suit via a cease-and-desist letter on February 19, 2025, which may form the basis for a subsequent willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-08-24 | U.S. Patent No. D866,704 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2018-02-13 | U.S. Patent No. D810,229 Issue Date |
| 2018-02-13 | U.S. Patent No. D916,229 Issue Date (per complaint) |
| 2019-09-17 | U.S. Patent No. D860,379 Issue Date |
| 2019-11-12 | U.S. Patent No. D866,704 Issue Date |
| 2025-02-19 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendants |
| 2025-07-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D810,229 S - "FISHING FLASHER," issued February 13, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '0229 Patent does not describe a technical problem, but instead protects a new, original, and ornamental design for a non-functional product feature (Compl. ¶ 21).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a "FISHING FLASHER" (Compl. ¶ 12). The complaint does not contain the patent's drawings, but alleges that the design consists of non-functional features that are visually distinct (Compl. ¶ 21).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a unique visual appearance intended to differentiate the product in the marketplace and attract fish (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a FISHING FLASHER, as shown and described."
- The complaint asserts this claim against Defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 23-28).
U.S. Design Patent No. D866,704 S - "LIGHTED FISH ATTRACTOR," issued November 12, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than utility. The '704 Patent does not articulate a specific technical problem but instead claims a "new, original, and ornamental design for a lighted fish attractor" ('704 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The claimed design, depicted in the patent's figures, consists of the solid-line portions of a lighted fish attractor ('704 Patent, Description). Key features include an elongated, tapered body with a gentle curve and a distinct, centrally-located, raised rectangular housing that contains specific surface ornamentation ('704 Patent, Figs. 1-2, 4). The broken lines in the figures illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design ('704 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The unique ornamental configuration of the attractor and its lighted housing creates a specific visual presentation intended to be distinct from other lures (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single independent claim: "The ornamental design for a lighted fish attractor, as shown and described" ('704 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
- The complaint alleges infringement of this claim (Compl. ¶¶ 30-34).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D860,379 S
- Patent Identification: D860,379 S, "LIGHTED FISHING LURE," issued September 17, 2019 (Compl. ¶ 14).
- Technology Synopsis: The '379 Patent protects the specific ornamental design for a lighted fishing lure, separate and distinct from its functional aspects (Compl. ¶ 21, 37). The claim covers the visual appearance of the lure as depicted in the patent's drawings.
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim (Compl. ¶ 37).
- Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of Defendants' "Magic Series" and "Shark Tooth Magic Flashers" products (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 37).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D916,229 S
- Patent Identification: D916,229 S, "LIGHTED FISHING LURE," issued February 13, 2018 (Compl. ¶ 18).
- Technology Synopsis: The '6229 Patent protects the particular ornamental design for a lighted fishing lure (Compl. ¶ 21, 43). The claim is directed to the non-functional, visual characteristics of the lure as illustrated in the patent's drawings.
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim (Compl. ¶ 43).
- Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of Defendants' "Magic Series" and "Shark Tooth Magic Flashers" products (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 43).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as fishing products sold under the names "Magic Series," "Shark Tooth Magic Flashers," and "Springer Dinger" (Compl. ¶ 20).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are fishing flashers sold by Defendants, who are alleged to be competitors of the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶ 20). The core of the allegation is not based on the products' function but on their appearance. Plaintiff alleges that the "Magic Series and Shark Tooth Magic flashers incorporate all non-functional features" of the asserted patents and "appear, from most aspects, nearly identical" (Compl. ¶ 21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint's allegations track this legal standard.
'0229 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on an element-by-element basis. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the overall ornamental design of the accused products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '0229 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25).
'704 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a lighted fish attractor, as shown and described | The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Magic Series" and "Shark Tooth Magic Flashers" have an ornamental appearance that is, "from most aspects, nearly identical" to the patented design. | ¶21 | Figs. 1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue for all asserted patents will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented designs. The analysis will depend on comparing the accused products to the specific visual elements claimed in the patents' drawings.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what visual elements an ordinary observer focuses on when viewing the products. The dispute may turn on whether perceived similarities in the overall shape and configuration outweigh any minor differences in specific surface details between the accused products and the designs shown in the '0229, '704, '379, and '6229 patents.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific terms is uncommon, as the claim is defined by the drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.
- The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described" (e.g., '704 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
- Context and Importance: The resolution of the case will not depend on the definition of a text-based term but on the visual comparison between the accused products and the patent drawings. Practitioners may focus on the scope of the claimed design, particularly the distinction between elements shown in solid lines (claimed) and those in broken lines (unclaimed environment).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described," suggesting the importance of the overall visual impression created by the combination of all claimed features, rather than an analysis of each feature in isolation ('704 Patent, Claim).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description in the '704 Patent explicitly states that "broken lines shown are included for the purpose of illustrating environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design" ('704 Patent, Description). This language narrows the scope of protection to only the specific elements depicted in solid lines, excluding the general shape or context of the lure body itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 25, 31, 37, 43). However, it does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might have actively encouraged or contributed to infringement by third parties, beyond the general allegation of making and selling the accused products.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful because they continued their accused activities after receiving actual notice of the asserted patents in a cease-and-desist letter dated February 19, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 28, 34, 40, 46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "Magic Series" and "Shark Tooth Magic Flashers" substantially the same as the specific designs claimed in each of the four asserted patents? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison, which is not provided in the complaint.
- A dispositive question will concern the impact of the prior art: The legal test for design patent infringement requires the comparison to be made by an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. A central question for the court will be what the relevant prior art for fishing flashers looks like and whether, in that context, the accused and patented designs are still confusingly similar.
- The willfulness claim will likely turn on the specific content of the February 19, 2025, notice letter and evidence of Defendants' conduct after that date.