4:17-cv-03681
Rain Design Inc v. Spinido Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rain Design, Inc. (California) and Kok Hong Lye (Singapore)
- Defendant: Spinido, Inc. (Colorado) and Gomffer, Inc. (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ecotech Law Group, PC
- Case Identification: 4:17-cv-03681, N.D. Cal., 06/26/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants transact business within the Northern District of California and have offered for sale and sold products there that allegedly constitute patent infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ laptop stands infringe a design patent that covers the ornamental design of Plaintiffs' commercially successful "mStand" product.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for ergonomic computer accessories, specifically stands designed to elevate laptop computers to improve user posture and free up desk space.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit history, alleging that Defendants are alter egos of each other and controlled by a Chinese parent company. Plaintiffs allege they sent multiple cease-and-desist letters beginning in 2015, which were undeliverable. The complaint also notes that after Plaintiffs complained to Amazon.com about the infringing sales, Amazon delisted Defendants' products, leading Defendants to allegedly create a new corporate entity (Gomffer) to continue sales and retaliate against Plaintiffs on Amazon's UK platform.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-01-17 | U.S. Patent No. D559,850 priority date (application filing date) |
| 2007-04-01 | Plaintiff's mStand product first reviewed on Amazon.com (approx.) |
| 2008-01-15 | U.S. Patent No. D559,850 issues |
| 2015-10-15 | Plaintiff sends first cease-and-desist letter to Defendant Spinido |
| 2016-10-21 | Defendant Spinido allegedly reorganizes; Defendant Gomffer is formed |
| 2017-02-02 | Plaintiff sends another set of cease-and-desist letters |
| 2017-06-26 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D559,850 - "Laptop Stand," issued January 15, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not specify a technical problem in the manner of a utility patent. Instead, it highlights the value of a "novelty and originality of the design" for a laptop stand in a competitive market (Compl. ¶27). The design itself addresses the need for an ergonomic and aesthetically distinct stand for laptop computers (Compl. ¶24, ¶32).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a laptop stand. The design consists of a single piece of material formed into a C-shape, featuring a flat, elongated base; a vertical support section; and an angled top platform with a small lip at the front edge to hold a laptop in place (’850 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The claim is for the overall visual impression created by these features as depicted in the patent's drawings (’850 Patent, "CLAIM").
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive design provided significant market differentiation and was the basis for the mStand product's commercial success (Compl. ¶32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a laptop stand, as shown and described" (’850 Patent, "CLAIM").
- The scope of a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The key visual elements of the ’850 Patent's design include:
- The overall C-shaped profile view (Fig. 2, 4)
- The angled platform with a front lip (Fig. 1, 5)
- The single, continuous piece construction
- The wide, flat base for stability (Fig. 1, 6)
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Spinido’s "TI-Station Laptop Aluminum Cooling Stand" and its "TI-Combination" stand, which is also sold by Gomffer as "Gomffer's Laptop Stand with Phone Holder" (Compl. ¶6, ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are aluminum stands that elevate laptop computers (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges that these products were designed to copy Plaintiffs' mStand product and compete directly with it in the same sales channels, such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶40, ¶64). The "TI-Combination" version adds a retractable smartphone holder to the basic laptop stand design (Compl. ¶41). The complaint provides a photograph of the accused "TI-Station" product in Exhibit F. (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
D559,850 Infringement Allegations
| Feature of the Patented Design (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Visual Appearance) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a laptop stand as shown and described. | The complaint alleges the designs of the accused products are "so similar, as to be nearly identical" to the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product. | ¶40, ¶58, ¶96 | CLAIM |
| The single-piece, C-shaped profile with an angled top platform and flat base. | The accused products are alleged to copy the distinctive shape, construction, and overall visual impression of the patented design. The complaint alleges this was a direct copy of Plaintiffs' mStand product, which embodies the patent. | ¶40, ¶58 | Figs. 1-6 |
| Any differences between the products (e.g., logo, cable hole) are alleged to be non-ornamental or functional, and do not change the overall infringing appearance. | The complaint asserts that the only differences between the products, such as the Spinido logo and a hole for a computer wire, are non-ornamental and do not alter the overall visual impression that is substantially similar to the patented design. | ¶40 | N/A |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central issue in a design patent case is the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the overall design of the accused products to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’850 Patent.
- Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the differences between the patented design and the accused products are sufficient to avoid infringement. The defense may argue that the prominent "Spinido" logo on the accused products, or the addition of a retractable phone holder and associated grooves on the "TI-Combination" model, create a different overall visual impression. The complaint preemptively characterizes these differences as "non-ornamental" or minor (Compl. ¶40, ¶41).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction, in the sense of defining disputed terms, is generally not a central feature of design patent litigation. The claim is understood to be for the overall ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings. The analysis is a visual comparison between those drawings and the accused device. Therefore, the case is less likely to turn on the construction of a specific term and more on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the designs as a whole.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against active inducement of infringement (Compl. ¶24(h)). However, the factual allegations in the complaint focus on direct infringement by Defendants through their own making, using, and selling of the accused products in the United States (Compl. ¶95). The complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might be inducing a third party to infringe.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendants had knowledge of the ’850 patent. This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants directly copied the design of Plaintiffs' commercially successful mStand product, and that they were put on notice of infringement through Plaintiffs' complaints to Amazon.com, which resulted in the delisting of Defendants' products (Compl. ¶40, ¶47, ¶93, ¶100). The repeated, though undelivered, cease-and-desist letters may also be presented as evidence of Plaintiffs' attempts to provide notice (Compl. ¶45, ¶53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: from the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused Spinido and Gomffer stands "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’850 Patent, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing one for the other?
- A related question concerns the legal effect of differences: does the presence of the "Spinido" logo on the accused products, or the functional grooves and retractable phone holder on the "TI-Combination" variant, create a patentably distinct visual impression, or are they non-ornamental or trivial details that do not save the products from infringement as the complaint alleges?
- Finally, a critical factual and procedural question will be corporate liability: can Plaintiffs successfully prove their alter-ego theory to hold Spinido, Gomffer, and their alleged Chinese parent company ShenZhen jointly liable, which could be essential for enforcing any potential judgment?