5:22-cv-04944
Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co Ltd v. Ningbo Jiangbei Shangyu Trading Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Ningbo Jiangbei Shangyu Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-04944, N.D. Cal., 08/29/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, having directed business activities, including sales of the accused products via Amazon.com, to consumers in California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Phupaw" brand cat houses infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a multi-level pet house.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of pet furniture, specifically concerning the aesthetic design of outdoor cat houses intended to be both functional and visually appealing within a residential setting.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's own "Rockever" brand products practice the patented design. The asserted patent issued approximately five weeks before the complaint was filed, suggesting a rapid move to enforcement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-11-20 | 'D465 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-07-19 | 'D465 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-08-17 | Date of last check on accused product's Amazon listing |
| 2022-08-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D958,465, "PET HOUSE", issued July 19, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that prior to Plaintiff's innovation, cat houses on the market were often small, lacked multiple levels or enclosed spaces, and were not aesthetically suitable for outdoor placement on a residential property like a porch or yard (Compl. ¶¶15-16).
- The Patented Solution: The 'D465 Patent claims the ornamental design for a pet house, not its functional features (Compl. ¶22; 'D465 Patent, CLAIM). The design, depicted in the patent's figures, presents a two-story structure with a gabled roof, specific arrangements of window and door openings, and small external perches, creating the overall visual impression of a miniature, rustic house ('D465 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design's purported value lies in creating a cat house that "does not look out of place in a customer's property," addressing a perceived market desire for more attractive outdoor pet furniture (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a pet house, as shown and described" ('D465 Patent, CLAIM).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual characteristics of the pet house shown in solid lines in the patent’s seven figures, including:
- A multi-level, house-like overall configuration with a pitched roof.
- A specific arrangement of openings, including two on the lower level and a window on the upper level.
- The inclusion of small perches or ledges on the exterior.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies outdoor cat houses sold by Defendant under the brand name "Phupaw" (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a multi-level outdoor cat house, which the complaint alleges is sold to consumers in the United States, including within the Northern District of California, through online platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶8, 20). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison showing the accused product, which appears as a two-story, house-shaped wooden structure for cats (Compl. ¶22). The visual evidence provided is a screenshot of the product listing on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶22, fn. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central allegation is that the accused Phupaw product is "deceptively similar and substantially the same as the patented design" when viewed by an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶23). The complaint presents its infringement theory through a direct visual comparison.
'D465 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of a patent figure and a photo of the accused product, alleging misappropriation of the patented design (Compl. ¶22). This visual, an image from an Amazon.com product listing, is the primary evidence offered to support infringement allegations (Compl. ¶22).
| Key Design Feature (from 'D465 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Accused Product Photo) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a two-story pet house with a gabled roof. | The accused product is a two-story pet house with a gabled roof, creating a similar overall visual impression. | ¶22 |
| The specific configuration of openings, including a side-by-side arrangement on the lower level and a distinct window on the upper level. | The accused product displays a nearly identical configuration and placement of openings on its front face. | ¶22 |
| The inclusion and placement of external ledges, including one below the upper-level window and another on the lower right side. | The accused product incorporates external ledges in the same locations and of a similar shape. | ¶22 |
| The specific proportions and visual relationship between the upper and lower levels and the roof structure. | The accused product exhibits substantially the same proportions and visual relationship between its structural elements. | ¶22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend 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 one. A key question is whether minor differences between the products are sufficient to avoid this conclusion. For example, the accused product appears to have a textured, shingle-like roof, whereas the patent drawings depict a roof with simple parallel lines. The court may need to consider if such differences are enough to create a distinct overall visual impression.
- Technical Questions: The primary factual question will be a comparison of the designs as a whole. The court's analysis may focus on whether the visual elements of the accused Phupaw product are arranged in a way that is "substantially the same" as the claimed design, or if differences in trim, texture, or slight proportional variations are significant enough to differentiate them in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, formal claim construction is rare. The "claim" is understood through the drawings. However, a critical issue is the scope of what is claimed versus what is disclaimed.
The "Term"
The Scope of the Claimed Design
Context and Importance
The scope of protection is limited to the elements shown in solid lines in the patent drawings. Anything depicted in broken lines is disclaimed as environmental structure and does not form part of the protected design. This distinction is fundamental to determining the boundaries of the patent right.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A court could find that as long as the accused product captures the overall visual essence of the patented design, minor variations or the addition of un-claimed features do not avoid infringement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states: "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the pet house that forms no part of the claimed design" ('D465 Patent, DESCRIPTION). Figures such as the bottom view (FIG. 7) use broken lines extensively to show the interior layout, confirming that only the exterior ornamental appearance is protected. A defendant may argue that the claim is limited to the exact visual representation in the drawings, and any deviation in the accused product, when viewed in light of the prior art, is sufficient to avoid infringement.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The prayer for relief includes a request for an injunction against those "contributing to or inducing the infringement" (Compl. ¶B, p. 5). However, the complaint does not plead specific factual allegations to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge and intent to encourage infringement by others.
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful infringement." It requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 28, which could warrant an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶E, p. 6). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant; knowledge would be established as of the date the complaint was served.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of overall visual impression: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the accused Phupaw cat house "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the 'D465 patent, or are there sufficient visual differences (e.g., in roof texture, trim, or proportions) to create a distinct commercial impression?
- The outcome will likely depend on the scope and content of the prior art. The degree of similarity required for infringement is viewed in light of what was already known in the field. If the prior art is crowded with similar house-shaped pet enclosures, the scope of the 'D465 patent will be narrow, and even small differences in the accused design may be sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be whether the claimed design is primarily ornamental or functional. While not pleaded, a defendant may argue that certain features of the design are dictated by their function, which would limit the scope of design patent protection. The court may need to determine if the specific aesthetic choices are truly ornamental or merely a result of functional considerations.