DCT
1:19-cv-00349
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, Group
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00349, N.D. Cal., 06/26/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Northern District of California based on allegations that Defendants transact business and have offered for sale and sold the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ laptop stands infringe a design patent covering the ornamental design of Plaintiffs' "mStand" product.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit operates in the market for consumer electronic accessories, where the ornamental and aesthetic design of products, such as stands for laptop computers, is a significant competitive differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of attempted enforcement, including cease-and-desist letters beginning in October 2015 and complaints to Amazon.com that resulted in the removal of Defendants' products. Plaintiffs further allege that after these enforcement actions, Defendants reorganized their corporate structure and created a new entity, Gomffer, Inc., to continue selling the allegedly infringing products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-01-17 | U.S. Patent No. D559,850 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2008-01-15 | U.S. Patent No. D559,850 Issue Date |
| 2015-10-15 | Plaintiff sends first cease-and-desist letter to Spinido |
| 2016-10-21 | Defendant Spinido, Inc. allegedly reorganizes |
| 2017-05-10 | Plaintiff discovers new entity "Gomffer" selling accused products |
| 2017-06-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D559,850, "Laptop Stand," issued January 15, 2008.
U.S. Patent No. D559,850 - "Laptop Stand"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'850 patent does not contain a background section describing a technical problem. The claimed design addresses the ornamental appearance of a laptop stand, a product category where aesthetics and ergonomics are key features (Compl. ¶¶32, 38).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a laptop stand as depicted in its figures. The design consists of a single, continuous piece of material forming a flat base, an angled vertical riser, and a tilted support platform with a small retaining lip at the front edge (D’850 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The overall impression is of a minimalist, curved form.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "distinctive design" of the stand, which embodies the patent, provides "differentiation from other competitors' designs" and has been a "commercial success" (Compl. ¶32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the D'850 patent, "The ornamental design for a laptop stand, as shown and described," is asserted (D’850 Patent, Claim).
- In a design patent, the single claim protects the overall visual appearance of the object shown in the patent's drawings. The scope of the claim is defined by Figures 1 through 6, which depict the design from perspective, side, top, front, and back views.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Spinido's "TI-Station Laptop Aluminum Cooling Stand" and "TI-Combination" stand, as well as "Gomffer's Laptop Stand with Phone Holder" (collectively, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶¶6, 7, 12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are aluminum stands designed to hold and elevate laptop computers (Compl. ¶6). The "TI-Combination" model also includes what is described as an "attached, retractable, separate smartphone holder" (Compl. ¶41). The complaint alleges these products are sold through Defendants' own websites and third-party e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com and are designed as accessories for products including Apple's MacBook laptops (Compl. ¶¶6, 12, 24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is 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 design. The complaint alleges that the accused products meet this test.
- D'850 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature of the Claimed Design (from D'850 Patent, Figs. 1-6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a laptop stand, as shown and described. | The design of the accused "TI-Station" is alleged to be "the same as or substantially the same as the design embodied in the patent-in-suit," such that an ordinary observer would be deceived by the similarity. The complaint alleges the TI-Combination product is also infringing. | ¶40, ¶41, ¶96 | D'850 Patent, Claim; Figs. 1-6 |
| The minimalist, single-piece construction forming a base, riser, and tilted platform. | The complaint alleges that the only differences between the patented design and the accused products are "non-ornamental, such as the presence of the Spinido logo... and the hole in the back... for the functional purpose of receiving a computer wire," implying the overall ornamental features are copied. A visual provided in the complaint's exhibits (Exhibit O) allegedly shows the accused packaging using an exact copy of a photograph of Plaintiff's product. | ¶40, ¶36 | D'850 Patent, Figs. 1, 2, 6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary legal question will be the delineation between the ornamental and functional aspects of the patented design. The complaint asserts that the only differences between the designs are functional (a cable management hole) or otherwise non-ornamental (a logo) (Compl. ¶40). A central dispute may therefore be whether features like the overall C-shape or the specific angle of the laptop platform are dictated by function and should be disregarded in the infringement analysis.
- Technical Questions: The core factual question is whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of the ordinary observer. The complaint alleges that the packaging for the accused TI-Station uses an identical ergonomic diagram to that on Plaintiff's mStand packaging, which depicts a user avoiding strain by using the stand (Compl. ¶38, comparing Ex. N and Ex. Q). This allegation, if substantiated, may be used as evidence of intentional copying to create a similar overall impression.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, formal claim construction is rare. Instead, the focus is often on distinguishing protected ornamental features from unprotected functional elements.
- The Term: "Ornamental" versus "Functional" Features
- Context and Importance: The scope of a design patent's protection extends only to its ornamental aspects; functional elements are not protected. The court's determination of which features of the D'850 patent's design are ornamental will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the complaint itself frames the infringement analysis around it, alleging the only differences in the accused products are functional in nature (Compl. ¶40).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (More Features are Ornamental): The patent drawings depict a clean, continuous form without features like cable management holes or other functional additions (D’850 Patent, Figs. 1-6). A party could argue this demonstrates that the unadorned, minimalist aesthetic itself is the core ornamental feature being claimed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (More Features are Functional): A defendant may argue that the fundamental shape of the stand—a raised, angled platform—is dictated by the ergonomic function of elevating a laptop screen to eye level. The complaint references marketing claims for the product embodying the design, such as "Raised screen meets eye level for better posture" (Compl. ¶37), which could be cited as evidence that these aspects are primarily functional.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against inducing infringement (Compl. p. 24, ¶h), but the complaint's factual allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendants' alleged making, using, and selling of the accused products. The complaint does not provide specific detail for analysis of an inducement theory.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶100). This claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the D'850 patent, stemming from a cease-and-desist letter sent on October 15, 2015, and from Defendants' awareness of an Amazon.com takedown notice that identified the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶93).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison and the ordinary observer test: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Spinido and Gomffer laptop stands "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'850 patent, or are any visual differences sufficient to distinguish the products in the mind of an ordinary purchaser?
- The case will also turn on a question of functionality: The court will need to determine which visual elements of the patented laptop stand design are purely ornamental and protected, and which are dictated by function and therefore outside the scope of the design patent. The outcome of this analysis will directly define the scope of the protected design for the infringement comparison.