DCT

1:23-cv-00283

PDB Blanks Glitter LLC v. Defries

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00283, D. Colo., 03/25/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have conducted business, licensing, and patent enforcement activities in the District of Colorado.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "PDB RAINBOW TOOL" does not infringe Defendants' utility and design patents covering a double-ended hand tool for applying small craft items like crystals.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to specialized hand tools used in arts and crafts for the precise handling and placement of small decorative objects such as rhinestones.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by a "Pre-Litigation Notice and Demand" letter sent by Defendants to Plaintiff in November 2022, which alleged infringement and demanded damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-03-07 '005 Patent Priority Date
2015-03-06 '839 Patent Priority Date
2019-06-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,308,005 Issues
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. D867,839 Issues
2022-11-09 Defendants Send Pre-Litigation Demand Letter
2023-03-25 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,308,005 - "Double Ended Hand Tool," issued June 4, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that tiny crystals used in artwork are difficult to pick up and place accurately. It further states that newer crystal designs are sharper, which "shreds many pick-up tools" and creates positioning problems when using tools with flat or pointed ends that can slip off the crystal's facet (ʼ005 Patent, col. 1:15-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a double-ended, pen-like tool. One end features a tacky wax tip for lifting the small items. The other end features a "hollow, conical end which securely encases each crystal allowing the operator to easily position the crystal with no slip" (ʼ005 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-54). This second end, the "applicator," is designed to push and position the crystal without disturbing others nearby (ʼ005 Patent, col. 4:51-62). The tool's construction, detailed in Figure 1A, involves a central hollow shaft, a connector, a wax tip assembly, and an applicator assembly with a distinct applicator cover (ʼ005 Patent, Fig. 1A).
  • Technical Importance: The tool aims to provide a single, integrated solution that combines a non-damaging pickup mechanism (tacky wax) with a stable, slip-resistant positioning mechanism (a hollow, conical pusher tip), addressing limitations of prior art tools in the crafting field (ʼ005 Patent, col. 1:19-23; col. 4:51-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the '005 patent generally, without specifying claims (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A wax tip with a conical shape, connected to a tubular portion.
    • The tubular portion coupled to a hollow connector.
    • An applicator adjacent to the second end of the hollow connector, comprising a hollow, conical extended portion.
    • The hollow connector located inside a hollow shaft.
    • An applicator cover coupled to the hollow connector, which surrounds the applicator and has a hole through which the conical extended portion extends.
    • The tool has opposite first and second distal ends, with the wax tip on the first and the conical extended portion on the second.
    • The applicator cover and conical extended portion are visible when the tool is properly assembled.

U.S. Patent No. D867,839 - "Double Ended Hand Tool," issued November 26, 2019

Technology Synopsis

The '839 Patent protects the ornamental design for a double-ended hand tool. The design features a central cylindrical body, a conical tip at one end, and a second, distinct tip assembly at the opposite end, which includes a tapered shroud from which a narrower, shorter tip emerges ('839 Patent, Figs. 1-6).

Asserted Claims

The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a double ended hand tool, as shown and described" ('839 Patent, Claim).

Accused Features

The overall visual appearance of Plaintiff's "PDB RAINBOW TOOL" is accused of infringing the patented design (Compl. ¶23, 35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "PDB RAINBOW TOOL" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the product as a tool used to manipulate beads and rhinestone products, sold on Plaintiff's online retail website (Compl. ¶13-14). An image of the PDB RAINBOW TOOL shows a pen-like craft tool with a multi-colored, continuous body and a tip at one end (Compl. ¶15). The complaint positions the tool within the market for crafting accessories (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and therefore does not contain a detailed, element-by-element infringement theory from the Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have "purposefully misrepresented the scope of its patents by omitting a crucial claim limitation" (Compl. ¶3). This suggests the core of the dispute is over the presence or absence of a specific claimed feature in the accused PDB RAINBOW TOOL.

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: The central infringement question for the '005 Patent appears to be whether the PDB RAINBOW TOOL, as depicted in the complaint (Compl. ¶15), includes every element of the asserted claims. Specifically, a potential mismatch exists regarding the "applicator cover" limitation. The claim requires a distinct "applicator cover" that is coupled to the hollow connector and surrounds the applicator. The patent figures show this cover (104) as a separate component from the main shaft (101) ('005 Patent, Fig. 1A). The image of the accused tool, however, depicts a single, continuous body, raising the question of whether it incorporates a structure corresponding to the claimed "applicator cover."
  • Technical Questions: For the '839 design patent, the question will be whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the PDB RAINBOW TOOL supposing it to be the design shown in the '839 Patent. The analysis will involve comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused tool with the patented design's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'005 Patent

  • The Term: "applicator cover"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the dispute, as it is a specific structural element that Plaintiff implies is missing from its product (Compl. ¶3). The construction of this term—specifically whether it can read on an integrated tool body or if it requires a separate component—may be dispositive for the infringement analysis of the '005 Patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the cover is "coupled to said second end of said hollow connector" ('005 Patent, col. 7:18-19) without explicitly requiring it to be a separate and distinct piece from the hollow shaft in all embodiments.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires that the "applicator cover surrounds said applicator and comprises a hole through which said conical extended portion extends" ('005 Patent, col. 7:19-22). The specification describes an embodiment where the applicator cover is "removable via threads" ('005 Patent, col. 4:39-40), and Figure 1A clearly depicts the applicator cover (104) as a separate component from the hollow shaft (101) and the applicator (105). Further, claim 1 requires that the "applicator cover and said conical extended portion are visible when said tool is properly assembled" ('005 Patent, col. 7:26-29), which may suggest they are distinct, visible parts.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of no indirect infringement, but the complaint does not provide specific facts regarding Defendants' theory of inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶31, 35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint states that the Defendants' November 2022 demand letter sought approximately $3,000,000 in damages and threatened to seek treble damages (Compl. ¶24). This indicates Defendants' allegations likely include willful infringement, based on knowledge provided by the demand letter itself.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A core issue will be one of structural scope: Does the "applicator cover" limitation in claim 1 of the '005 Patent require a separate, distinct component as depicted in the patent's figures and described in its embodiments, or can it be construed to read on the seemingly integrated body of the accused PDB RAINBOW TOOL?
  2. A second key question will be one of design similarity: For the '839 design patent, would an ordinary observer be deceived by the similarity between the overall visual appearance of the accused PDB RAINBOW TOOL and the specific ornamental design claimed in the patent?
  3. The case also presents a foundational question based on the Plaintiff's allegations: Did the Defendants' pre-suit demand letter misrepresent the scope of the patents by ignoring a "crucial claim limitation," and if so, what are the implications for the case moving forward (Compl. ¶3)?