DCT

3:17-cv-00596

Anthem Sports LLC v. Under Weather LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-00596, D. Conn., 04/11/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's business dealings in Connecticut, including a prior exclusive online distribution agreement with Plaintiff.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, distributors of sporting goods, seek a declaratory judgment that their "Anthem Pods" do not infringe ten of Defendants' design patents, and that those patents are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves portable, pop-up personal enclosures designed to protect a single user from weather, primarily aimed at spectators at outdoor sporting events.
  • Key Procedural History: The parties had a prior business relationship where Plaintiff was the exclusive online distributor for Defendant's patented products. Plaintiff alleges this relationship soured after Defendant raised prices, leading Plaintiff to source an alternative product. The complaint alleges Defendant has threatened litigation via voicemail and has publicly referred to Plaintiff's products as "illegal knockoffs." Defendant previously sued another entity, Above & Beyond Balloons, Inc., for infringing four of the same patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-30 Earliest Priority Date ('688, '689, '690, '996, '997, '998 Patents)
2013-10-15 Issue Date (U.S. Patents D691,688; D691,689; D691,690)
2014-06-23 Priority Date ('735 Patent)
2014-08-26 Issue Date (U.S. Patents D711,996; D711,997; D711,998)
2014-Fall Anthem alleges it approached UTW to establish distribution relationship
2015-Early UTW Personal Enclosures allegedly became commercially successful
2015-03-31 Issue Date (U.S. Patent D725,735)
2015-05-28 Priority Date ('777, '778, '779 Patents)
2017-01-17 Issue Date (U.S. Patents D776,777; D776,778; D776,779)
2017-04-07 UTW allegedly left voicemail threatening patent infringement lawsuit
2017-04-11 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D776,779 - "Personal Enclosure," issued January 17, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the patented products as "personal enclosures that protect the user from weather while watching sporting events" (Compl. ¶10). This implies a need for portable, individual weather protection for spectators.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a personal enclosure. The design features a generally cuboid shape with rounded vertical edges, a slightly domed, fabric-covered top, and large, clear panels on at least the front and sides. The front panel features a U-shaped zippered opening, and a horizontal bar-like feature bisects the side panels ('779 Patent, Figs. 1-5). The design as a whole creates a distinct visual impression.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a self-contained, easily deployable structure for a single person, distinguishing it from larger, multi-person tents or simple rain gear.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a personal enclosure, as shown and described" ('779 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of the claimed design include its overall shape, the arrangement and proportions of the clear and opaque panels, the path of the zippers, and the configuration of the roof structure, as depicted in solid lines in the patent figures.

U.S. Design Patent No. D776,778 - "Personal Enclosure," issued January 17, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '779 Patent, this design addresses the need for individual, portable weather protection for spectators (Compl. ¶10).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent also claims the specific ornamental design of a personal enclosure. The design is visually very similar to the '779 Patent, featuring a cuboid shape with rounded edges, a fabric top, and large clear panels. A key distinguishing feature shown in the patent drawings is the absence of the horizontal bar bisecting the side panels, resulting in a single, large clear panel on each side ('778 Patent, Figs. 1, 4-5).
  • Technical Importance: This design variant offers an alternative aesthetic with unobstructed side views, while retaining the core pop-up, single-person enclosure concept.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a personal enclosure, as shown and described" ('778 Patent, Claim).
  • The claimed design is defined by the visual characteristics shown in solid lines in Figures 1-7, including the overall shape, panel configuration, and zipper placement.

Multi-Patent Capsule: D776,777; D725,735; D711,998; D711,997; D711,996; D691,690; D691,689; D691,688

Technology Synopsis

This group of eight related design patents covers various ornamental designs for "Personal Enclosures," "Personal Enclosure Front," and "Personal Enclosure Side" (Patents-in-Suit, Titles). The patents claim specific visual features and configurations of these pop-up shelters, including variations with and without roofs, and different arrangements of windows, zippers, and structural lines. For example, U.S. Patent No. D711,997 claims the design for a "Personal Enclosure Side with Roof" ('997 Patent, Title).

Asserted Claims

Each of the eight patents asserts a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in its respective figures (Patents-in-Suit, Claims).

Accused Features

The complaint makes a blanket allegation that the "Anthem Pods" do not infringe any of the patents-in-suit, but does not specify which features of the pods correspond to which patent (Compl. ¶24, 31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The products at issue are the "Anthem Pods" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Anthem Pods as "personal enclosure products" sourced from a manufacturer other than Defendant UTW (Compl. ¶17). Plaintiff began selling these pods after Defendant allegedly raised the prices for its "UTW Personal Enclosures" to a point that was no longer "commercially feasible" for Plaintiff to resell (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff "ensured" its newly sourced Anthem Pods "would not infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a claim chart. Instead, Plaintiff makes a general assertion that its Anthem Pods do not infringe any claim of the ten patents-in-suit, either directly, contributorily, or through the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶24, 31). The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element analysis to support its non-infringement position.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: For design patents, the central test for infringement is 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 design. The core question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the Anthem Pods is substantially the same as the designs claimed in any of the ten patents-in-suit.
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint provides no images or detailed descriptions of the Anthem Pods. A determination of infringement or non-infringement will depend entirely on a visual comparison of the actual Anthem Pods with the figures in the asserted patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the visual design itself, as depicted in the patent drawings. Formal construction of specific text-based terms is less common than in utility patent cases. The primary focus is on the scope of the design as a whole.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a personal enclosure, as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the claimed design is defined by the drawings. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between elements shown in solid lines, which are part of the claimed design, and elements shown in broken lines, which illustrate environment or unclaimed portions. This distinction is critical for determining the boundaries of the patent protection and comparing it to the accused Anthem Pods.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression and configuration, and that minor differences in unclaimed elements (shown in broken lines) or slight dimensional variations are irrelevant to the ordinary observer. The core elements are the general shape, panel layout, and roofline.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the exact visual features shown in solid lines. For example, the description in the '688 Patent explicitly states: "The broken lines shown are included for the purpose of illustrating the unclaimed portions of the article and form no part of the claimed design" ('688 Patent, Description). This language supports limiting the claimed design strictly to what is depicted in solid lines, potentially allowing for non-infringement if an accused product omits or significantly alters one of these specific features.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a blanket denial that it has engaged in any form of infringement, including contributory infringement or inducement (Compl. ¶24, 32). It does not provide specific facts to counter any potential allegations, as none have been formally made against it in this proceeding.
  • Willful Infringement: As this is a declaratory judgment action brought by the accused infringer, there is no allegation of willful infringement against the Plaintiff. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in bad faith conduct by "wrongfully and willfully" asserting "objectively baseless infringement claims against Anthem and customers" (Compl. ¶47). These allegations are made to support Plaintiff’s claims for tortious interference and a potential finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶47; Prayer for Relief ¶F).

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

  1. The Visual Test: The dispositive issue for the non-infringement claim will be a factual comparison. Is the overall ornamental design of the "Anthem Pods" substantially the same as the designs claimed in any of the ten patents-in-suit, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer? Answering this will require the introduction of visual evidence of the accused products, which is not present in the complaint.

  2. Validity and Functionality: A central battleground will likely be Anthem's invalidity challenge. Can UTW defend the validity of ten similar design patents against claims of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103? Furthermore, the court may need to consider whether the claimed designs are dictated primarily by their function, which would render them unpatentable as ornamental designs.

  3. Bad Faith and Competition: A significant procedural question revolves around Anthem’s allegations of bad faith. Did UTW's pre-suit threats and public statements about "illegal knockoffs" constitute tortious interference or unfair competition, or were they legitimate efforts to enforce its patent rights? The court's view on the strength of the underlying infringement case will likely influence its assessment of these claims.