DCT

3:24-cv-01303

Lander Enterprises LLC v. Ecom Concept LLC

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lander Enterprises, LLC (Connecticut)
- Defendant: Ecom Concept, LLC (Poland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Matthew S. Carlone
Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01303, D. Conn., 08/09/2024
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Connecticut and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of U-shaped automatic toothbrushes infringes three of its U.S. design patents.
Technical Context: The technology at issue involves U-shaped, "whole-mouth" automatic toothbrushes, which are marketed as a faster alternative to traditional toothbrushes.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of the infringement claims no later than April 5, 2024, a fact that may be relevant to the allegation of willfulness.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-04-23	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D887,146
2020-06-16	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D887,146
2020-12-29	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D958,544
2021-06-15	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D983,530
2022-07-26	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D958,544
2023-04-18	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D983,530
2024-04-05	Alleged date of written notice to Defendant
2024-08-09	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D887,146 - "Child's automatic toothbrush"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D887,146, "Child's automatic toothbrush," Issued June 16, 2020.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, rather than addressing a technical problem. The patent protects a specific "ornamental design for a child's automatic toothbrush" (’146 Patent, Claim).
The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a toothbrush featuring a compact, rounded body with two distinctive, ear-like protrusions on its upper corners and a large central power button (’146 Patent, FIG. 2). The U-shaped brush head and its bristles are shown in broken lines, indicating they are for illustrative purposes and do not form part of the claimed design (’146 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the ornamental design is a "key component" of the commercial success and recognition of Plaintiff's "Autobrush® for Kids" products (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a child's automatic toothbrush, as shown and described" (’146 Patent, Claim).
The essential ornamental features of the claimed design, shown in solid lines, include:
- A main body with a generally rounded, bulbous shape.
- Two prominent, rounded "ear" features extending from the top left and right sides of the body.
- A circular power button centrally located on the front face.

U.S. Design Patent No. D958,544 - "Double-Sided Toothbrush Head"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D958,544, "Double-Sided Toothbrush Head," Issued July 26, 2022.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent protects a specific "ornamental design for a double-sided toothbrush head" (’544 Patent, Claim).
The Patented Solution: The patented design covers the appearance of a U-shaped mouthpiece for an automatic toothbrush (’544 Patent, FIG. 2). The design is characterized by a specific arrangement of sockets for bristles on both the upper and lower surfaces of the U-shaped channel, creating a distinct visual pattern (’544 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the toothbrush head that do not form part of the claimed design.
Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the "protect elements" of the ’544 Patent are a key component of the commercial success of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶30).

Key Claims at a Glance

The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a double-sided toothbrush head, as shown and described" (’544 Patent, Claim).
The essential ornamental features of the claimed design, shown in solid lines, include:
- The overall U-shape of the toothbrush head.
- A specific layout and pattern of bristle sockets arranged along the interior channel of the U-shape.
- The structural configuration of the mouthpiece as depicted in the patent's figures.

U.S. Design Patent No. D983,530 - "Double-Sided Nylon Toothbrush"

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D983,530, "Double-Sided Nylon Toothbrush," Issued April 18, 2023.
Technology Synopsis: The ’530 Patent claims the ornamental design for a "rounded, double sided toothbrush head" (Compl. ¶42). The design features a particular U-shape and a distinct pattern of what appear to be nylon bristle groupings arranged along the mouthpiece channel (’530 Patent, FIG. 2).
Asserted Claims: The single design claim for the "ornamental design for a double-sided nylon toothbrush, as shown and described" (’530 Patent, Claim).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the design of Defendant's "SonicBrush Kids," "SonicGlow Kids Brush," and other products embody the patented design (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products include, among others, the "SonicBrush Kids," "SonicGlow Kids Brush," "SaniWhite Kids," and "Sonic Brush V5" (Compl. ¶¶17, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as "fully automatic" U-shaped toothbrushes for children and adults that clean all teeth simultaneously in 30 seconds (Compl. ¶20, Figure 3; ¶33, Figure 8). The complaint alleges these products are manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Defendant throughout the United States via multiple websites that it owns and controls, such as "www.sonic-brush.net" (Compl. ¶¶18-19). Figure 3 shows the Defendant's "SonicBrush® Kids" product, which is offered in different animal-like designs and sizes. (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts but instead presents a narrative theory of infringement supported by side-by-side visual comparisons.

U.S. Design Patent No. D887,146
The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the claimed design of the ’146 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶25). The infringement theory focuses on the appropriation of the "distinct ornamental ears" (Compl. ¶25). Figure 5C presents a front view of one of the Defendant's accused products, which the complaint places alongside the patent drawing to highlight the alleged similarity in overall shape and the presence of ornamental ears (Compl. ¶¶22, 24).

U.S. Design Patent No. D958,544
The infringement allegation for the ’544 Patent centers on the assertion that the accused products and the patented design share an "identical shape, bristle arrangement, and structural design" (Compl. ¶34). The complaint argues this similarity would deceive an ordinary observer into believing the designs are the same (Compl. ¶39). Figure 9 provides a side-by-side comparison of the patent's front view drawing and a marketing image of the Defendant's "Sonic Brush V5" product, with red circles highlighting the alleged similarity in the U-shaped mouthpiece (Compl. ¶34).

Identified Points of Contention

The central test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design.

Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be to determine the scope of the patented designs and how much weight to give to the similarities versus the differences between the patents and the accused products. For the ’146 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the claimed "ornamental ears" and overall body shape are the dominant features creating the visual impression, or if differences in the specific character faces on the accused products (e.g., a panda face) are sufficient to create a distinct design.
Visual Dissimilarity Questions: The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether an ordinary observer would find the designs distinguishable. For instance, what is the visual effect of the differences in the body contours, surface texturing, and specific proportions between the accused products and the solid-line drawings of the ’146, ’544, and ’530 patents?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, there are no traditional claim terms to construe; the "claim" is the design itself as shown in the drawings. The analysis focuses on interpreting the scope of the visual design.

For the ’146 Patent:

The Key Design Feature: "ornamental ears"
Context and Importance: The complaint specifically identifies the "distinct ornamental ears" as a key feature appropriated by the Defendant (Compl. ¶25). Practitioners may focus on this feature because its presence and similarity will be a central point of the infringement comparison.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The interpretation is based entirely on the patent's drawings.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers any child's toothbrush with a similarly shaped body and prominent, rounded protrusions in the same general location as the ears shown in FIG. 2 of the patent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the claim is limited to the exact shape, curvature, size, and position of the ears as depicted in the solid lines of the patent drawings, and that any deviation results in a different design.

For the ’544 and ’530 Patents:

The Key Design Feature: The overall configuration, including the "rounded shape, bristle arrangement, and structural design" (Compl. ¶¶34, 52).
Context and Importance: The infringement allegations for these patents depend on the overall visual impression created by the U-shaped mouthpiece. The precise pattern of bristle sockets and the curvature of the head are critical to the design's appearance.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The drawings define the scope.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that the patents cover any U-shaped toothbrush head with a visually similar density, arrangement, and two-sided pattern of bristle sockets.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument could be made that the claims are limited to the exact number, spacing, and layout of bristle sockets and the specific curvature shown in the drawings of the ’544 and ’530 patents.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 but does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶40; p. 23, ¶26; p. 24, ¶27).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant received "written notice of the Plaintiff's infringement claims" on or before April 5, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶26, 40, 54). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patents forms the basis for the claim of willful infringement and the corresponding demand for punitive or enhanced damages (Compl. p. 26, ¶8).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's findings on the following key questions:

A central issue will be the application of the ordinary observer test: viewing the patented designs and accused products as a whole, are the designs "substantially the same" such that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into believing the accused product is the patented design, despite any minor differences?
A key question of ornamental focus for the ’146 Patent will be: is the overall impression of the design dominated by the similarity of the "ornamental ears" and body shape, or do the different character faces and other details on the accused products create a patently distinct visual appearance?
A primary evidentiary question for the ’544 and ’530 patents will be one of configurational similarity: do the accused U-shaped mouthpieces create the same overall visual impression as the specific bristle-socket patterns and structural shapes claimed in the patents, or are the differences sufficient to distinguish them in the eyes of an ordinary observer?