Tervis Tumbler Co Inc v. Coleman Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tervis Tumbler Company, Inc. (Florida)
  • Defendant: The Coleman Company, Inc. (Delaware); Allied IMEX, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: CAESAR RIVISE, LTD
• Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00660, D. Del., 07/30/2015
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants transact business and offer for sale products that allegedly infringe the patent-in-suit within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "Double Wall Plastic Tumbler" infringes its design patent for the ornamental appearance of a portable beverage container.
• Technical Context: The case concerns the market for portable beverage containers, where distinctive product design and aesthetic appearance can be a significant driver of consumer choice and brand recognition.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff completed its design in March 2011 and, after filing its patent application, began successfully marketing a portable beverage container incorporating the design. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants became aware of the successful launch of this product and copied the design.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-03-XX	Plaintiff completes its ornamental design
2011-08-30	Patent Application Filed (Priority Date for '310 Patent)
2012-10-23	'310 Patent Issued
2015-07-30	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D669,310 - "Portable Beverage Container"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the competitive consumer market for portable beverage containers, the patent seeks to protect a "unique ornamental design" to establish a distinct visual identity for a product (Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific aesthetic and ornamental appearance of a portable beverage container, not its utilitarian features. The claimed design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of the overall shape of the container body, which tapers slightly towards the base, and a distinctively shaped lid featuring an integrated, looped carrying handle and a hinged spout cover ('310 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The drawings show the visual appearance of the container from multiple perspectives, which collectively define the scope of the protected design ('310 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The creation of a novel ornamental design can provide significant commercial advantage and brand differentiation in the consumer goods space (Compl. ¶¶11, 15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a portable beverage container, as shown and described" ('310 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the solid-line drawings within the patent, which illustrate the protected visual features of the design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is identified as the "Double Wall Plastic Tumbler" manufactured and sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused product as a portable beverage container (Compl. ¶14). Plaintiff alleges that its own product embodying the patented design was commercially successful and that Defendants, upon becoming aware of this success, "copied the same" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint supports its allegations by referencing a photograph of the accused tumbler, attached as Exhibit B, and a photograph of the Plaintiff's own product, attached as Exhibit C (Compl. ¶¶14, 15). The complaint provides a photograph of the accused "Double Wall Plastic Tumbler" as Exhibit B to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint's infringement theory is not presented in a claim chart format but is based on a direct comparison of the products.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed the ’310 Patent by "making, using and selling the 'Double Wall Plastic Tumbler'" (Compl. ¶18). The core of the infringement allegation rests on the assertion that the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' tumbler is confusingly similar to the design claimed in the ’310 Patent. This allegation is supported by the claim that Defendants deliberately "copied" the design of Plaintiff's commercially successful product (Compl. ¶15). While the exhibits containing photographic evidence were not included in the provided court filing, the complaint's narrative asserts a visual similarity between the accused product shown in Exhibit B and the patented design shown in Exhibit C and the ’310 Patent itself (Compl. ¶¶14, 15).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Overall Visual Impression: The primary question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer would find the overall visual appearance of the Defendants' "Double Wall Plastic Tumbler" to be substantially the same as the design shown in the figures of the '310 Patent. The analysis will involve comparing the global shape, lid configuration, and specific contours of the two designs.
  • Role of Copying: The allegation that Defendants copied the design of a successful product is a significant factor (Compl. ¶15). If proven, evidence of copying can be used to support a finding of infringement by suggesting that the infringer intended to trade on the patented design's goodwill.
  • Prior Art Context: The scope of a design patent's protection is viewed in light of the prior art. The analysis may raise the question of how novel the patented design is compared to other beverage containers on the market at the time, which could influence the degree of similarity required to find infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the drawings themselves are considered to define the claim. However, disputes can arise over which aspects of the design are ornamental versus functional.

• The Term: "ornamental design"
• Context and Importance: The distinction between ornamental (protectable) and functional (unprotectable) features is critical. Defendants may argue that any similarities between their product and the patented design are dictated by the functional requirements of a portable beverage container, such as the need for a cylindrical shape to be held or a sealed lid to prevent spills. Practitioners may focus on this issue to determine the actual scope of protection afforded by the '310 patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the design "as shown and described," and all features in the drawings are rendered in solid lines, which typically indicates they are all part of the claimed ornamental design ('310 Patent, CLAIM; Figs. 1-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that basic elements like a generally cylindrical body or a threaded lid are purely functional and should be excluded from the infringement analysis, which would then focus only on the more stylized aspects of the design, such as the specific shape of the lid's handle loop or the container's unique profile curves.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement (e.g., induced or contributory infringement). It alleges direct infringement through the acts of "making, using and selling" the accused product (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶17; Prayer for Relief ¶D). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants had "knowledge that the accused product is an infringement" and that they "became aware of the successful launch" of Plaintiff's product and "copied the same" (Compl. ¶¶15, 17).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an "ordinary observer" viewing Defendants' tumbler be deceived into believing it is the Tervis product, based on a comparison of the overall ornamental designs? The outcome will depend on whether the two designs are "substantially the same."
• A key factual question will be one of intent: can Plaintiff produce evidence to substantiate its claim that Defendants deliberately "copied" the patented design after observing its market success? Such evidence would heavily influence the analyses for both infringement and willfulness.
• The case may also turn on the scope of protection: what aspects of the '310 patent's design are truly ornamental versus merely functional? The court's determination of which features contribute to the protectable "overall appearance" will be critical in defining the boundaries of the patent right.