DCT

1:17-cv-01710

Travel Blue Ltd v. Sourcing Network Intl LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01710, D. Del., 11/27/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a Delaware limited liability company, thus residing in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s merchandise display stands infringe a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a "Multi Pillow Stand."
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the proprietary ornamental design of retail product display stands, which are point-of-sale fixtures used for travel accessories in retail environments like airports.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had access to Plaintiff’s patented product through a mutual client prior to manufacturing and selling the accused product, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-10-20 '021 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2016-08-09 '021 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D763,021 - “Multi Pillow Stand”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests a market need for a "novel and distinctive" merchandise display stand, framing the problem as a lack of unique designs in the retail space for travel accessories (Compl. ¶12, ¶16).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent does not protect a function, but rather the ornamental appearance of a merchandise stand ('021 Patent, Claim). The claimed design, illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a three-sided stand with a rounded-triangular footprint, three distinct display towers featuring horizontal slots, and curved cutouts between the towers ('021 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the stand's design is commercially successful and "significantly different from any previously known retail product stand," thereby providing "wide breadth in its intellectual property rights" (Compl. ¶15, ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the '021 Patent, which covers "The ornamental design for a multi pillow stand, as shown and described" ('021 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The essential visual features of the asserted design as a whole include its three-sided configuration, the shape of its base, the slotted display panels, and the negative space created by cutouts between the panels ('021 Patent, Figs. 1-8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is "SNI's Infringing Stand," a merchandise display stand (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a physical stand used in retail stores for displaying merchandise (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges its use "encourages both planned and impulse purchases and increases the overall amount of merchandise displayed" (Compl. ¶34). The complaint provides visual evidence comparing the accused stand to the patented design, such as a side-by-side comparison of the patent's front view (Figure 2) and a photograph of the accused SNI stand (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product supposing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused stand's overall appearance is "substantially the same as the patented design" (Compl. ¶28).

D763,021 Infringement Allegations

Claim Feature (from '021 Patent Figures) Alleged Infringing Feature Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Overall three-sided configuration with a rounded triangular footprint and three display towers. The complaint alleges the accused stand has a "substantially the same" overall appearance, illustrated with side-by-side photographic comparisons. A top-view comparison shows a similar three-lobed shape. ¶27, ¶28, p. 7 '021 Patent, Fig. 6
Slotted front panels on each tower for holding merchandise. The accused stand incorporates slotted panels, as depicted in the complaint's photographs comparing the accused product to the patent's front view drawing. ¶19, p. 5 '021 Patent, Fig. 2
Curved cutouts between each tower, creating a distinct negative space in the center. The complaint’s visual evidence, particularly a perspective view, depicts the accused stand as having similar cutouts between its display towers, corresponding to Figure 8 of the patent. ¶19, p. 8 '021 Patent, Fig. 8
Top structure with three circular openings. A top-down photograph of the accused stand shows a top structure with three circular areas, which the complaint presents as corresponding to the design in Figure 6 of the patent. ¶19, p. 7 '021 Patent, Fig. 6

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central question will be the scope of the patented design in light of the prior art. The complaint asserts the design is "significantly different" from known stands (Compl. ¶16). The defense may seek to narrow the perceived scope of the '021 Patent by introducing prior art designs that share features with the patented design, which could cause a court to focus on any differences between the design and the accused stand.
  • Technical Questions: While design patents concern ornamentality, not technical function, a potential dispute may arise over subtle differences in appearance. The complaint's photographs show the accused product has specific surface finishes and proportions (Compl. pp. 5-8). The litigation may explore whether these or other minor differences are sufficient to distinguish the accused stand from the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal claim construction of textual terms is not typically a central issue in design patent litigation, as the claim scope is defined by the patent's drawings. The primary dispute is expected to center on the overall visual similarity between the patented design and the accused product in light of the relevant prior art, rather than the definition of a specific term.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "SNI has encouraged and facilitated retail store owners use of the SNI Infringing Stand," making it liable for contributory and/or induced infringement (Compl. ¶29).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendant's conduct has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶31). The factual basis for this claim appears to be the allegation of pre-suit knowledge, where Plaintiff's client ("Hudson's") allegedly provided Defendant with a sample of Plaintiff's patented stand or related information, after which Defendant allegedly began producing a "nearly identical" product (Compl. ¶17).

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

  • A core issue will be a factual question of visual deception: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser does, be deceived by the similarity between the accused SNI stand and the '021 patent's design, causing that observer to purchase one believing it to be the other?
  • A second key question will concern the impact of prior art: the scope of the '021 patent's design will be tested against prior art that the Defendant may introduce. The outcome may turn on whether such art narrows the protectable scope of the design to a degree that any differences in the accused product are considered significant.
  • A third pivotal question will be one of intent: the case will likely examine the evidence supporting the allegation that the Defendant copied the design after having direct access to Plaintiff's product. A finding of such copying would be highly relevant to the analyses of both infringement and willfulness.