DCT
1:19-cv-01741
Koninklijke Philips NV v. QVC Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Koninklijke Philips N.V. (The Netherlands)
- Defendant: QVC, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP (with Burns & Levinson LLP as Of Counsel)
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01741, D. Del., 09/17/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant, QVC, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendant’s indoor electric grill infringes a design patent covering a smokeless grill.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental appearance of indoor electric grills, a consumer appliance category where product aesthetics can be a significant market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff manufactures and sells a commercial embodiment of the patented design under its "Avance Collection of Indoor Grills," which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-07-04 | '785 Patent Foreign Priority Date |
| 2016-06-14 | U.S. Patent No. D758,785 Issued |
| 2019-09-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D758,785, “Smokeless Grill,” issued June 14, 2016.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utility. The patent does not articulate a functional problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for a smokeless grill.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a smokeless grill, as depicted in its seven figures (’785 Patent, Claim). Key ornamental features include a body with a generally trapezoidal profile, an elevated cooking grate with integrated, outwardly-extending handles, a specific parallel-slatted configuration on the cooking surface, and a distinct control knob indent on one of the narrow sides of the base (’785 Patent, FIGS. 1, 4, 6). The patent explicitly disclaims the subject matter shown in broken lines, limiting the claimed design to the elements shown in solid lines (’785 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff commercializes the patented design in its own "Avance Collection," suggesting the design has commercial significance in the household products market (Compl. ¶13, ¶17).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a smokeless grill, as shown and described." (’785 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of this design claim include:
- The overall configuration and shape of the grill, characterized by a wider top and narrower base with angled sides.
- The specific design of the elevated cooking grate, including its slatted pattern and integrated handles.
- The side profile, including the shape of the base and the spatial relationship between the base and the cooking surface.
- The top-down and bottom-up appearance, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The “Cook's Essentials Smoke-less Indoor Electric Grill” sold by Defendant QVC, Inc. (Compl. ¶7).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the accused product as an indoor electric grill offered for sale and sold by QVC on its website (Compl. ¶7, ¶18). The core of the infringement allegation centers on the product's ornamental appearance, which Plaintiff alleges is "substantially the same as the design in the ’785 Patent, and/or at least a colorable imitation thereof" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint includes several photographs of the accused product to support its allegations, including a perspective view that highlights its overall shape. (Compl. ¶18, p. 4).
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 designs, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶20). The analysis below compares key visual features of the patented design to the accused product based on the complaint's allegations and visual evidence. The complaint provides a detailed, multi-angle visual comparison chart to support its infringement theory. (Compl. ¶19, p. 5-6).
- ’785 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature (from ’785 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall perspective appearance, showing a trapezoidal body with an elevated cooking grate and integrated handles. | The accused product is alleged to have a substantially similar overall perspective appearance, including a trapezoidal body, elevated grate, and handles. | ¶19, p. 5 | ’785 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| The front elevational view, showing the angled side walls and the profile of the grate handles. | The accused product’s front view is alleged to share the same overall shape and profile as the patented design. | ¶19, p. 5 | ’785 Patent, FIG. 2 |
| The side elevational view, showing the specific profile of the base and the placement of a control element indent. | The accused product’s side view is alleged to be substantially similar, including the presence of a control knob in the same location as the patented design's indent. | ¶19, p. 6 | ’785 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| The top-down plan view, showing the rectangular shape with rounded corners and the pattern of the grill slats. | The accused product's top-down view is alleged to show a substantially similar rectangular shape, handle design, and grill slat pattern. | ¶19, p. 6 | ’785 Patent, FIG. 6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely center on the overall visual impression. A key question will be whether the presence of features on the accused product not explicitly shown in the patented design, such as a prominent brand logo ("cook's essentials") on the base or a physically present control knob, are sufficient to create a different overall ornamental impression for the ordinary observer (Compl. p. 4, 6).
- Technical Questions: The analysis will turn on a visual comparison rather than a technical one. The question for the fact-finder will be whether the alleged similarities in the trapezoidal shape, handle design, and grate pattern outweigh any minor differences, leading an ordinary observer to be deceived (Compl. ¶20).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and formal claim construction of text is less common than in utility patent cases. The central issue is the scope of the claimed design as a whole.
- The Term: The ornamental design as a whole.
- Context and Importance: The scope of the design as a whole is critical. The infringement analysis depends on whether the design is interpreted broadly to cover products with a similar overall visual gestalt, or narrowly to only those that are nearly identical in all details.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A court may find that the overall visual impression of the patented design is defined by its most prominent features, such as the trapezoidal body and raised grate, and that minor variations do not change the substantially similar appearance. Plaintiff alleges that the "overall appearance" is what matters (Compl. ¶19).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A court may focus on the specific details shown in solid lines in all seven figures, arguing that the claimed design is the precise combination of all depicted surfaces and contours. The patent’s explicit disclaimer that broken lines "form no part of the claimed design" reinforces that the claim is limited to what is shown and described (’785 Patent, Description). Any deviation, such as the shape of the control knob on the accused product versus the indent on the patent drawing, could support a narrower interpretation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of indirect infringement but does not provide specific facts to support theories of inducement or contributory infringement beyond those supporting the direct infringement claim (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that QVC had knowledge of the ’785 Patent, or was willfully blind to it, due to Philips's own commercialization of its "patented commercial product" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation forms the basis for seeking enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of overall visual impression: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the ornamental designs of the Philips patent and the QVC "Cook's Essentials" grill "substantially the same," such that an observer would be deceived, despite any minor differences in surface details or the presence of a control knob and branding on the accused product?
- A second key question will relate to remedies: If infringement is found, the case will raise the question of whether damages should be based on a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284 or the disgorgement of the infringer's "total profit" under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a powerful remedy unique to design patent infringement that Plaintiff has explicitly requested (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶3, ¶4).