DCT
1:20-cv-01093
Fantasia Trading LLC v. 360 Electrical LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fantasia Trading, LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect (Delaware)
- Defendant: 360 Electrical, LLC (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01093, D. Del., 08/20/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant purposefully directed conduct to the forum, including sending a letter threatening to file an infringement suit in that district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its PowerPort Cube product does not infringe Defendant's design patents for electrical receptacle ends, and that those patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of cube-shaped, multi-outlet electrical power chargers, a common consumer electronics accessory.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in response to cease-and-desist letters sent by Defendant in January 2019 and July 2020. The complaint also alleges that Defendant submitted an infringement complaint to Amazon.com, causing Plaintiff's product listing to be removed. The Defendant's later-issued patents are continuations of the earliest patent and allegedly attempt to broaden the claimed design scope.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-10-31 | Priority Date for '520, '472, and '721 Patents |
| 2018-05-01 | Anker PowerPort Cube launched (approx.) |
| 2018-11-21 | '472 Patent application filed |
| 2018-11-27 | '520 Patent issued |
| 2019-01-07 | 360 Electrical sends first C&D letter re: '520 Patent |
| 2019-01-25 | Anker responds, asserting non-infringement and invalidity |
| 2019-05-29 | '721 Patent application filed |
| 2019-11-12 | '472 Patent issued |
| 2020-03-31 | '721 Patent issued |
| 2020-07-06 | 360 Electrical sends second C&D letter re: all three patents |
| 2020-07-14 | Anker receives notice of product delisting from Amazon |
| 2020-08-20 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D834,520 - “Electrical Extension Cord Receptacle End” (Issued Nov. 27, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '520 Patent does not articulate a technical problem in a background section.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of an electrical extension cord receptacle end ('520 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a generally cubic housing with chamfered edges, multiple electrical receptacles positioned on different faces within circular depressions, and a specific flared strain relief where the power cord exits the housing ('520 Patent, FIG. 7). The claim is defined by the features shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings, while elements in broken lines (such as portions of the power cord) are disclaimed as part of the environment.
- Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic for a multi-outlet power device, aiming to differentiate it visually in the consumer electronics market.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an electrical extension cord receptacle end, substantially as shown and described."
- The essential visual elements of this design, shown in solid lines, include:
- A generally cubic housing with distinct, flat chamfered edges.
- Circular depressions on multiple faces of the housing.
- Electrical receptacle slots, with a specific shape and orientation, centered within the circular depressions.
- A uniquely shaped, flared strain relief collar where the power cord connects to the housing.
U.S. Design Patent No. D866,472 - “Electrical Extension Cord Receptacle End” (Issued Nov. 12, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '472 Patent does not articulate a specific technical problem.
- The Patented Solution: The '472 Patent, a continuation of the application leading to the '520 Patent, claims a similar ornamental design for a receptacle end ('472 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data; Compl. ¶ 15). The complaint alleges this patent purports to have a broader scope by "removing features claimed in the '520 Patent" (Compl. ¶ 15). A key difference is that the specific shapes of the electrical receptacle slots are rendered in broken lines, meaning their configuration is not part of the claimed design ('472 Patent, FIG. 1). This leaves the overall housing shape, the circular depressions, and the cord strain relief as the primary claimed features.
- Technical Importance: By disclaiming the specific configuration of the electrical slots, the design may be intended to cover a wider array of cube-shaped chargers with different outlet types or arrangements.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design "substantially as shown and described."
- The essential visual elements of this design include:
- A generally cubic housing with flat chamfered edges.
- Circular depressions on multiple faces.
- A flared strain relief collar.
- Crucially, unlike the '520 Patent, the shapes of the receptacle slots within the circular depressions are disclaimed.
U.S. Design Patent No. D879,721 - “Electrical Extension Cord Receptacle End” (Issued March 31, 2020)
- Technology Synopsis: The '721 Patent is a continuation of the application for the '472 Patent and claims an ornamental design for a cube-shaped electrical receptacle ('721 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data). The complaint alleges it further broadens the claimed design by converting additional features to broken lines (Compl. ¶ 15). The drawings in the '721 patent show the receptacle slots in broken lines and introduce dot-dash lines to indicate unclaimed seam lines on the device's surface, further focusing the claim on the overall shape ('721 Patent, Description).
- Asserted Claims: One claim for the ornamental design.
- Accused Features: The overall design of the Anker PowerPort Cube is accused of infringing the patent (Compl. ¶ 34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Anker PowerPort Cube (Compl. ¶ 11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The PowerPort Cube is described as a portable charging device featuring a compact, cube-based design (Compl. ¶ 11). The product provides three AC outlets on three of its faces and three USB ports on a fourth face (Compl. ¶ 12). A power cable extends from a fifth face, and the sixth face is flat to allow it to rest on a surface (Compl. ¶ 12). The complaint presents a photograph of the PowerPort Cube, showing its rounded-cube shape and port layout (Compl. ¶ 11, p. 3). The product is sold through online retailers, including Amazon.com (Compl. ¶ 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the plaintiff's arguments for why its product does not infringe, based on the infringement allegations made by the defendant.
'520 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of the PowerPort Cube | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design as a whole | The PowerPort Cube is alleged to be visually distinct from the patented design and closer in appearance to prior art, such that an ordinary observer would not be deceived. | ¶¶ 32, 35 | FIG. 7 |
| A cubic housing with distinct, flat chamfered edges and corners | The PowerPort Cube has a softer, more rounded-cube shape without the sharp, flat chamfered edges of the patented design. | ¶¶ 8, 9 (visuals) | FIG. 7 |
| A specific, flared strain relief collar where the cord exits the housing | The PowerPort Cube's power cord exits from a simple, unadorned opening in the housing, lacking the distinctive flared collar of the patented design. | ¶ 8 (visual) | FIG. 6 |
| Specific receptacle slots within circular depressions on multiple faces | The layout, size, and appearance of the AC outlets and USB ports on the PowerPort Cube create a different visual impression from the specific arrangement claimed in the patent. | ¶ 9 (visual) | FIG. 1 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute is the scope of the patented design in view of the prior art. The complaint presents a "three-way comparison" visual, arguing that the patented design is closer to the prior art (specifically, Chinese design CN'975) than it is to the accused PowerPort Cube (Compl. ¶ 32, p. 8). This raises the question of whether the claimed design is sufficiently distinct from the prior art to be broad enough to cover the accused product.
- Technical (Visual) Questions: The analysis will focus on whether the visual differences between the PowerPort Cube and the '520 Patent—specifically the rounded versus chamfered edges, and the simple cord exit versus the flared strain relief—are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
'472 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of the PowerPort Cube | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design as a whole | As with the '520 Patent, the PowerPort Cube is alleged to be visually distinct due to differences in overall shape, cord exit, and its similarity to prior art. | ¶¶ 32, 35 | FIG. 7 |
| A cubic housing with distinct, flat chamfered edges and corners | The PowerPort Cube's rounded-cube shape is alleged to be different from the '472 Patent's claimed chamfered-edge housing. | ¶ 7 (visual) | FIG. 7 |
| A specific, flared strain relief collar where the cord exits the housing | The PowerPort Cube lacks the flared strain relief collar that is a claimed feature of the '472 Patent. | ¶ 8 (visual) | FIG. 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: While the '472 Patent disclaims the specific outlet configuration, making it broader than the '520 Patent, the question remains whether the remaining claimed features (the chamfered-edge housing and flared strain relief) are present in the accused product. The complaint's non-infringement argument relies on these remaining features being absent from the PowerPort Cube.
- Technical (Visual) Questions: A key question will be whether the disclaiming of the outlet slots in the '472 Patent is sufficient to make the two designs appear substantially the same to an ordinary observer, despite the continued differences in the housing shape and cord strain relief.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, there are typically no claim terms to construe. The analysis centers on the scope of the design as depicted in the drawings.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for an electrical extension cord receptacle end, substantially as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The scope of this phrase, as defined by the patent figures and the distinction between solid and broken lines, is the central issue of the infringement analysis. The court's interpretation of what an ordinary observer would perceive as the "overall visual impression" of the claimed design, especially in a field allegedly crowded with prior art, will be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patentee (Defendant) may argue that "substantially as shown" allows for minor variations, and that the core concept of a multi-outlet cube with circular-faced receptacles is the same. The filing of continuation patents ('472 and '721) that systematically disclaim features by converting solid lines to broken lines suggests an intent to claim a broader design concept focused on the general cubic shape (Compl. ¶ 15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The declaratory judgment plaintiff (Anker) will argue that specific, unclaimed features in the prior art narrow the permissible scope of the patent claims (Compl. ¶ 32). Anker will likely contend that features rendered in solid lines, such as the specific shape of the strain relief in the '520 and '472 patents, are strict limitations on the claim's scope. The complaint also raises a written description issue, arguing that the original '520 patent application did not convey to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor possessed the broader, later-claimed designs of the '472 and '721 patents (Compl. ¶ 41).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint includes several counts related to Defendant's enforcement activities.
Trade Libel and Unfair Competition
- The complaint alleges that Defendant made false statements to Amazon.com by claiming the PowerPort Cube infringes its patents, doing so without conducting an adequate infringement analysis and in disregard of prior art provided by Anker (Compl. ¶¶ 44-48, 71). This allegedly constitutes trade libel and unfair competition, causing Amazon to delist the product and leading to lost sales (Compl. ¶ 51).
Tortious Interference
- The complaint alleges that Defendant knew of Anker's contractual and business relationship with Amazon and intentionally interfered with it by making false infringement assertions, with the intent to disrupt that relationship and harm Anker (Compl. ¶¶ 55-59, 64-67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual distinction in a crowded field: In applying the "ordinary observer" test, will a court find that the visual differences between the accused PowerPort Cube (e.g., rounded shape, simple cord exit) and the patented designs (e.g., chamfered edges, flared strain relief) are significant enough to create a distinct overall impression, particularly when viewed in the context of the similar prior art designs cited in the complaint?
- A key legal question will be the validity of the continuation patents' scope: Does the original '520 patent application provide adequate written description to support the broader claims of the '472 and '721 continuation patents, where material design features were converted from claimed solid lines to disclaimed broken lines?
- Finally, the case presents a significant evidentiary question regarding enforcement conduct: Did the patent holder's infringement notifications to Amazon.com constitute legitimate patent enforcement or, as the complaint alleges, tortious interference and unfair competition based on knowingly or recklessly false assertions?