DCT
1:25-cv-00830
Shanghai Qianzhuo Network Technology Co Ltd v. Cattasaurus LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shanghai Qianzhuo Network Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a FutureDiamond (China)
- Defendant: Cattasaurus, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prickett, Jones & Elliott, PA; Aronberg Goldgehn
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00830, D. Del., 07/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: The Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that its cat bed product does not infringe the Defendant's design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer pet products, specifically donut-shaped, enclosed cat beds sold in the e-commerce market.
- Key Procedural History: The action was filed in response to alleged threats by the patent holder to initiate infringement complaints with Amazon.com, which would interfere with the Plaintiff's sales. The complaint also introduces a Chinese design patent, alleging it constitutes prior art that is identical to the Plaintiff's product, thereby forming a basis for non-infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-05-11 | Chinese Patent CN 307506858 S filed |
| 2022-08-19 | Chinese Patent CN 307506858 S issued |
| 2023-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. D1,029,404 filed |
| 2024-05-28 | U.S. Patent No. D1,029,404 issued |
| 2025-07-04 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,029,404 S, titled "Cat bed," issued May 28, 2024 (the “’404 Patent”) (Compl. ¶ 26-27).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’404 Patent does not address a functional problem but instead protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶ 26).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a cat bed (Compl. ¶ 26). The design, as depicted in the complaint’s figures, consists of a hollow, toroidal (donut-shaped) body comprised of two halves joined by a circumferential zipper (Compl. ¶ 28, FIG 1 & FIG 2). The design includes a primary circular opening on the side for entry and a second, smaller, distinctly shaped opening on the top surface of the structure (Compl. ¶ 41, FIG 7).
- Technical Importance: The design's importance lies in its aesthetic appearance within the competitive consumer market for pet accessories, where distinctive visual features may attract customers (Compl. ¶ 19, 21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts that the single claim of the ’404 Patent is for "an ornamental design for a cat bed, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶ 26).
- The core visual elements of the claimed design include:
- A generally toroidal or donut-shaped body.
- A circumferential zipper dividing the body into upper and lower sections.
- A primary circular side-entry opening.
- A secondary, smaller opening located on the top surface of the toroidal body.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Plaintiff’s "Large Cat Tunnel Bed for Indoor Cats," sold on Amazon.com under ASIN B09YDBZBBJ (Compl. ¶ 15, 16).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused product is a consumer pet bed with a donut-like shape and an interior tunnel space (Compl. ¶ 16). The complaint alleges that the product is popular and that Amazon.com is the primary sales channel, making access to that marketplace critical for competition (Compl. ¶ 19-21). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Amazon.com product listing showing the accused product's appearance and marketing context (Compl. ¶ 16).
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 the ’404 Patent. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.
- Summary of Plaintiff's Non-Infringement Arguments
| Claimed Visual Element ('404 Patent) | Plaintiff's Non-Infringement Position | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a cat bed | The accused product's design is "obviously different" and not "confusingly similar" to the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would not confuse the two. | ¶38-39 |
| A secondary, smaller opening on the top surface of the body | The accused product has a "conspicuous absence of a key design element—a second opening," which is explicitly part of the claimed design. The complaint provides an annotated figure from the patent to highlight this specific feature. | ¶40-41 |
| The overall ornamental design in light of prior art | The accused product is "identical" to a prior art design, Chinese Patent CN 307506858 S. Under patent law, a design that embodies the prior art cannot infringe. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison to support this assertion. | ¶35-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Materiality of the "Second Opening": The dispute raises the question of whether the absence of the second top opening is a significant enough difference to avoid infringement. A court may need to determine if this feature is a minor detail or a prominent part of the overall visual impression of the patented design. The complaint's visual callout emphasizes this difference (Compl. ¶ 41, FIG 7).
- Applicability of the Prior Art Shield: A central issue is whether the Plaintiff's product is, in fact, "substantially the same" as the cited Chinese prior art patent. The complaint presents a direct visual comparison to argue this point (Compl. ¶ 35, FIG 5 & FIG 6). If the court agrees, it may find non-infringement on this basis alone, as a patentee cannot claim infringement by a design that is already in the public domain.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than the construction of specific text-based claim terms.
- The Feature: The ornamental design as a whole, with a particular focus on the presence and importance of the "second opening."
- Context and Importance: The primary non-infringement argument based on product-to-patent comparison hinges on the absence of this specific feature in the Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶ 40). The materiality of this feature to the overall design as perceived by an ordinary observer will therefore be a central issue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (de-emphasizing the second opening): A party could argue that the overall toroidal shape, the side entrance, and the circumferential zipper are the dominant visual elements, and the smaller top opening is minor ornamentation that does not substantially alter the overall design impression.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (emphasizing the second opening): The complaint alleges that the consistent depiction of the second opening in the patent's figures makes it a "key design element" (Compl. ¶ 40). Its inclusion as a distinct feature, rather than a simple surface pattern, suggests it is an integral part of the claimed design, narrowing the patent's scope to designs that include this feature.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on two fundamental questions for the court:
A core issue will be one of visual distinction: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, does the absence of the "second opening" on the top of the Plaintiff's cat bed create a sufficiently different overall visual impression from the design claimed in the ’404 Patent to preclude a finding of infringement?
A key defensive question will be the application of the prior art shield: Is the Plaintiff's product "substantially the same" as the prior art Chinese Patent CN 307506858 S? If so, this may provide a complete defense to the Defendant's infringement allegations, as a patent cannot cover designs already in the public domain.