DCT
6:25-cv-00539
Teleties LLC v. 1 18 As
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Teleties, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Defendants #1-18 AS IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE “A” (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hill Ward Henderson, P.A.
- Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00539, M.D. Fla., 03/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Plaintiff's residence within the district and Defendants' alleged infringing acts, which include targeting and selling products to consumers in Florida via interactive e-commerce stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that hair clips manufactured and sold by numerous China-based entities via online marketplaces infringe its U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The case involves consumer hair accessories, a market where the novel and ornamental appearance of a product is a primary driver of consumer choice and commercial value.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit via "notices sent through Amazon," which may form the basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-01-29 | D1,031,161 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2024-06-11 | D1,031,161 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-03-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,031,161 - "FLAT HAIR CLIP", issued June 11, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not contain a "background" or "problem" section in the manner of utility patents. They inherently address the goal of creating a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" (D'161 Patent, p. 1 of PDF).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a "flat hair clip" as depicted in its drawings (D'161 Patent, Figs. 1-21). The design is characterized by its overall oblong shape, a distinct S-shaped curvature in profile, the configuration of its interlocking teeth, and a large, oblong cut-out on the upper jaw of the clip (D'161 Patent, Figs. 9-11). The patent discloses three distinct embodiments of the design.
- Technical Importance: In the market for consumer goods like hair accessories, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a key product differentiator and source of brand identity (Compl. ¶28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a flat hair clip, as shown and described" (D'161 Patent, col. 1).
- This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article depicted in the patent's drawings, not any of its functional or utilitarian features. The infringement analysis will focus on the design embodiment shown in Figures 9-11, which is the specific embodiment identified in the complaint's infringement allegations (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "hair clips" sold by Defendants through various online e-commerce stores, including on platforms like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶20, ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are functional hair clips. However, the allegations center on their ornamental appearance rather than their utility. The complaint alleges that the design of the accused products is "identical in design and ornamental appearance" to the patented design (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of patent figures and an accused product to support its allegations of visual similarity (Compl. ¶21, p. 6). The complaint further alleges that Defendants directly compete with Plaintiff by selling these products on the same e-commerce platforms at a "significantly reduced price," allegedly to divert sales from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges the designs are "identical" (Compl. ¶22).
D1,031,161 Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature (from D'161 Patent, Figs. 9-11) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall oblong shape and proportions of the clip body. | The accused product is alleged to have the "exact same overall shape and ornamental design." | ¶22 | Fig. 9 |
| A large, central oblong cutout through the top jaw. | The photograph of the accused product shows a large, central oblong cutout on its top jaw. | ¶21, p. 6 | Fig. 9 |
| The configuration of five elongated, parallel prongs/teeth on the bottom jaw. | The accused product is alleged to have the "exact same number of prongs/teeth." | ¶22 | Fig. 10 |
| The specific gentle "S" curve of the clip when viewed in profile. | The accused product is alleged to have the "exact same curvatures," as shown in a side-profile photograph. | ¶22 | Fig. 11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. While the complaint alleges identity and provides photographic evidence, the ultimate determination will depend on a direct comparison by the fact-finder, potentially taking into account any subtle differences not apparent in the complaint's exhibits.
- Scope and Prior Art: A potential defense in design patent cases involves arguing that the scope of the patented design is limited by prior art. The court's analysis would filter out design features that were common or conventional in the field before the patent's filing date, focusing the comparison on the novel ornamental aspects of the patented design. The complaint does not provide information regarding prior art.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction does not involve defining textual terms as it does for utility patents. The "claim" is the design itself, as shown in the drawings.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a flat hair clip, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The construction of this "claim" is the critical legal step that defines the scope of the intellectual property right. Rather than parsing words, the court will determine the overall visual impression of the design embodied in the patent figures. This visual impression becomes the benchmark against which the accused products are compared. Practitioners may focus on which specific features (e.g., shape, surface ornamentation, configuration of parts) contribute most significantly to this overall impression, and which are dictated by function and thus unprotected.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described." The figures are drawn with solid lines, indicating that the shape and configuration of all depicted surfaces are part of the claimed design.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The existence of three different embodiments (Figs. 1-7, 8-14, 15-21) within the patent could be used to argue about the scope of protection. A defendant might argue that features that vary between embodiments are not central to the patent's inventive concept. Furthermore, any features deemed primarily functional rather than ornamental would be excluded from the scope of the design patent's protection.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶32(b)). The primary allegations focus on direct infringement by making, using, selling, and importing (Compl. ¶25).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and continues to be with knowledge of the D’161 Patent" and is therefore willful (Compl. ¶29). This allegation is supported by the factual assertion that Defendants continued their allegedly infringing activities "after receiving express notice of the D’161 Patent (via notices sent through Amazon)" (Compl. ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the ornamental design of the Defendants' accused hair clips substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the D'161 Patent? The complaint's side-by-side photographic evidence frames this as a question of near-identicality.
- A key question for damages will be one of willfulness: Did the Defendants have pre-suit knowledge of the D'161 Patent, as alleged through "notices sent through Amazon," and did they act in a manner that was objectively reckless, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages?
- A significant procedural challenge will be managing a case against numerous foreign defendants who are alleged to use evasive tactics like operating under fictitious names and creating new storefronts to avoid enforcement. This raises practical questions about service, discovery, and the ultimate enforceability of any judgment or injunction.