DCT

6:25-cv-02332

Lander Enterprisessss LLC v. Bendi Care LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-02332, M.D. Fla., 12/05/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant resides in the judicial district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s U-shaped electric toothbrush heads infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "Double-Sided Toothbrush Head."
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of U-shaped, mouthguard-style toothbrush heads used with electronic toothbrushes, a consumer product category focused on automated dental care.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff marks its products with the patent number, which could be relevant to damages calculations. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-12-29 '544 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2022-07-26 '544 Patent Issued
2025-12-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D958,544 - "Double-Sided Toothbrush Head"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems; they protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (U.S. Design Patent D958,544, Claim). The patent aims to protect a specific visual design for a toothbrush head in the consumer dental accessories market.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design embodied in its figures ('544 Patent, Claim). Key visual features shown in the solid lines of the drawings include the overall U-shape of the brush head, a double-sided configuration of bristles within a channel, the specific arrangement and orientation of bristle clusters, and the appearance of the central connector stem ('544 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The complaint reproduces figures showing a bottom plan view and a rear view to illustrate the design (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented toothbrush heads "have been a success in the market," suggesting the design's commercial significance (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a double-sided toothbrush head, as shown and described" ('544 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article in the patent drawings. The essential visual elements are:
    • A U-shaped, double-sided tray structure.
    • A particular pattern of bristle clusters arranged on both the top and bottom interior surfaces of the tray.
    • A specific configuration of the rear portion of the brush head, including the integration of the stem.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant's "U-Shaped Electric Toothbrush" products, which include allegedly infringing toothbrush heads (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a toothbrush head for an electronic toothbrush, which Bendi Care allegedly sells through online retail outlets such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶7, ¶12). The complaint alleges that these toothbrush heads are "copies of Autobrush's toothbrush head design" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides a photograph of the accused Bendi Care toothbrush head, showing its U-shaped body and bristle arrangement (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a traditional claim chart but instead presents a side-by-side visual comparison to support its infringement allegations. 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 one.

  • Visual Comparison Summary: The complaint juxtaposes figures from the '544 Patent with photographs of the accused Bendi Care product, alleging they are "remarkably similar" (Compl. ¶13).

    • The complaint presents a side-by-side comparison of the patent's FIG. 3 (a bottom plan view) and a photograph of the accused Bendi Care toothbrush head from a similar perspective (Compl. p. 5).
    • A second comparison shows the patent's FIG. 6 (a rear view) next to a photograph of the accused product's rear view, highlighting alleged similarities in the bristle layout and overall structure (Compl. p. 5).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused Bendi Care toothbrush head is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '544 Patent. The analysis will depend not on a list of elements but on the holistic visual appearance to an ordinary observer.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the visual evidence presented in the complaint (Compl. p. 5) compares to the actual accused product. The court will need to determine if the similarities in overall shape, bristle pattern, and proportions are close enough to support a finding of infringement, or if there are sufficient visual differences to distinguish the two designs. The role of prior art designs, though not raised in the complaint, may become a factor in determining the scope of the patented design and the context for the "ordinary observer."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, "claim construction" is typically limited to identifying the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings. The primary "term" is the design itself.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a double-sided toothbrush head, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the entire scope of the patent's protection. The dispute will center on the visual boundaries of this design and whether the accused product falls within them. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the outcome of the infringement analysis depends entirely on the perceived similarity between the accused product and the patent's drawings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression and configuration of the toothbrush head, and that minor variations in bristle count or exact curvature do not escape infringement so long as the overall aesthetic is the same ('544 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the design is limited to the precise details shown in the solid lines of the drawings, including the specific number, placement, and angle of the bristle clusters and the exact proportions of the U-shaped body ('544 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin contributing to and inducing infringement, but the factual allegations focus on direct infringement by Bendi Care's making, using, and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶14, ¶21; Prayer for Relief B(i)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Bendi Care's infringement is willful and has been "conducted with an objectively reckless disregard of the high likelihood of infringement" (Compl. ¶23). It further alleges the "unauthorized copying has been willful" (Compl. ¶15).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: When viewed by an ordinary observer, is the accused Bendi Care toothbrush head "substantially the same" as the ornamental design depicted in the '544 Patent's figures, or do sufficient visual differences exist to distinguish them?
  • A second key question will involve the scope of the patented design in the context of the market: Assuming the case proceeds, the analysis will likely incorporate the landscape of prior art for U-shaped toothbrush heads to determine the novelty and scope of the patented design, which will inform how an "ordinary observer" would view the similarities and differences between the products.