DCT

0:22-cv-62369

Luo v. T Schedule A

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Yifeng Luo (China)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Foreign Jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jared W. Gasman Attorney, P.A.
  • Case Identification: 0:22-cv-62369, S.D. Fla., 12/19/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants directing business activities toward Florida consumers through interactive e-commerce websites, offering shipping to Florida, and causing substantial injury to the Plaintiff within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores are making, using, selling, and importing dog tie-out stakes that infringe Plaintiff's design patent.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a dog tie-out stake, a common consumer pet accessory used for tethering animals outdoors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is framed as an action against a network of online sellers who allegedly operate under fictitious storefronts to conceal their identities. This "Schedule A" procedural posture, common in e-commerce enforcement, suggests that identifying the defendants and enforcing any judgment may be a central challenge in the case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-07-20 ’237 Patent Priority Date (Application Filed)
2022-09-27 ’237 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D965,237 - "DOG TIE OUT STAKE"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D965,237, "DOG TIE OUT STAKE," issued September 27, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '237 Patent does not describe a technical problem or functional solution; its purpose is to protect the novel, ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture (’237 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a dog tie-out stake as depicted in its seven figures (’237 Patent, FIGs. 1-7). The design’s prominent visual features include a circular, flat base flange with six evenly spaced apertures for mounting, a central dome-shaped housing rising from the base, and a swiveling D-ring that emerges from a collar at the apex of the dome (’237 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 6).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff uses this "distinctive patented Dog Tie Out Stake" in connection with its products, suggesting the design serves as a source identifier in the marketplace (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a dog tie out stake, as shown and described." (’237 Patent, Claim).
  • The core ornamental elements protected by the claim are the collective visual features shown in the patent drawings, including:
    • The overall configuration of a domed housing on a circular flange.
    • The specific proportions and curvature of the dome.
    • The presence and arrangement of six circular holes in the base flange.
    • The design of the swiveling D-ring and the collar from which it emerges.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Dog Tie Out Stake[s] bearing counterfeit versions of the ornamental design" sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶1). These are referred to generally as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants are e-commerce store operators who sell the Infringing Products through numerous online storefronts (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8). These storefronts are alleged to target consumers throughout the United States, including Florida, by accepting U.S. currency and offering U.S. shipping (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants operate in a coordinated manner, using common marketing strategies, storefront templates, and other tactics to appear as authorized retailers and conceal their identities, suggesting the products originate from a common, unauthorized source (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or specific, element-by-element allegations. The infringement theory is based on a general allegation that the Defendants' products are "counterfeit versions" (Compl. ¶1) and "include any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation" of the patented design (Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). Without visual evidence of the accused products, a tabular comparison is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue for the court will be establishing the actual appearance of the products sold by the Defendants. The infringement analysis is entirely dependent on a visual comparison between the accused products and the figures in the ’237 Patent.
  • Scope Questions: The core legal question for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint’s use of the term "counterfeit" suggests an allegation of near-identical copying, which, if proven, would strongly support a finding of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the drawings themselves, and formal claim construction of text is uncommon.

The Term

  • "dog tie out stake"

Context and Importance

  • This phrase, from the patent's title, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its interpretation is crucial for defining the scope of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term if Defendants were to argue that their product, while visually similar, is not a "dog tie out stake" and thus falls outside the claim's scope. However, based on the complaint, such a dispute is not anticipated, as the accused products are identified as the same type of article (Compl. ¶1).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. An argument could be made that the design could apply to any stake used for tethering, not just for dogs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title explicitly identifies the article as a "dog tie out stake" (’237 Patent, Title). The figures show an article with proportions and features (e.g., a swiveling D-ring) consistent with that specific use, which would support an interpretation limited to that article.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint makes general allegations of "contributory infringement and/or inducement" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24). The factual basis provided is that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale, sold, and imported products that infringe (Compl. ¶17). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "notice of or knew of Plaintiff's patent" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint further supports this allegation by pointing to the "deliberateness of Seller Storefronts' tortious acts and other manifestations of unethical and injurious commercial conduct," such as the alleged use of fictitious identities and efforts to appear as authorized retailers (Compl. ¶22).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of design identity and evidence: As the complaint lacks any images of the accused products, a threshold question is whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that the products sold by the anonymous Defendants are, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’237 Patent.
  2. The case also presents a significant procedural and enforcement challenge: Can the Plaintiff successfully pierce the anonymity of the numerous online sellers listed on Schedule A, establish personal jurisdiction, and ultimately enforce a judgment against entities that are allegedly foreign-based and structured to evade legal accountability? (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 16).