DCT

0:24-cv-60865

Dongguan Saienchuangke Technology Co Ltd v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:24-cv-60865, S.D. Fla., 01/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants target and conduct business with consumers in the United States, including Florida, through interactive e-commerce stores on Amazon.com, and because Defendants are foreign entities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' sale of reusable water balloons on Amazon infringes its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a water ball.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of reusable water toys, a segment of the consumer recreational products market.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows an original complaint against 48 parties, many of whom have since defaulted or been dismissed. The complaint alleges that the remaining Defendants are part of an interrelated network of sellers, potentially sourcing from a common manufacturer, Shenzhen Huamingjun Rubber Co., Ltd., which has separately filed a declaratory judgment action against the Plaintiff regarding other design patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-12-25 D'139 Patent Priority Date
2024-05-07 D'139 Patent Issue Date
2024-12-20 Plaintiff's first test purchase of accused product
2024-12-27 Plaintiff's second test purchase of accused products
2024-12-29 Plaintiff's third test purchase of accused products
2025-01-03 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,026,139 - "Water Ball"

(Issued May 7, 2024; the “D'139 Patent”)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent itself does not state a technical problem, as is typical for design patents. However, the context provided by the complaint's description of the accused products as "Reusable Water Balloons" suggests the design is applied to an alternative to single-use water balloons (Compl. ¶19).
  • The Patented Solution: The D'139 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "water ball" (D'139 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of the visual characteristics of the article, illustrated in the patent's figures. Key ornamental features include the overall spherical shape, a repeating pattern of undulating wavy lines covering the surface, and star-like patterns at the top and bottom poles where the two separable halves of the ball meet (D'139 Patent, FIGS. 1, 7, 9).
  • Technical Importance: The importance of the patented subject matter is ornamental rather than technical, aiming to provide a unique and recognizable appearance for a consumer product (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim, which reads: "The ornamental design for a water ball, as shown and described" (D'139 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings. The core visual elements are:
    • A spherical body.
    • A surface pattern of continuous, wavy, parallel lines.
    • A distinct, star-shaped pattern on the top and bottom surfaces.
    • The ability to be separated into two hemispherical halves.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various "Reusable Water Balloons" sold by the Defendants through different Amazon storefronts (Compl. ¶19, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "the same or virtually identical" items marketed under different brand names (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that the Defendants constitute an "interrelated group of infringers" who may source their products from a common manufacturer, Shenzhen Huamingjun Rubber Co., Ltd., and use similar product images and descriptions (Compl. ¶18, ¶93-94, ¶97). A photograph from a customer review shows a semi-translucent, water-filled ball with a distinct seam (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. For design patents, infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The central allegation is that the accused products are so visually similar to the patented design that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one (Compl. ¶114). The complaint supports this allegation with numerous side-by-side visual comparisons.

For example, a photograph of an accused product sold by WHDPETSCares, taken from a customer review, is compared directly to the patent's primary figure (Compl. ¶31). Another image shows a test-purchased product from defendant KYM MLSMYXGS, which displays the same wavy line pattern and spherical shape as the patented design (Compl. ¶38). The complaint also provides an image of a test-purchased product from P&C-Direct, shown inside its retail box, to allege infringement in the context of its offer for sale (Compl. ¶58). Further, to support its theory that the defendants are an interrelated group, the complaint includes a photograph of test-purchased products that allegedly arrived "mixed together," showing items with identical designs in commingled packaging (Compl. ¶49).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the claimed design. A defense may focus on any perceived differences between the accused products and the patent drawings, or argue that the similarities are dictated by function.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise as to whether the wavy-line surface pattern or the star-shaped closure, as depicted in the patent, are primarily ornamental, as claimed, or if they are dictated by functional constraints of a self-sealing reusable water ball. The complaint’s position is that the design is ornamental (Compl. ¶114).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and disputes over the meaning of text-based terms are rare. The term "water ball" is descriptive and its meaning is unlikely to be a point of contention. The case will almost certainly turn on a visual comparison of the accused products to the patent drawings under the "ordinary observer" test, rather than on the construction of any specific term.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by the Defendants for their own acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the accused products (Compl. ¶114; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful (Compl. ¶111). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants continued to sell infringing products even after Plaintiff conducted test purchases, and on the allegation that Defendants are part of a concerted effort to infringe while using tactics to conceal their identities and interrelationships (Compl. ¶93-95, ¶111 fn. 15).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Is the overall ornamental design of the accused reusable water balloons, particularly the combination of the wavy surface pattern and star-shaped pole design, substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'139 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer?
  • A key procedural and evidentiary question will be one of collective liability: Can the Plaintiff successfully pierce the corporate veil of numerous separate Amazon storefronts to establish that the Defendants are an "interrelated group" acting in concert? Proving this allegation, potentially through evidence of a common product source, would significantly impact the scope of injunctive relief and the calculation of damages.