DCT
0:24-cv-62353
Zhanhongtu E Commerce Co Ltd v. Uproot Lint LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zhanhongtu E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (China) and Xinwangde Electromechanical Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Uproot Lint LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Palmer Law Group, P.A.
- Case Identification: 0:24-cv-62353, S.D. Fla., 12/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated under Florida law and maintains its principal place of business within the Southern District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their Pet Hair Removal Rakes do not infringe two of the Defendant's U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental designs of components for pet hair removal tools, a product category within the consumer goods market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was initiated after Defendant lodged two infringement complaints with Amazon.com against Plaintiffs' products, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings. The complaint also introduces two prior art design patents, which it alleges demonstrate the dissimilarity between Plaintiffs' products and the patented designs.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-09-26 | Earliest Priority Date for D'393 and D'113 Patents |
| 2023-12-26 | D'393 Patent Issued |
| 2024-09-03 | D'113 Patent Issued |
| 2024-11-30 | Defendant's First Infringement Complaint to Amazon |
| 2024-12-06 | Defendant's Second Infringement Complaint to Amazon |
| 2024-12-16 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,009,393 - “Cleaning Device Component,” issued December 26, 2023 (’393 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a functional problem. The patent addresses the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for a cleaning device component.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for the teeth of a cleaning tool head. The design is limited to the features shown in solid lines, with the rest of the tool component shown in dotted lines and explicitly disclaimed (D’393 Patent, p. 2, Description). The claimed design consists of teeth arranged in a continuous, thread-like or helical configuration, as depicted in the patent's figures (D’393 Patent, FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: The dispute over this ornamental design suggests its perceived value in differentiating products in the competitive consumer market for pet care tools (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a cleaning device component, as shown and described" (D’393 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claim are the ornamental features depicted in solid lines, primarily:
- A series of teeth arranged in a continuous, sharp-edged, threaded pattern.
- The specific profile and angular shape of the individual teeth that form the thread.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,041,113 - “Cleaning Device Component,” issued September 3, 2024 (’113 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for a cleaning device component, distinct from other designs in the field.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design that is expressly "limited to the small triangular divots at the bottom end portion of the cleaning device component" (’113 Patent, p. 1, Description). All other features, including the larger structure of the teeth and the component body, are disclaimed via dotted lines, focusing the protected design on these subtle features (D’113 Patent, FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: As with the ’393 Patent, the assertion of this design patent in commercial disputes indicates its perceived role in establishing a unique product appearance in the marketplace (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a cleaning device component, as shown and described" (’113 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claim are explicitly limited to:
- The presence, shape, and placement of small triangular divots on the teeth of the component.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are "Pet Hair Removal Rakes" sold by Plaintiffs Zhanhongtu and Xinwangde on their respective Amazon.com storefronts (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The products are consumer-grade tools for removing pet hair (Compl. ¶9). Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendant’s infringement complaints to Amazon, their product listings were removed, causing "immediate and substantial harm to Plaintiffs' business," including lost sales and reputational damage (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides images of the accused rakes, showing a long handle and a wide head with metallic teeth (Compl. p. 2). The core of the dispute centers on the ornamental design of these teeth, which the complaint alleges feature "flat-top protrusions" that are "parallel to each other" (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the Plaintiffs' arguments and evidence for why their products do not infringe.
'393 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from D'393 Design) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature (Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ornamental design featuring teeth connected in a single, sharp-threaded configuration. | The accused product features "flat-top protrusions as teeth" that are configured as distinct, parallel rows, not a single continuous thread. | ¶17 | FIG. 2 |
| The overall visual impression of a helical or screw-like cutting edge. | The visual impression is of a series of parallel, separated blades, which Plaintiffs allege is "substantially dissimilar" to the patented design. | ¶11, 17 | FIG. 1 |
'113 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from D'113 Design) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature (Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ornamental design limited to "small triangular divots" on the component's teeth. | The complaint argues for overall dissimilarity based on the product's "flat-top protrusion teeth," which it alleges creates a different visual impression when viewed in light of the prior art. | ¶17 | FIG. 2 |
| The overall visual impression created by the patented design. | Plaintiffs allege that an ordinary observer would find the accused product "substantially dissimilar" from the claimed design, particularly when considering the designs available in the prior art. | ¶11, 17 | FIG. 1 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Dissimilarity: The central question is whether an ordinary observer would find the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product's "parallel, flat-topped teeth" to be substantially the same as the Defendant's patented "threaded" (’393 Patent) or "divoted" (’113 Patent) designs. The complaint's "Side-by-Side Comparison" table visually highlights these alleged differences (Compl. p. 4, Table 1).
- Role of Prior Art: The complaint argues that the existence of prior art designs for both "flat-topped protrusion teeth and sharp-threaded edges" narrows the scope of protection for Defendant's patents and emphasizes the visual significance of the differences in the accused product (Compl. ¶11, 17). A detailed comparison in the complaint contrasts the patented designs, prior art, and the accused product to support this point (Compl. p. 6, Table 3).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as illustrated in the figures.
- The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of the claim's scope will be critical. The dispute will likely focus on whether the comparison should be limited strictly to the claimed features (the teeth pattern) or encompass a more general overall appearance. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents' use of dotted lines and specific descriptive limitations seeks to narrow the protected design to very particular features.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that infringement should be assessed based on whether the "overall visual impression" of the accused rake head is confusingly similar to the patented design, even if specific elements differ.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents provide strong evidence for a narrow scope. Both explicitly state that "dotted lines... form no part of the claimed design" (D’393 Patent, p. 2; D’113 Patent, p. 1). Further, the ’113 Patent specification explicitly states, "The claimed design is limited to the small triangular divots at the bottom end portion of the cleaning device component," which strongly supports an interpretation where only that specific feature is protected (’113 Patent, p. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Unfair Competition: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's infringement complaints to Amazon are "part of a pattern of unfair competition intended to unlawfully monopolize the market for Pet Hair Removal tools by eliminating legitimate competition through baseless infringement claims" (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual comparison under the ordinary observer test: Will an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, find the overall ornamental appearance of Plaintiffs' rake (with its alleged "parallel, flat-topped teeth") to be substantially the same as Defendant's patented "threaded" and "divoted" designs?
- A key legal and factual question will be the impact of the prior art: To what extent does the cited prior art (U.S. Design Patents D889,851 and D990,084) limit the scope of Defendant's patents? The court's determination on this issue will directly influence how significant the alleged visual differences between the patented designs and the accused product are considered to be.