DCT
0:25-cv-60467
Little Catholic LLC v. Specialized Top Advisory Services Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Little Catholic, LLC and Priscilla Durant (California)
- Defendant: Specialized Top Advisory Services, Inc., d/b/a Guadalupe Gifts (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Kearney Firm, APC
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-02577, C.D. Cal., 11/25/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Central District of California based on allegations that Defendant conducts business in the district and that the acts of patent infringement giving rise to the action occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s religious-themed jewelry infringes two design patents covering an ornamental design for a pendant depicting the three hearts of the Holy Family.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of ornamental designs for consumer goods, specifically religious jewelry, a market where unique visual appearance and symbolism are key value drivers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on October 31, 2024. Defendant allegedly responded on November 18, 2024, denying the allegations. This pre-suit notice and subsequent correspondence are cited by Plaintiffs to support claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff The Little Catholic, LLC (TLC) founded. |
| 2021-05-17 | Earliest Priority Date for '750 and '407 Patents. |
| 2024-01-30 | U.S. Patent No. D1,012,750 Issues. |
| 2024-09-23 | Plaintiffs obtain screenshots of accused products from Defendant’s website. |
| 2024-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. D1,043,407 Issues. |
| 2024-10-31 | Plaintiffs send Cease-and-Desist letter to Defendant. |
| 2024-11-01 | Defendant receives Cease-and-Desist letter via FedEx. |
| 2024-11-18 | Defendant replies to Plaintiffs' letter. |
| 2024-11-19 | Plaintiffs send responsive settlement offer to Defendant. |
| 2024-11-22 | Deadline for Defendant to respond to settlement offer passes. |
| 2024-11-25 | Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,012,750 - "Jewelry Article"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,012,750, titled "Jewelry Article," issued January 30, 2024. (Compl. ¶15).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that prior to Plaintiffs’ invention, three-dimensional jewelry did not depict the three hearts of the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph) strung together as a single piece. (Compl. ¶16, ¶22). While the individual hearts existed as motifs in two-dimensional art, their combination into a unitary three-dimensional jewelry article is presented as novel. (Compl. ¶22).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a jewelry article, as depicted in its figures. (D1,012,750 Patent, Claim). The design consists of three distinct heart-shaped pendants arranged in a side-by-side configuration, with each heart bearing specific surface ornamentation: the left heart is adorned with roses, the center heart is wrapped in thorns and topped with a cross, and the right heart is pierced by a sword and features a floral motif. (D1,012,750 Patent, FIG. 1-2). The protected design is the specific overall visual appearance of this combination.
- Technical Importance: The complaint posits that the design is original and that its value derives from this novel three-dimensional combination and arrangement of traditional symbols. (Compl. ¶16, ¶74).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a jewelry article, as shown and described." (D1,012,750 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design are:
- The overall appearance of three adjoined, heart-shaped pendants.
- The specific surface ornamentation applied to each of the three hearts.
- The particular side-by-side arrangement and relative positioning of the hearts.
U.S. Patent No. D1,043,407 - "Jewelry Article"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,043,407, titled "Jewelry Article," issued September 24, 2024. (Compl. ¶15).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts the same lack of a combined, three-dimensional "Holy Family Hearts" jewelry design in the prior art. (Compl. ¶16, ¶22).
- The Patented Solution: As a divisional of the application leading to the ’750 Patent, the ’407 Patent claims a virtually identical ornamental design. (D1,043,407 Patent, "Related U.S. Application Data"). The patent's figures depict the same arrangement and ornamentation of three hearts, protecting the overall visual appearance of the jewelry article. (D1,043,407 Patent, FIG. 1-2).
- Technical Importance: The design's stated importance is identical to that of the '750 Patent. (Compl. ¶16, ¶74).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a jewelry article, as shown and described." (D1,043,407 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements are the same as those listed for the ’750 Patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are jewelry items sold by Defendant under names including "Dainty Gold Vermeil Three Hearts of the Holy Family Necklace" and "Three Hearts of the Holy Family Sterling Silver Pendant." (Compl. ¶23, Ex. C).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are necklaces featuring a pendant composed of three heart-shaped charms arranged together. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges that the success and popularity of these products are a direct result of "imitation, copying, and unlawful piggybacking" of Plaintiffs' intellectual property. (Compl. ¶21). Exhibit C to the complaint contains a screenshot from Defendant's website showing a gold-colored necklace with a three-heart pendant. (Compl. ¶23, Ex. C). The complaint alleges these products are sold nationwide through Defendant's website. (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'750 and '407 Patents Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Overall Ornamental Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a three-heart jewelry article as a whole. | Defendant's "Infringing Jewelry" is alleged to embody designs that are "substantially similar" to Plaintiffs' patented designs. | ¶75 | '750 Patent, FIG. 1-7 |
| A specific side-by-side arrangement of three hearts representing Mary, Jesus, and Joseph, in that order. | Defendant's jewelry allegedly "mirrors this exact arrangement" and "replicates this exact order of the hearts in its design." | ¶25, ¶79 | '750 Patent, FIG. 2 |
| An artistic modification removing the flames traditionally depicted on the hearts of Mary and Jesus. | Defendant's jewelry is alleged to "incorporate[] this same modification" by depicting the hearts with flames removed. | ¶26, ¶79 | '750 Patent, FIG. 2 |
| An artistic modification replacing the lily traditionally on the heart of Joseph with a rose. | Defendant's jewelry allegedly "adopts this identical artistic change, replacing the lily with a rose on the heart of Joseph." | ¶27, ¶79 | '750 Patent, FIG. 2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint preemptively argues that two-dimensional paintings of the hearts are not proper prior art for a three-dimensional jewelry design, citing case law. (Compl. ¶22, fn. 1). This raises a central legal question for the court: "What is the scope of relevant prior art for assessing the novelty and non-obviousness of the claimed design, and how does that prior art inform the 'ordinary observer' infringement test?" The outcome of this question may dictate how broadly the patented design is protected.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison. This raises the factual question: "Would an ordinary observer, comparing the accused jewelry to the patent figures, find the designs substantially the same, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them?" The court's analysis may focus on whether the allegedly copied details (e.g., the specific flower choices, the lack of flames) are the features that create the overall impression, or if other aspects of the design differ.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, construction focuses on describing the claimed visual appearance rather than defining textual terms. The central issue is the scope of the design as a whole.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a jewelry article" as depicted in the patent figures.
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of this visual design. Practitioners may focus on this as the core of the dispute, with Plaintiffs likely arguing for protection of the overall impression created by the unique combination of elements, and Defendant likely arguing that the design is a narrow combination of unprotectable public domain motifs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents claim the design "as shown and described," which points to the overall visual effect of the article as a whole. (D1,012,750 Patent, Claim). Plaintiffs’ complaint emphasizes the novelty of the combination and arrangement, suggesting the protectable design is the holistic composition rather than its individual components. (Compl. ¶¶16, 22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint concedes that the individual heart motifs are based on images in the public domain. (Compl. ¶¶26-27). A party could argue this limits protection to the highly specific combination and artistic rendering shown in the figures. Further, the use of broken lines in Figure 8 to disclaim the necklace chain explicitly narrows the claimed design to the pendant itself, focusing the legal analysis on that specific article. (D1,012,750 Patent, FIG. 8).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), alleging Defendant "makes, uses, sells, or offering for sale" the accused jewelry. (Compl. ¶76). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support separate counts of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint contains extensive allegations of willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶78-80). It alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patented designs through both constructive and actual notice. The basis for this claim includes allegations that Defendant's Instagram account follows Plaintiffs' account (suggesting pre-existing awareness) and, more directly, that Defendant received and responded to a cease-and-desist letter dated October 31, 2024, before the suit was filed. (Compl. ¶32, ¶79).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of prior art scope: Can Defendant successfully argue that the existence of two-dimensional public domain depictions of the individual Holy Family Hearts narrows the scope of the patented design, thereby allowing for similar-but-not-identical competing designs? Or will Plaintiffs succeed in establishing that their combination of these elements into a novel three-dimensional article of manufacture is broadly protectable?
- The dispositive infringement question will be one of visual perception: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall visual impression of the accused jewelry "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the patents? The case may turn on whether the finder of fact focuses on the high-level similarity of a three-heart arrangement or on granular differences in execution, shape, and ornamentation.