DCT
0:25-cv-61376
Difold Inc v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Difold Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 0:25-cv-61376, S.D. Fla., 07/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the Southern District of Florida and do substantial business in the district by systematically directing business activities at U.S. consumers, including those in Florida, through online marketplace platforms.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators infringe two of its design patents by selling unauthorized collapsible water bottles that embody Plaintiff's patented ornamental designs.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of collapsible containers, a product category within the consumer goods market focused on portability and convenience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-11-07 | Priority Date for '892 and '386 Patents |
| 2021-11-16 | U.S. Patent No. D935,892 Issues |
| 2023-10-24 | U.S. Patent No. D1,002,386 Issues |
| 2025-07-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,002,386 - "Collapsible Container"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The objective is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case a collapsible container (’386 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The ’386 Patent discloses the ornamental design for a container characterized by a generally cylindrical body with a distinctive surface pattern of intersecting diagonal lines that create a series of diamond and triangular shapes (’386 Patent, Fig. 1-3). The design also includes an angled upper segment with a distinct surface texture, while the broken lines depicting the container's opening indicate that this portion is not part of the claimed design (’386 Patent, Description; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a "leading supplier and manufacturer of unique foldable water bottles," suggesting the design's significance lies in product differentiation and brand identity in the consumer marketplace (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the sole claim of the patent (Compl. ¶¶1, 42).
- The claim is for "The ornamental design for a collapsible container, as shown and described" (’386 Patent, Claim). The essential elements are the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's figures, including:
- The overall cylindrical shape and proportions of the container body.
- The surface ornamentation consisting of a pattern of intersecting diagonal lines.
- The appearance of the angled upper segment of the container body.
U.S. Patent No. D935,892 - "Collapsible Container"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’386 Patent, the objective is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (’892 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The ’892 Patent discloses a similar ornamental design for a container, also featuring a cylindrical body with a surface pattern of intersecting diagonal lines (’892 Patent, Fig. 1-3). The figures in the ’892 Patent depict more extensive surface shading across the container body compared to the ’386 Patent, creating a distinct visual impression (’892 Patent, Fig. 1). The broken lines showing the container's opening are disclaimed and do not form part of the patented design (’892 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The design contributes to the unique appearance of what the Plaintiff describes as its "DIFOLD Products" (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the sole claim of the patent (Compl. ¶¶1, 42).
- The claim is for "The ornamental design for a collapsible container, as shown and described" (’892 Patent, Claim). The essential elements are the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's figures, including:
- The overall cylindrical shape and proportions.
- The surface pattern of intersecting diagonal lines.
- The specific surface shading shown throughout the container body.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products that infringe Plaintiff's design patents," described as collapsible water bottles (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶¶1-2).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants sell these products through numerous "fully interactive commercial internet stores" on platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶¶3, 21). The complaint provides a screenshot of an exemplary accused product listing on Amazon for a "Collapsible Water Bottles, Silicone Foldable Portable Water Bottle" (Compl. p. 11). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are part of a widespread infringement operation, primarily based in the People's Republic of China, that designs online stores to mimic authorized retailers and sell "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶4, 18, 23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are "substantially the same" in appearance as the designs claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶1). The complaint provides a visual comparison of figures from the patents and an image of an accused product sold online (Compl. ¶43). The screenshot from an Amazon listing shows a pink, silicone collapsible bottle with a visible pattern of intersecting diagonal lines (Compl. p. 11).
'386 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1 as depicted in figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a cylindrical container | The accused product is a cylindrical bottle with a similar overall shape and proportions. | ¶43; p. 11 | Fig. 1-3 |
| A surface pattern of intersecting diagonal lines creating diamond and triangular shapes | The accused product's surface features a visually similar pattern of intersecting lines that form diamond-like shapes along the body. | ¶43; p. 11 | Fig. 1, 2 |
| An angled upper portion below the container opening | The accused product incorporates an angled upper section that contributes to an overall visual impression alleged to be substantially similar to the patented design. | ¶43; p. 11 | Fig. 1 |
'892 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1 as depicted in figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a cylindrical container with surface shading | The accused product's overall appearance, including its shape and proportions, is alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design. | ¶43; p. 11 | Fig. 1-3 |
| A surface pattern comprised of intersecting diagonal lines | The accused product features a pattern of intersecting diagonal lines consistent with the claimed design. | ¶43; p. 11 | Fig. 1, 2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question in design patent cases is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the attention a purchaser usually would, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The analysis will depend on the overall visual impression of the accused products compared to the patent figures, rather than a dissection of minor differences.
- Technical Questions: A potential issue for the court may be to distinguish between protected ornamental features and any functional aspects of the design. The question may arise as to whether the intersecting lines on the container body are dictated by the bottle's collapsible function, which could limit the scope of the claimed design. The complaint provides patent drawings alongside an image of an accused product, setting up this direct visual comparison (Compl. pp. 10-11).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, making formal claim construction of text less common than in utility patent cases. However, the scope of the design's protection may still be a point of contention.
- The Term: The scope of "the ornamental design."
- Context and Importance: The primary dispute will likely center on which aspects of the depicted container are purely ornamental and protected, versus which, if any, are dictated by function. Practitioners may focus on this issue because a finding that key visual features are functional could narrow the scope of the patent and weaken the infringement case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims of the ’386 and ’892 Patents cover the "ornamental design for a collapsible container, as shown and described" without express textual limitations, suggesting the entire visual appearance depicted in solid lines is protected.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The titles of the patents explicitly identify the article as a "Collapsible Container." A defendant may argue that the prominent intersecting lines that form the design's pattern are functional elements dictated by the need for the container to fold or collapse, and are therefore not protectable ornamental features. The patents also explicitly disclaim the container's opening by using broken lines, demonstrating an intent to limit the claimed design to the container body (’386 Patent, Description; ’892 Patent, Description).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement (Compl. ¶42), and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin acts of inducement and aiding or abetting infringement (Prayer for Relief, ¶¶1.b, 1.d). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, focusing instead on Defendants' direct acts of making and selling.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶44). This allegation is based on claims that Defendants knowingly and willfully used the patents to sell "inferior imitations" and designed their online stores to deceive consumers into believing they were purchasing genuine products (Compl. ¶¶4, 39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: will an "ordinary observer" find the accused collapsible bottles substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’386 and ’892 Patents? The outcome will depend on the overall visual impression created by the products, not on an analysis of minor differences.
- A key practical question will be one of enforcement: given that the complaint targets a diffuse and allegedly foreign-based network of e-commerce operators using transient online storefronts (Compl. ¶¶3, 18, 28), a central challenge for the plaintiff will be effectively serving, obtaining jurisdiction over, and enforcing any judgment against the numerous and unnamed defendants.
- A potential defense may raise a question of design scope: to what extent are the prominent intersecting lines that form the core of the patented designs dictated by the utilitarian function of making the container collapsible? The court’s view on this functionality-ornamentality distinction could be critical in defining the scope of patent protection.