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 (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
• Case Identification: 25-cv-61524, S.D. Fla., 08/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants committed acts of patent infringement in the district by offering to sell and ship, and/or selling and shipping, infringing products to consumers in Florida, and by conducting substantial business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are infringing two of its design patents by selling unauthorized and unlicensed collapsible water bottles that embody Plaintiff's patented designs.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of consumer products, specifically foldable water bottles, a product category significant for its appeal to consumers seeking portable and reusable goods.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. D1,002,386 is a divisional of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. D935,892, indicating a close relationship between the two asserted designs.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-11-07	Priority Date for ’892 Patent
2019-11-07	Priority Date for ’386 Patent
2021-11-16	’892 Patent Issued
2023-10-24	’386 Patent Issued
2025-08-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,002,386 - Collapsible Container

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,002,386, “Collapsible Container,” issued October 24, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Design Subject: The patent claims the ornamental design for a collapsible container (’386 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the container, not its utilitarian function (Compl. ¶1). The design, illustrated in the patent’s figures, consists of a cylindrical body featuring a distinct pattern of intersecting diagonal lines that create the impression of foldable segments (’386 Patent, Fig. 1). The design includes a specific, partially-shaded asymmetrical appearance near the top of the container body, while the opening itself is depicted in broken lines, indicating it is not part of the claimed design (’386 Patent, Fig. 1, Description).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a collapsible container, as shown and described" (’386 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines within Figures 1-3 of the patent.

U.S. Design Patent No. D935,892 - Collapsible Container

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D935,892, “Collapsible Container,” issued November 16, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Design Subject: This patent also claims an ornamental design for a collapsible container (’892 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The design is visually similar to that of the ’386 Patent, featuring a cylindrical body with a repeating pattern of intersecting diagonal lines (’892 Patent, Fig. 1). A notable feature of this design is the use of stippling (shading) across the entire surface of the container body, which creates the visual impression of a particular texture or material finish (’892 Patent, Figs. 1-3). As with the related patent, the container's opening is shown in broken lines and is not part of the claimed design (’892 Patent, Description).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a collapsible container, as shown and described" (’892 Patent, Claim).
• The scope is defined by the solid-line drawings in Figures 1-3, including the surface shading shown throughout the container's body.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "unauthorized and unlicensed products that infringe Plaintiff's design patents," described generally as "collapsible water bottles" and "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's genuine DIFOLD Products (Compl. ¶¶1, 2, 4). The complaint provides an image of Plaintiff's product, showing a collapsible bottle in both its extended and compressed states (Compl. p. 5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products as "Collapsible Water Bottle[s]" made from "food grade silicone material" and marketed as "Portable Reusable for Travel Camping Hiking Yoga Sports Outdoor" (Compl. p. 11). The complaint alleges that these products are sold through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" on platforms including Amazon, DHgate, eBay, Etsy, Shein, and Walmart, targeting consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶11, 21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "colorable imitation[s]" of the designs claimed in the DIFOLD Patents (Compl. ¶43; Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). Infringement is asserted through a visual comparison of figures from the patents with images of an accused product from an online store (Compl. ¶43, pp. 10-11). The complaint provides an exemplary image from an online listing for a "4-Pack Collapsible Water Bottle 600ml" that shows a product with a geometric pattern on its body (Compl. p. 11).

’386 Patent & ’892 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature (from Patent Figures)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An ornamental design for a container having a generally cylindrical body.	The accused product is a generally cylindrical bottle.	p. 11	’386 Patent, Fig. 1; ’892 Patent, Fig. 1
A surface pattern on the container body comprising a series of intersecting diagonal lines forming repeating geometric shapes.	The accused product features a surface pattern of intersecting diagonal lines that appears visually identical to the pattern in the patent drawings.	p. 11	’386 Patent, Fig. 2; ’892 Patent, Fig. 2
The visual appearance of a container that is segmented and capable of collapsing along the lines of the geometric pattern.	The accused product is described as a "collapsible" and "foldable" bottle, and the "innovative geometric pattern allows the bottle to be compressed."	p. 11	’386 Patent, Figs. 1-2; ’892 Patent, Figs. 1-2

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • 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. A point of contention may arise from any minor differences in proportion, line curvature, or surface texture between the accused products and the specific illustrations in the patent drawings.
  • Visual Comparison Questions: The complaint provides figures from both patents side-by-side, one showing stippling across the body ('892) and one without ('386) (Compl. p. 10). A question for the court will be whether the accused product's design is substantially similar to the specific visual impression created by each patented design individually. The defendants may argue that differences in the cap design, though unclaimed, alter the overall appearance of the accused product enough to distinguish it from the patented designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically limited to determining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings.

• The Term: The overall "ornamental design for a collapsible container."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed designs. The central issue will be defining the overall visual impression created by the patents' drawings and comparing that to the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the core, protectable element of the design is the distinctive geometric pattern of intersecting diagonal lines on a cylindrical bottle, and that this overall impression is what an ordinary observer would notice. The existence of two patents with variations in shading could be used to argue that the fundamental line pattern itself is the primary design element being asserted.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the claim scope is limited to the exact proportions and visual details shown in the drawings. For the '892 Patent, a defendant might contend that the stippling shown across the entire body is a critical limitation, meaning any accused product without that specific textured appearance would create a different visual impression and thus not infringe. The disclaimer of the cap and opening via broken lines confines the infringement analysis to the container body but allows the unclaimed elements to provide context for the design as a whole.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶42). However, it does not plead specific facts required to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of specific acts intended to encourage infringement by third parties.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶39, ¶44). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants are part of a network of online sellers who intentionally copy successful products to sell "inferior imitations" and conceal their identities (Compl. ¶¶4, 6, 23, 28).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: In the eyes of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the accused collapsible bottles substantially the same as the designs depicted in the ’386 and ’892 patents? The outcome will depend on a holistic comparison of the products' overall visual appearance to the patents' drawings, accounting for the claimed elements (solid lines) and the disclaimed context (broken lines).
2. A significant practical question will be one of enforcement: Given that the defendants are alleged to be numerous, foreign-based entities operating under fictitious names through various online marketplaces (Compl. ¶¶18, 28-31), a central challenge for the plaintiff will be effectively identifying the infringers, serving process, and enforcing any potential injunction or monetary judgment.
3. A key damages question will relate to the calculation of infringer's profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Should infringement be established, the court will need to determine the "total profit" attributable to the "article of manufacture" embodying the infringing design, a remedy unique to design patents which could be a primary focus of the case.