DCT
1:25-cv-22089
KC Coastal LLC v. J&M Underground Engineering Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: K.C. Coastal, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: J&M Underground Engineering Corp. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-22089, S.D. Fla., 05/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' residence and incorporation in Florida, their commission of infringing acts within the judicial district, and their maintenance of a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s concrete barriers infringe a design patent covering the unique, non-functional, and ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "Utility Blox™" product.
- Technical Context: The technology domain is protective concrete barriers for construction sites, a market where a product's aesthetic design, in addition to its function, can serve as a commercial differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement via a letter sent on March 6, 2025, approximately two months prior to filing suit, and that Defendant refused to cease its allegedly infringing activities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-03-10 | '144 Patent Priority Date (Application Filed) |
| 2023-08-01 | U.S. Design Patent D994,144 Issued |
| 2025-03-06 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-05-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D994,144 - "Concrete Barrier"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts a need at construction sites for a barrier to protect utility lines that is not only robustly functional but also possesses an "attractive design" that is visually appealing and can be customized (Compl. ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The ’144 Patent protects the specific ornamental design for a concrete barrier, not its functional aspects (Compl. ¶1, 12). The design is defined by the visual characteristics shown in the patent's figures, which depict an L-shaped article composed of two rectangular panels joined at a corner, with three prominent U-shaped loops on its top surface (’144 Patent, FIGS. 1-6). The patent notes that environmental elements, such as a post shown in broken lines, are not part of the claimed design (’144 Patent, col. 2:65-68).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product embodying the patented design has achieved high commercial success specifically because of its "unique design and the aesthetic it creates" (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the '144 Patent is for "the ornamental design for a concrete barrier, as shown and described" (’144 Patent, col. 2:57-59).
- The essential ornamental features of the design, as depicted in the solid lines of the patent figures, include:
- The overall L-shaped configuration of the article.
- The specific shape, number (three), and placement of the U-shaped lifting loops on the top surface.
- The proportions and surface appearance of the two adjoined panels.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Design" refers to concrete barriers allegedly made, used, offered for sale, sold, or imported by Defendant J&M Underground Engineering Corp. (Compl. ¶15-16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Design is a concrete barrier that directly competes with Plaintiff's "Utility Blox™" product (Compl. ¶19). A photograph provided in the complaint shows a blue, L-shaped concrete block with lifting loops on its top surface (Compl., p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that the copying is "so complete that their design has the exact same dimensions as KC Coastal's Utility Blox™" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a photo of Plaintiff's own product being used at a construction site in Florida, suggesting the market context for both products (Compl., p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint bases its infringement allegation on the "ordinary observer" test, asserting that the Accused Design is "substantially similar to the design protected by the 144 Patent" (Compl. ¶17). To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison between the patent figures and photographs of the accused product (Compl., p. 7).
- D994,144 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Single Design Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a concrete barrier, as shown and described. | The Accused Design allegedly embodies an ornamental appearance that is substantially similar to the patented design, including its overall L-shape, panel configuration, and the placement and style of its top-surface lifting loops. | ¶17, p. 7 | col. 2:57-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The analysis will depend entirely on a visual comparison of the two designs as a whole.
- Technical Questions: The court's analysis will likely focus on comparing the holistic appearance of the designs rather than dissecting individual features. Key questions may include: Are the proportions of the L-shape, the curvature and thickness of the lifting loops, and the overall visual impression of the accused product and the patented design substantially the same? The complaint's allegation that the products have the "exact same dimensions" (Compl. ¶15), if proven, may be significant evidence supporting a finding of similarity.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is defined by the drawings, and formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the identification of the article of manufacture can provide context.
- The Term: "Concrete Barrier"
- Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the patent's title and claim, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied ('144 Patent, Title; Claim). Practitioners may focus on this term because it anchors the scope of the patent to a specific field of use. This is critical for determining the relevant prior art for any potential invalidity defense, which would consist of other concrete barrier designs, not designs for unrelated articles like furniture or architectural elements.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define the term, which could support using its plain and ordinary meaning within the relevant industry.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures themselves provide the definition of the specific type of "Concrete Barrier" to which the design applies: a corner-shaped, sectional block seemingly intended for temporary placement, as suggested by the lifting loops (’144 Patent, FIG. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by causing their "suppliers, subcontractors, customers, and other third parties" to make, use, or sell products covered by the ’144 Patent (Compl. ¶25).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on allegations that Defendants had actual notice of the ’144 Patent and their infringement as of their receipt of a letter from Plaintiff on March 6, 2025, and subsequently refused to cease their infringing activities (Compl. ¶19, 26-27, 29). The complaint further alleges that Defendants made false statements to customers about the patent's validity, which may also be presented as evidence of willfulness (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser gives, find the overall ornamental design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '144 Patent? The side-by-side photographic evidence presented in the complaint will be central to this factual determination.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of originality and prior art: assuming the case proceeds, the dispositive issue may become the validity of the '144 Patent. The case could turn on whether Defendants can produce prior art designs for concrete barriers that are sufficiently similar to the patented design to render it obvious to a designer of ordinary skill.
- A final question will concern remedies: if infringement is found, the extent of damages will be a major focus, particularly the availability of Defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. The pre-suit notice provides a clear basis for Plaintiff to argue for enhanced damages due to alleged willful infringement.