DCT

1:25-cv-23747

XYZ Corp v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-23747, S.D. Fla., 09/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities who purposefully direct infringing sales to consumers within the Southern District of Florida through online e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are infringing its design patent for a multi-function cleaning brush by selling identical or confusingly similar products.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a handheld, multi-function cleaning tool, a product within the competitive consumer household goods market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-08-02 ’198 Patent Priority Date
2023-10-24 ’198 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,002,198 S - "Cleaning Brush"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,002,198 S (“Cleaning Brush”), issued October 24, 2023 (’198 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’198 Patent does not contain a background section describing a specific technical problem to be solved (’198 Patent).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a cleaning brush article of manufacture, as depicted in its figures (’198 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design consists of an elongated body featuring several distinct visual elements: a U-shaped head with an interior ribbed texture at one end; a central recessed area containing a patch of bristles; a circular, key-ring-like loop; and a flat, multi-pronged tool at the opposite end (’198 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The protection extends to the overall visual impression created by this combination of features (’198 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts the value of the design patent by alleging that Defendants trade upon it to sell goods for "substantial profits" (Compl. ¶4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the ’198 Patent, which covers the entire ornamental design as shown in the drawings (Compl. ¶¶42-44; ’198 Patent, Claim).
  • The ornamental design is defined by the visual characteristics of the article shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, including:
    • The overall elongated, slender form factor.
    • A U-shaped head with internal ridges.
    • A rectangular patch of bristles centrally located in a recessed portion of the body.
    • A prominent circular loop element.
    • A flat end with multiple straight prongs.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "exact copies and/or confusingly similar copies" of Plaintiff's patented cleaning brush design, referred to as "Counterfeit Copies" (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants are manufacturing, importing, and selling the accused cleaning brushes through "Internet based e-commerce stores," including on platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶3, ¶9).
  • The complaint asserts that Defendants operate under various seller aliases and target consumers throughout the United States, including in the Southern District of Florida (Compl. ¶9, ¶15). The products are alleged to be "inherently the same" as the patented design, with any potential variations described as "trivial differences" (Compl. ¶57).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of a design patent, for which the legal standard is whether, "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same," such that the observer would be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other (Compl. ¶26, ¶57).

The complaint asserts that Defendants' "Counterfeit Copies" meet this standard. It alleges that the accused products "contain every aspect of the claimed designs" and have an "overall appearance that is confusingly similar" (’198 Patent, Compl. ¶43-44). The core of the infringement allegation is that the resemblance between the accused products and the patented design is "so similar... as to be nearly identical" (Compl. ¶26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may be the extent to which functional elements of the cleaning brush design (e.g., the bristles, the pronged end) are considered part of the protected "ornamental design." The analysis will likely focus on whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the novel ornamental aspects claimed in the ’198 Patent.
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint does not include images or specific descriptions of any accused product. A central question for the litigation will be whether the products actually sold by the numerous, unidentified Defendants are, in fact, "substantially the same" as the patented design, or if they possess differences that an ordinary observer would perceive.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For a design patent, claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, rather than on discrete textual terms. The central "term" is the claim itself.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a cleaning brush, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of this claimed design. The court’s interpretation of the drawings will define the visual elements against which the accused products are compared. The title limits the scope of the patent to the design as applied to a "cleaning brush," which may prevent its assertion against visually similar designs for different articles of manufacture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual appearance and aesthetic impression created by the combination of all features shown in solid lines in Figures 1-8 of the ’198 Patent. The design's protection is not limited to any single feature but resides in the gestalt of the entire visual presentation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects, not its functional features. A party could argue that common, functional elements of a cleaning tool (such as bristles or a handle) should be given less weight in the "ordinary observer" analysis, which should instead focus on the unique and non-functional aesthetic choices reflected in the patent's drawings.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). It focuses on allegations of direct infringement by the Defendants (Compl. ¶45).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is "deliberate and wilful" (Compl. ¶3, ¶23). It specifically alleges that Defendants have had "actual notice" of the ’198 Patent "since at least January 4, 2023" (Compl. ¶50). This date corresponds to the U.S. patent application filing date, not the patent's issue date, which may raise questions regarding the basis for alleging pre-issuance knowledge.

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on two central questions:

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be evidentiary. Can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the products sold by the numerous and disparate online sellers are, in fact, "substantially the same" as the patented design under the ordinary observer test, particularly given that the complaint itself provides no direct visual comparisons?
  • Procedural Viability of Joinder: A key procedural question will be whether the court permits the joinder of a large number of unidentified and allegedly unrelated online sellers in a single action. The complaint argues this is proper (Compl. ¶¶53-60), but a decision to sever the defendants would fundamentally alter the litigation's structure and economics.