DCT
1:26-cv-20039
Tolife Tech Pty Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ToLife Technologies Pty Ltd (Australia) and Moshe Maor
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: ToLife Technologies Pty Ltd v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 1:26-cv-20039, S.D. Fla., 01/05/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the Southern District of Florida on the basis that Defendants conduct substantial business in the district by operating interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in Florida, including Miami-Dade County.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that numerous online e-commerce store operators are selling counterfeit products that infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiffs' "V-COMB" lice comb, as well as infringing the associated V-COMB trademark.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a handheld electronic device for personal grooming and health, a market where product appearance can be a significant driver of consumer choice.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit. It does, however, adopt a procedural posture common in anti-counterfeiting actions by naming a large number of defendants, identified on a sealed schedule, who are alleged to be part of a network of online infringers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-04-22 | D858,877 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-09-03 | D858,877 Patent Issue Date |
| 2026-01-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D858,877 - "LICE COMB"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The ’877 Patent protects the specific visual aesthetic of a lice comb.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for the lice comb as depicted in its seven figures (’877 Patent, Claim, DESCRIPTION). The claimed design features an ergonomic, flashlight-like body that tapers from a wider handle to a narrower neck before flaring into the comb head. Key visual elements include the specific shape of the comb head, a transparent section in the neck of the device, the arrangement of vents on the handle, and the placement of a circular button on the main body (’877 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: In the consumer products sector, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a source identifier and a key differentiator in a crowded marketplace, associating a unique look with a particular brand or level of quality (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is pictorial in nature. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a lice comb, as shown." (’877 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings. Infringement is assessed by comparing the patented design to the accused product from the perspective of an "ordinary observer."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "Counterfeit Products" sold through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" on marketplace platforms including Amazon.com, DHgate.com, eBay.com, Shein.com, and Walmart.com (Compl. ¶¶3-4, Schedule A).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiffs' genuine V-COMB products that embody the design patented in the ’877 Patent (Compl. ¶¶3, 5). The complaint asserts that Defendants design their online stores to appear as if they are selling genuine V-COMB products, thereby trading on Plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill (Compl. ¶32). A visual provided in the complaint shows an exemplary accused product, which appears to be a lice comb that mirrors the overall shape and features of the patented design (Compl. p. 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement analysis does not lend itself to a traditional element-by-element claim chart. The table below summarizes Plaintiffs' allegations by mapping the overall patented design, as understood through its prominent visual features, to the accused products. The core allegation is that the accused products create a visual impression that is substantially the same as the patented design.
D858,877 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from "The ornamental design for a lice comb, as shown") | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression created by the combination of ornamental features depicted in the patent drawings. | The accused "Counterfeit Products" are alleged to embody a design that is visually indistinguishable from or a colorable imitation of the patented design, creating a substantially similar overall visual impression. The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison showing Plaintiffs' genuine product next to an "Exemplary Counterfeit Product" to illustrate the alleged visual similarity. | ¶¶54-55; p. 17 | Figs. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central legal and factual question in a design patent case is whether "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other." The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused products meet this standard of similarity when compared to the ’877 Patent's drawings.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the specific products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous defendants listed in Schedule A are, in fact, the same as the "Exemplary Counterfeit Product" shown in the complaint and whether those products are substantially similar to the patented design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the drawings themselves, and traditional claim construction of written terms is rare. However, the title of the patent may be considered to define the scope of the article of manufacture to which the design applies.
- The Term: "lice comb"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the title defines the article of manufacture. The patented design is for a "lice comb," which limits the claim's scope to designs applied to such articles, and not to unrelated products like a hair dryer or a different handheld tool that might share some visual similarities.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for an interpretation beyond the scope of a lice comb.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, "LICE COMB," and its single claim for "the ornamental design for a lice comb," consistently define the article to which the design is applied (’877 Patent, Title, Claim). This language cabins the scope of protection to the specific category of goods identified.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's patent infringement count focuses on allegations of direct infringement, stating that Defendants are "manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing... Counterfeit Products that infringe directly" (Compl. ¶54). The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, but the factual predicate in the body of the complaint is centered on direct infringement by the sellers (Compl. p. 21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have infringed "knowingly and willfully" and that this infringement "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶¶55, 57). This allegation is based on the contention that Defendants used the patented design without authorization from Plaintiffs.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: Under the "ordinary observer" test, are the designs of the various accused products sold by Defendants substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’877 Patent? The outcome will depend on a visual comparison and a determination of whether any differences are significant enough to alter the overall ornamental appearance in the eyes of a typical purchaser.
- A key procedural question will be one of enforcement and proof: In a case with numerous pseudonymous online sellers identified only in a sealed schedule, can Plaintiffs effectively serve and establish liability for each distinct defendant? This will require demonstrating that each entity sold products that infringe the asserted design patent.