DCT

9:25-cv-81603

Chubby Gorilla Inc v. Lerman Container Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 9:25-cv-81603, S.D. Fla., 12/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of Florida and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Diamond Line" of container products infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a cap.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of container and closure technology, where unique ornamental designs can serve as a key product differentiator in a competitive market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history between the parties, including a prior settled lawsuit for design patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement. Plaintiff also alleges it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant prior to filing the current suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-08-27 U.S. Design Patent No. D988,131 Priority Date
2023-06-06 U.S. Design Patent No. D988,131 Issued
2025-12-03 Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letter to Defendant
2025-12-22 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D988,131 - "Cap"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D988,131, titled “Cap,” issued June 6, 2023 (’D131 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’D131 Patent does not articulate a technical problem and solution. Instead, it seeks to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture—in this case, a cap (D’131 Patent, Cover Page).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a cap, as depicted in its numerous figures (D’131 Patent, CLAIM). The design's visual characteristics include a generally cylindrical shape, a flat top surface, and a distinctive textured pattern on the side wall, which varies across multiple disclosed embodiments (D’131 Patent, Figs. 3, 41). The claim’s scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings; portions shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design (D’131 Patent, p. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct visual identity for container closures in the competitive packaging industry, where aesthetic appeal can be a significant factor in consumer choice (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim of the ’D131 Patent is asserted: "The ornamental design for a cap, as shown and described herein." (D’131 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The core ornamental features defining the claimed design, as illustrated in the figures referenced in the complaint, include:
    • A cap with a generally cylindrical side wall.
    • A flat, unadorned top surface.
    • A repeating, raised pattern on the side wall.
    • Specific proportions between the height of the side wall and the diameter of the top surface.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant's "Diamond Line" of products, which include the Child Resistant Tamper Evident (CRTE) Diamond Smooth Side Gloss White, the CRTE Smooth Sided Gloss Black enclosed, the PET Diamond Jars (CRTE), and the PET Diamond Pre-roll Tube (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are containers and caps advertised on Defendant's website, www.ebottles.com (Compl. ¶13). The complaint presents images showing the accused products as caps for both opaque black and clear jars (Compl. p. 4). Plaintiff alleges these products are a "blatant" and "nearly identical copy" of its patented design (Compl. ¶¶12, 27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement allegation for the ’D131 design patent is based on the "Ordinary Observer Test," which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design (Compl. ¶14).

The complaint’s infringement theory relies on side-by-side visual comparisons. One such comparison juxtaposes a photograph of an accused black "Diamond Line" product with Figure 41 of the ’D131 Patent, which shows a top perspective view of one embodiment of the claimed design (Compl. p. 8). Another comparison shows photos of black and white versions of the accused product caps against the same Figure 41, and a photo of the caps on jars against Figure 3, a front view from the patent (Compl. p. 9). The complaint alleges that these comparisons establish that the accused products are "substantially the same as the claimed design" and that the "resemblance is such to deceive such an observer" (Compl. ¶25).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be how the numerous embodiments in the ’D131 Patent affect the overall scope of the claimed design. The infringement analysis may need to consider whether the accused products are compared to the design as a whole or to a specific embodiment shown in the patent.
    • Visual Comparison Questions: The case will turn on the perception of the ordinary observer. The analysis will raise questions such as: Are there any visual differences in the surface texture, proportions, or overall shape between the accused caps and the patented design that would be sufficient to avoid deception? How does the context of the crowded field of container cap designs, if established, impact the level of similarity required to find infringement?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As a design patent, the ’D131 Patent does not contain traditional textual claim terms that require judicial construction. The sole claim covers the "ornamental design for a cap, as shown and described" (D’131 Patent, CLAIM). The scope of protection is therefore defined by the visual appearance of the design as depicted in the solid lines of the patent's drawings. Practitioners may focus not on construing terms, but on determining the overall visual impression of the claimed design and identifying its key points of novelty over any potential prior art.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the ’D131 Patent (Compl. ¶17). This knowledge is predicated on a cease-and-desist letter Plaintiff allegedly sent on December 3, 2025, which identified the patent and the accused products (Compl. ¶17). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's infringement continued with "reckless disregard" of Plaintiff's rights and that the accused products are a "nearly identical copy" of the patented design (Compl. ¶27).

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

  • A central issue will be one of visual perception: applying the Ordinary Observer Test, is the overall ornamental appearance of Defendant's "Diamond Line" cap substantially the same as the design claimed in the 'D131 patent, such that a typical purchaser would be deceived?
  • A second question will relate to the impact of prior art: while not raised in the complaint, the scope of the patented design and the threshold for infringement will be viewed in the context of prior art cap designs. The ultimate comparison may depend on how novel the patented design is within its field.
  • Finally, a key question for damages will be willfulness: does the allegation that Defendant continued selling the accused products after receiving a cease-and-desist letter provide sufficient evidence of the requisite intent to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?