DCT
2:18-cv-02269
Amarr Co v. Chi Overhead Doors LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Amarr Company, d/b/a Entrematic (North Carolina)
- Defendant: C.H.I. Overhead Doors, LLC (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banner & Witcoff, LTD.; Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-02269, C.D. Ill., 10/12/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is an Illinois company that resides within the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Stamped Shaker" line of residential garage doors infringes a design patent covering an ornamental design for a sectional overhead door.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of residential building components, where the ornamental and aesthetic appearance of products like garage doors is a significant factor in consumer choice and market competition.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant was aware of the patent-in-suit prior to developing the accused products and that it "took efforts to copy the design." No prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-02-29 | U.S. Patent No. D590,956 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2009-04-21 | U.S. Patent No. D590,956 Issues |
| 2018-10-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D590,956 - "Sectional overhead Door"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D590,956, "Sectional overhead Door", issued April 21, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In the competitive market for residential garage doors, there is a continuous need for novel ornamental designs to attract consumers. The complaint notes that Plaintiff "creates unique styles and patterns" to protect its "novel designs" (Compl. ¶9).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a sectional garage door. The design, depicted in the patent's figures, features a multi-section door with each section containing a series of vertically-oriented, recessed rectangular panels. The uppermost section features a horizontal row of windows, each with a similar rectangular profile (’956 Patent, Figs. 1-2). The patent specification explicitly disclaims the subject matter shown in broken lines, limiting the claim to the visual elements shown in solid lines ('956 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific "shaker" or "carriage-house" aesthetic, a popular style in the residential door market that contributes to a home's curb appeal (Compl. ¶8-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a sectional overhead door, as shown and described."
- The essential elements of the claim are the visual characteristics depicted in the patent drawings, including:
- The overall configuration of multiple horizontal door sections.
- The arrangement of multiple recessed, vertically-oriented rectangular panels within each section.
- The placement and design of a horizontal row of rectangular windows in the top section.
- The specific visual proportions and relationships between these elements as depicted in the patent's figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant’s "Stamped Shaker" residential doors, specifically model numbers 2550, 2551, 2583, and 2518 (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused products as residential garage doors sold by Defendant, who is a direct competitor of the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶13). The infringement allegation centers on the ornamental appearance of these doors. The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and a photograph of the accused "C.H.I. Stamped Shaker door" to illustrate the alleged similarity (Compl. ¶16). This image shows the accused door featuring multiple horizontal sections, recessed rectangular panels, and an upper row of windows (Compl. ¶16, "C.H.I. Stamped Shaker door").
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the degree of attention a typical purchaser gives, would find the accused design to be substantially the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶20).
D590956 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single design claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a sectional overhead door, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendant's "Stamped Shaker" door is "substantially similar" to the claimed design. A side-by-side photographic comparison is provided as evidence of the visual similarity in the arrangement of sections, recessed panels, and window placement. | ¶16, ¶20 | Figs. 1-2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely center on the scope of the patented design in light of the prior art (which is not detailed in the complaint). The court will have to determine whether the claimed design is a pioneering one or a slight variation in a crowded field, which would inform how similar the accused product must be to infringe.
- Technical Questions: While not a "technical" question in the utility patent sense, a key factual question will be whether the visual differences between the patented design and the accused product are significant enough to be noticed by an ordinary observer. This comparison may involve subtle aspects such as the depth and beveling of the recessed panels and the precise proportions of the window panes.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, the "claim" is understood through the drawings, not claim terms. The analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole.
- The Term: "ornamental design for a sectional overhead door, as shown and described"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this "term" is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings and is the central issue in the case. The infringement analysis depends entirely on comparing the overall visual effect of the accused product to these drawings. Practitioners may focus on which specific features of the drawings constitute the core "ornamental design" and which are merely functional or common in the art.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a broader scope by focusing on the overall visual impression and general arrangement of elements—a multi-section door with vertical recessed panels and a top row of windows—as the core of the design.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a narrower scope by pointing to the patent's express disclaimer: "The broken lines depicting various ornamental and functional elements of the doors and door sections represent environmental elements only and form no part of the claimed design" ('956 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language explicitly limits the protected design to what is shown in solid lines and could be used to emphasize any minor differences between the accused product and the precise proportions and features depicted in those solid lines.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin indirect infringement (Compl. p. 6, Prayer (b)). However, the complaint's single count is for direct infringement, and it does not plead specific factual allegations to support a separate claim for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement. The stated bases are that, on information and belief, Defendant (1) had pre-suit knowledge of the ’956 patent, (2) "took efforts to copy the design," and (3) continued to sell the accused products even after being informed of the infringement (Compl. ¶17, ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the accused "Stamped Shaker" door's design substantially the same as the design claimed in the '956 patent? The outcome will depend on the court's holistic comparison of the two designs, informed by prior art that will likely be introduced by the Defendant.
- A second key question will be one of intent: Has the Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded facts to support its allegation that the Defendant "took efforts to copy the design"? An affirmative finding on this point could substantiate the claim for willful infringement, potentially leading to enhanced damages.
- The case may also turn on a question of design scope: How broad is the scope of protection afforded by the '956 patent? The degree of similarity required for a finding of infringement will be heavily influenced by whether the court views the patented design as a narrow improvement in a crowded field of similar "carriage house" style doors or as a more distinct and broadly protectable design.