DCT
1:22-cv-03846
Broom Designs LLC v. Newell Brands Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Broom Designs LLC (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Zoro Tools, Inc. (Delaware); Newell Brands, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Irwin IP LLC
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-03846, N.D. Ill., 07/25/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because both Defendants are said to maintain a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “MAXIMIZER™ Push-to-Center Broom” infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a push broom head.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the commercial cleaning tools sector, specifically concerning the visual design of push brooms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed pre-suit history, stating that the inventor submitted the patented design to Defendant Newell via an "Inventor Center" website in 2014, received a rejection, and later discovered Newell marketing the allegedly infringing product. The complaint also references a June 2019 cease-and-desist letter sent to a retailer (The Home Depot) and subsequent communications with Newell's counsel, who allegedly contested infringement and validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-05-03 | U.S. Patent Application No. 29/453,834 Filed |
| 2013-11-05 | U.S. Design Patent No. D693,078 Issued |
| ~Early 2014 | Inventor allegedly submits design to Newell's Inventor Center |
| 2018-06-29 | '078 Patent assigned to Plaintiff Broom Designs LLC |
| 2019-06-05 | Plaintiff's counsel sends cease-and-desist letter to The Home Depot |
| 2019-06-28 | Counsel for Newell subsidiary allegedly contacts Plaintiff's counsel |
| 2022-06-30 | Plaintiff allegedly purchases infringing product from Defendant Zoro |
| 2022-07-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D693,078 - “Push Broom,” Issued November 5, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a functional problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for a push broom (D693,078 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a push broom head as depicted in its six figures (Compl. ¶14). The design is characterized by a wide, shallow V-shape, where the center section is straight and the two side sections are angled outwards and forwards (D693,078 Patent, Fig. 5). The overall proportions, the beveled transition between the top and side surfaces, and the profile view are key elements of the protected design (D693,078 Patent, Figs. 1, 4). The patent explicitly states that the broken lines, which show the handle and bristles, "illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design," limiting the claim to the broom head itself (Compl. ¶13).
- Technical Importance: The design offers a distinct aesthetic for a common utilitarian product, aiming to create a unique visual impression in the marketplace.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a push broom, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶12). In design patent litigation, the figures themselves effectively constitute the claim.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the 24-inch and 36-inch versions of the “MAXIMIZER™ Push-to-Center Broom” marketed by Defendant Newell's subsidiary, Rubbermaid Commercial Products (“RCP”), and sold by distributors including Defendant Zoro (Compl. ¶¶22, 26, 40).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a commercial push broom (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges its design features "angled sides [that] capture more debris per stroke" (Compl. ¶34; Ex. L). The core of the infringement allegation, however, is not this function but the product's ornamental appearance, which is alleged to be "substantially the same from the perspective of an ordinary observer as the design claimed by the '078 Patent" (Compl. ¶28).
- The complaint alleges Newell advertises the product on its RCP website, providing links to distributors such as Amazon, Grainger, Uline, and WebstaurantStore (Compl. ¶¶33, 35). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the product page from Defendant Zoro's online store, listing the product for sale (Compl. ¶40).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement based on the "ordinary observer" test, asserting that the accused broom's design is substantially the same as the patented design. This is supported by a visual comparison included in the complaint.
D693,078 Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (from '078 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Complaint Photographs) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a push broom as shown in the patent's figures. | The overall ornamental design of the 36-Inch MAXIMIZER Broom. The complaint presents a six-panel chart comparing each of the patent's six figure views with corresponding photographs of the accused product. | ¶28; pp. 9-10 | Figs. 1-6 |
| Front perspective view showing a wide, V-shaped broom head with angled end sections and beveled top edges. | A photograph of the accused broom from a front perspective, alleged to show the same overall shape, proportions, and beveled edges. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual of the patent's Figure 1 and a photo of the accused broom. (Compl. p. 9). | ¶28 | Fig. 1 |
| Top view showing the distinct chevron or V-shape of the broom head. | A top-down photograph of the accused broom, alleged to replicate the patented V-shape. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual of the patent's Figure 5 and a photo of the accused broom. (Compl. p. 10). | ¶28 | Fig. 5 |
| Side profile view showing the specific height and angle of the broom head's end. | A side profile photograph of the accused broom, alleged to show a substantially similar profile. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual of the patent's Figure 4 and a photo of the accused broom. (Compl. p. 9). | ¶28 | Fig. 4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute will concern the overall visual similarity between the patented design and the accused product from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. A key question will be how much weight is given to any minor differences versus the overall impression of similarity.
- Technical Questions: A central issue, foreshadowed by the complaint, is the impact of prior art on the analysis. The complaint notes that Newell’s counsel previously cited U.S. Patent No. 8,739,348 as invalidating prior art (Compl. ¶24). The court will have to determine if the '078 patent is valid over the '348 patent and other prior art, and how those prior designs inform the "ordinary observer" test. The complaint presents its own visual comparison to distinguish the patented design from the '348 patent's design (Compl. p. 8).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as depicted in the drawings.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a push broom, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The construction of this "claim" is the entire case. The dispute will center on what visual elements are included in the claimed design and what constitutes the "overall visual impression." Practitioners may focus on the patent's explicit disclaimer regarding broken lines, as it strictly defines the protected design as the broom head alone, excluding the bristles and handle.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the overall "ornamental design," not a specific feature. A party could argue that minor variations in the accused product do not alter the "substantially the same" overall visual impression conveyed by the patent's figures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly states: "The broken lines in the drawings illustrate environmental structure and form no part of the claimed design" (D693,078 Patent, Description; Compl. ¶13). This language unequivocally limits the scope of protection to the solid-line portions of the figures—the broom head—and prevents the patent owner from claiming any part of the handle or bristles.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Newell indirectly infringes by inducing infringement through its subsidiary, RCP, and its distributor partners, such as Zoro (Compl. ¶¶46-47). The basis for inducement appears to be Newell’s alleged control over RCP and its role in advertising and supplying the accused products to third-party sellers (Compl. ¶¶29, 33, 35).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It alleges Newell had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and design because the inventor, Mr. Nordvik, submitted it to Newell’s "Inventor Center" in 2014 and received a rejection (Compl. ¶¶16, 20-21). A screenshot of the rejection notice is included in the complaint (Compl. p. 6). It further alleges post-suit knowledge arising from a June 2019 cease-and-desist letter and subsequent communications with Newell's counsel (Compl. ¶¶23-24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of infringement under the ordinary observer test: Will the trier of fact, when comparing the patented design to the accused MAXIMIZER™ broom in light of the relevant prior art, find their overall ornamental appearances to be substantially the same?
- A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: Does the alleged 2014 submission of the design to Newell's "Inventor Center" and the subsequent 2019 communications constitute pre-suit notice and knowledge sufficient to support a finding of deliberate infringement, potentially leading to enhanced damages?
- The central defense question, as previewed in the complaint, will be validity and scope: Is the '078 patent’s design non-obvious and original in view of prior art like the '348 patent? The answer will define the scope of the patent's protection and heavily influence the infringement analysis.