CamelBak Products LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CamelBak Products, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” (Jurisdiction Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00496, N.D. Ill., 01/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' operation of interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are selling water bottles that infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of sports water bottles, a consumer product category where unique aesthetics serve as a key brand identifier and market differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action against a large group of anonymous online sellers, who are alleged to operate in concert and use tactics to conceal their identities. No prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D732,392, titled “Sports Bottle,” issued on June 23, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamentation rather than function. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, addressing the need for a visually distinct product appearance in the marketplace (Compl. ¶8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a sports bottle body, as depicted in the patent’s figures ('392 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design consists of the visual characteristics of the bottle's main body, featuring two opposing, recessed grip areas with a distinctive, inwardly-curved, and tapered shape. Portions shown in dashed lines, such as the bottle's neck, cap, and bottom surface, are explicitly not part of the claimed design ('392 Patent, Description, col. 2:16-25).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that CamelBak's distinctive designs are "broadly recognized by consumers" and are associated with the quality and innovation expected from the brand (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim of the patent is for "The ornamental design for a sports bottle, as shown and described" ('392 Patent, Claim).
• The essential ornamental elements comprising the claimed design are:
  • A generally cylindrical bottle body.
  • Two opposing, recessed grip areas located on the upper portion of the bottle body.
  • Each recessed grip area having a specific, inwardly-curved, and tapered shape as depicted in the patent's figures.
• As a design patent, there are no dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are water bottles ("Infringing Products") allegedly sold by Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts operating under the "Seller Aliases" identified in the complaint's Schedule A (Compl. ¶¶3, 10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores that are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶15). These stores allegedly share common characteristics, such as similar design templates, payment methods, and marketing tactics, which the complaint posits is evidence that the Defendants are interrelated and the infringing products originate from a common source (Compl. ¶18). The complaint provides a table containing several views of the patented design itself. (Compl. p. 4). However, the complaint refers to an "Exhibit 1" for images of the accused products, which is not included in the filing (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused products embody the ornamental design claimed in the '392 patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The complaint asserts that the products sold by Defendants infringe the '392 patent but does not include visual evidence of the accused products themselves, instead referring to a missing Exhibit 1 (Compl. ¶3). A threshold question for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the products offered for sale by the entities listed on Schedule A are, in fact, the "Infringing Products" and that their design is substantially similar to the patented design.
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for a design patent is 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 one. The analysis must focus only on the claimed ornamental features (the solid lines in the figures) and disregard the unclaimed portions (the dashed lines, such as the bottle cap and neck) ('392 Patent, Description, col. 2:16-25). A potential point of contention could be whether the overall visual impression created by the accused products is substantially the same as that of the claimed design when the unclaimed features are properly excluded from consideration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is typically understood to be the design as depicted in the patent's figures, and formal claim construction of specific terms is uncommon. The central analysis is a visual comparison between the patented design and the accused product from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The complaint does not raise any issues that would suggest a dispute over the meaning of a particular term.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the pleading does not set forth a distinct factual basis for indirect infringement apart from the allegations of direct infringement through making, using, and selling the accused products.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶22). The claim is based on the allegation that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" infringe and are engaging in a coordinated effort to conceal their identities and evade enforcement through the use of multiple aliases and storefronts (Compl. ¶¶17, 21). This suggests the willfulness claim is grounded in the allegedly intentional and evasive nature of the business operation itself, rather than pre-suit notice of the patent.

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

• A primary issue will be evidentiary linkage: Can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to persuade the court that the anonymous online storefronts listed in Schedule A are in fact offering for sale products that embody the accused design? The resolution of this question, likely at a hearing for injunctive relief or default judgment, is a necessary predicate to any substantive infringement analysis.
• The core substantive issue will be one of visual comparison: Assuming the evidentiary burden is met, would an ordinary observer, giving proper attention to the similarities between the two designs, be deceived into purchasing the accused bottle believing it to be the patented CamelBak design? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison focused strictly on the ornamental features claimed in the '392 patent.