1:23-cv-06644
Stojo Products Inc v. T Schedule A
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stojo Products Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A (various, including People's Republic of China, Thailand, Russia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-06644, N.D. Ill., 08/31/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants do not reside in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of collapsible travel tumblers on various e-commerce platforms infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
- Technical Context: The case involves the market for reusable and portable consumer drinkware, where unique product aesthetics can be a significant market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. The case is filed against a large, unidentified group of foreign defendants, a common strategy for combating online counterfeiting networks.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-04-29 | U.S. D756,705 Patent Priority Date (Filing) |
| 2016-05-24 | U.S. D756,705 Patent Issued |
| 2023-08-31 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D756,705 - Collapsible travel tumbler
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead provides a novel aesthetic design for a particular article of manufacture (D'756,705 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "collapsible travel tumbler" as depicted in its figures (D'756,705 Patent, Claim). Key visual features of the design include a cylindrical, accordion-style body with several circumferential ribs that allow for collapse, a wide, stable base, and a distinct lid assembly featuring a shaped, pivoting tab for sealing the drinking opening (D'756,705 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a specific, recognizable appearance for a collapsible tumbler, which Plaintiff embodies in its own commercial products (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a collapsible travel tumbler, as shown." (D'756,705 Patent, Claim).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"Infringing Products" are identified as collapsible travel tumblers offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Defendants operate a network of "Internet Stores" on platforms including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Alibaba.com, and eBay.com (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9). These stores are alleged to sell the "exact same infringing products" with only minor variations, using similar images, pricing, and sales tactics (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 25). The complaint attaches screenshots of these product offerings as Exhibit 2, which are described as showing offerings that infringe the D'705 Patent's design (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit 3 to demonstrate infringement, but the exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶34). The narrative infringement theory is that the products sold by Defendants are visually identical to the design claimed in the patent. The core of a design patent infringement analysis 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 design.
The complaint alleges that "the product being sold by Defendants incorporates each of the design elements claimed in the '705 Patent" (Compl. ¶34). Visual evidence is central to this allegation. The complaint references "Exemplary screenshots of some of Defendants' infringing offerings on these marketplaces" attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶10). These screenshots from online stores allegedly depict collapsible tumblers that are substantially the same in appearance as the design shown in the D'705 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction is generally not a central issue in design patent litigation where the single claim is directed to the design "as shown" in the drawings. The analysis is typically a visual comparison of the accused product to the patent's figures, rather than a dispute over the meaning of specific words.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "an interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" (Compl. ¶11) and that they "jointly and severally" infringe (Compl. ¶33). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the D'705 Patent (Prayer ¶A.2).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "knowingly and willfully offered for sale, sold, and/or imported" the infringing products without authorization (Compl. ¶29). The complaint further alleges that Defendants use tactics such as operating under fictitious names, creating new accounts to evade enforcement, and using offshore accounts, which may be presented as evidence of an intent to infringe and avoid detection (Compl. ¶¶ 24-28, 30, 39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Visual Infringement: The central question is one of visual comparison: will an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, find that the design of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'705 Patent? The outcome will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the patent's drawings.
- Enforcement and Defendant Identity: A primary practical challenge will be one of enforcement against a diffuse network of foreign online sellers. Key questions include whether Plaintiff can successfully identify the operators behind the online storefronts listed in Schedule A and whether any resulting injunction or damages award can be effectively enforced against entities that allegedly operate through aliases and offshore accounts.
- Concerted Action: The case will likely require Plaintiff to prove its allegation that the numerous, separately-named Defendants are "working in active concert" to sell the same infringing products (Compl. ¶11). Establishing this connection is critical for the complaint's theory of joint liability and for the efficiency of the litigation against a large group of defendants.