DCT

1:23-cv-06644

Stojo Products Inc v. T Schedule A

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Stojo Products Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A
    • Plaintiff: Stojo Products Inc. (New York)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A (various foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: BISHOP DIEHL & LEE, LTD.
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-06644, N.D. Ill., 02/23/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendants are not residents of the United States and therefore may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of collapsible travel tumblers infringe its U.S. design patent for a collapsible travel tumbler.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer drinkware, a market segment where product appearance is a significant driver of consumer choice.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint is part of an enforcement action against a large number of foreign-based e-commerce entities. The complaint alleges that these defendants operate as an interrelated network, using tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, which is a common feature of intellectual property litigation against diffuse online sellers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-04-29 U.S. Design Patent No. **D756,705** Priority Date
2016-05-24 U.S. Design Patent No. D756,705 Issued
2018-04-30 '705 Patent Assigned to Plaintiff
2024-02-23 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D756,705, “COLLAPSIBLE TRAVEL TUMBLER,” issued May 24, 2016. (Compl. ¶3; ’705 Patent, front page).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Unlike utility patents, design patents do not address a functional problem. They protect the novel, non-obvious ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to secure rights to a unique aesthetic that can distinguish a product in the marketplace. (Compl. ¶6).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims "The ornamental design for a collapsible travel tumbler, as shown." (’705 Patent, Claim). The design, depicted in Figures 1-8, features an accordion-style collapsible body with several distinct, telescoping sections, a wide, stable base, and a lid with a prominent, integrated stopper or plug for the drinking spout. (’705 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 5). The overall visual impression is created by the combination of these specific shapes and proportions.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic for a product in the portable and reusable consumer goods space, where visual differentiation is a key competitive factor. (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings.
  • The scope of a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The infringement analysis is a holistic comparison of the patented design's overall visual appearance with that of the accused product, rather than a comparison of discrete claim elements.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "collapsible travel tumbler" products offered for sale and sold by the numerous defendants through online storefronts on platforms including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Alibaba.com, and AliExpress.com. (Compl. ¶¶6, 9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the defendants, though operating under different names, sell the "same infringing products with minor variations" and constitute an "interrelated group of infringers." (Compl. ¶11). These products are allegedly marketed and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois, via interactive e-commerce websites. (Compl. ¶¶8, 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary screenshots of accused products in Exhibit 2 and a claim chart in Exhibit 3, but these exhibits were not included in the provided court filing. (Compl. ¶¶9, 34). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The infringement theory, as described in the complaint, is that the products sold by Defendants are visually indistinguishable from the patented design. The complaint asserts that "the product being sold by Defendants incorporates each of the design elements claimed in the '705 Patent" and that the accused products "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the '705 Patent." (Compl. ¶¶34, 35). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused tumblers is substantially the same as the design shown in the '705 Patent. This analysis will depend entirely on the visual evidence of the accused products when compared to the patent's figures.
  • Impact of "Minor Variations": The complaint acknowledges the accused products may have "minor variations." (Compl. ¶11). A point of contention may be whether these variations are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression, or if the accused products have appropriated the novel ornamental features of the patented design, rendering them confusingly similar to an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents is substantially different from that for utility patents. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a collapsible travel tumbler, as shown."
  • Context and Importance: There are no traditional "terms" to construe. The analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, which is defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings. The title, "collapsible travel tumbler," provides context for the article of manufacture to which the design is applied, but the visual features depicted in the figures are paramount. The dispute will not center on the definition of a word but on the holistic comparison of visual appearances.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The primary evidence is the drawings themselves.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the patent's scope covers minor variations so long as the overall visual impression is maintained, focusing on the novel combination of the accordion body and specific lid structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue the scope is limited to the exact proportions and specific curves shown in Figures 1-8, contending that any deviation creates a distinct design.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants act in concert to "directly and/or indirectly" infringe and seeks to enjoin aiding and abetting. (Compl. ¶¶29, 33; Prayer for Relief ¶A.2). The factual basis for this claim is the allegation that the defendants operate as an "interrelated group" selling the same products. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the "knowing[] and willfully" nature of the defendants' sales. (Compl. ¶29, 30). The complaint suggests this knowledge arises from the defendants' alleged coordinated efforts to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, which may be presented as evidence of an awareness of wrongdoing. (Compl. ¶¶24, 26, 27). The complaint also notes that Plaintiff provides patent notice on its product packaging. (Compl. ¶7).

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

  1. Visual Comparison: The case will fundamentally turn on a question of visual evidence: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused tumblers substantially the same as the design claimed in the '705 Patent? The outcome will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent figures.
  2. Scope of Protection vs. Product Variation: A key issue will be the scope of the patented design. Can the design's protection encompass the "minor variations" allegedly present in the accused products, or are those variations sufficient to create a separately patentable or non-infringing design?
  3. Liability of Diffuse Sellers: A significant practical and legal hurdle will be establishing liability. Can the plaintiff successfully argue that the numerous, foreign-based online sellers constitute an "interrelated group" acting in concert, allowing for collective relief, or will infringement and damages need to be proven against each defendant entity individually?