DCT

1:25-cv-05469

D Squared Plant Traps LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05469, N.D. Ill., 09/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendant operates a commercial e-commerce store that directly targets and sells products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online sales of railing planter products infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a display bracket.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the vertical gardening and home goods sector, where the ornamental design of products like railing planters is a significant factor in consumer purchasing decisions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, patent office proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-03-07 U.S. Patent No. D1,003,076 Priority Date
2023-03-07 U.S. Patent No. D1,005,008 Priority Date
2023 Plaintiff launched RAILSCAPES branded products
2023-10-31 U.S. Patent No. D1,003,076 Issued
2023-11-21 U.S. Patent No. D1,005,008 Issued
2025-09-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,003,076 - "DISPLAY BRACKET" (Issued Oct. 31, 2023)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges the inventor identified a "demand in the marketplace for more planting space and simple railing planters" (Compl. ¶5). Design patents do not contain a written background section detailing a technical problem; their purpose is to protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a "display bracket" as depicted in its figures (D’076 Patent, Title; Figs. 1-8). The design consists of a wire-form bracket featuring a hook-like structure at the top for mounting and a generally circular lower portion containing a V-shaped support element, intended to hold an object like a planter (D’076 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that products incorporating the patented designs have become "enormously popular and even iconic" and are "instantly recognizable" to the public (Compl. ¶4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a display bracket, as shown and described" (D’076 Patent, Claim).
  • Unlike utility patents, design patent claims are not broken down into discrete elements but are defined by the overall visual appearance shown in the patent's drawings.

U.S. Patent No. D1,005,008 - "DISPLAY BRACKET" (Issued Nov. 21, 2023)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’076 Patent, this patent addresses the ornamental, rather than functional, aspects of a product in a market where Plaintiff perceived a demand for unique railing planters (Compl. ¶5).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’008 Patent protects a distinct ornamental design for a "display bracket" that is visually similar to the design in the ’076 Patent (D’008 Patent, Title; Figs. 1-8). A notable difference is the configuration of the rear support structure, which features two vertical bars as opposed to the single bar shown in the ’076 Patent design (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 4; D’008 Patent, Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: The design is part of the "RAILSCAPES Designs" that Plaintiff alleges are known for their "distinctive" and innovative appearance (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a display bracket, as shown and described" (D’008 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "unauthorized and unlicensed counterfeit and infringing products" sold through at least one online store operated by the Defendant (Compl. ¶3). The specific products are described as railing planters that incorporate Plaintiff's patented designs (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Defendant operates an e-commerce store designed to appear as if it sells genuine versions of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶3). These accused products are offered for sale and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges the success of Plaintiff's brands has led to significant infringement and counterfeiting by entities like the Defendant (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes figures from the asserted patents to illustrate the ornamental design that Defendant's products allegedly copy, such as the isometric view in Figure 1 of the D1,003,076 patent (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is presented narratively. The central allegation is that the Defendant is making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing products that infringe the ornamental designs claimed in the ’076 and ’008 patents (Compl. ¶40, ¶41).

The complaint's legal theory for design patent infringement directly follows the "ordinary observer" test. It alleges that "in the eyes of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the ornamental designs of Plaintiff’s design patents and the overall design features of the defendant’s products are substantially the same, if not identical, with a resemblance such as to deceive an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶43). This allegation is made with respect to both asserted patents. To establish the visual scope of the claimed designs, the complaint presents multiple drawing views from each patent, including the distinctive rear view from the D1,005,008 patent which shows a double-bar structure (Compl. p. 5).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Comparison: The dispositive issue for infringement will be a factual comparison of the accused products' designs to the designs claimed in the patents. The question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product thinking it was the patented one.
    • Evidentiary Issues: The complaint does not include photographs of the actual accused products. A potential point of contention may be establishing the precise design of the products sold by the Defendant for comparison against the patented designs.
    • Scope of "Article of Manufacture": For the purposes of calculating damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (disgorgement of total profits), a dispute could arise over the definition of the "article of manufacture" to which the patented design is applied—specifically, whether it is only the bracket itself or the entire planter assembly sold by the Defendant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For design patents, the claim is understood to be the design itself as shown in the figures. Formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, though a court may provide a verbal description of the drawings.

  • The Term: "display bracket"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the title of both patents-in-suit. While the drawings govern the scope of a design claim, the title provides context for the article of manufacture to which the design is applied. Practitioners may focus on this term to frame the context for the "ordinary observer," who would understand the design as being for a bracket used for display.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is for the design "as shown and described," suggesting the primary focus is on the visual elements in the figures, not functional limitations implied by the title (D’076 Patent, Claim).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of "display bracket" in the title and the complaint's focus on "railing planter products" (Compl. ¶4) provides a specific context for the design's application, which could be argued to inform how an ordinary observer would perceive and compare the designs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead counts for indirect patent infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The patent infringement count is based on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶41).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's infringement was willful (Compl. ¶24). It supports this by alleging the Defendant had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the RAILSCAPES...Design" (Compl. ¶22).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: will a finder of fact, applying the "ordinary observer" test, conclude that the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendant's products is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '076 and '008 patents?
  • A key threshold question will be one of evidence and attribution: given the allegations that the Defendant is a foreign entity operating through anonymous online storefronts, can the Plaintiff secure sufficient evidence to prove both the specific design of the accused products and that this particular Defendant was responsible for their sale in the United States?
  • Should infringement be found, a central damages question will be the scope of disgorgement: under 35 U.S.C. § 289, does the "article of manufacture" from which the Defendant's total profits must be disgorged consist solely of the infringing bracket, or does it extend to the entire product (e.g., a planter and bracket combination) sold to consumers?