DCT
1:25-cv-11595
Fot LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fairly Odd Treasures, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: [Redacted] (resides overseas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Flener IP Law, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11595, N.D. Ill., 10/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant targets business activities toward consumers in Illinois through the operation of a fully interactive e-commerce store on the Etsy platform.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s novelty shot glasses infringe a design patent covering the ornamental design for a urinal-shaped shot glass.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of novelty consumer products, specifically drinkware, where distinctive ornamental designs can be a primary driver of market appeal.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-01-06 | U.S. Patent No. D749,364 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2016-02-16 | U.S. Patent No. D749,364 Issued |
| 2025-10-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D749,364 - "SHOT GLASS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D749,364, titled "SHOT GLASS", issued on February 16, 2016 (the "’364 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the specification does not articulate a specific technical problem. The purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The ’364 Patent claims the unique ornamental appearance of a shot glass (’364 Patent, Claim). The design, depicted in seven figures, embodies the visual characteristics of a miniature urinal, featuring a tall, rectangular back section seamlessly integrated with a curved, forward-projecting basin (’364 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The specific contours, proportions, and overall shape shown in the solid-line drawings constitute the protected design.
- Technical Importance: In the novelty goods market, a unique and recognizable aesthetic, such as the one claimed, can serve as a key product differentiator and source of brand identity (Compl. ¶6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a shot glass, as shown and described" (’364 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are novelty shot glasses sold by Defendant through at least one e-commerce store on the Etsy platform operating under a specific "Seller Alias" (Compl. ¶3, ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "novelty shot glasses that hold customer's drink of choice" which are alleged to incorporate Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶5, ¶11).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendant manufactures, imports, offers for sale, and sells these infringing products to consumers in the United States, including within the Northern District of Illinois, via an "interactive e-commerce store" (Compl. ¶2, ¶11). The complaint asserts these are "knockoff products" not authorized by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes a table displaying figures from the asserted patent to illustrate the patented design at issue (Compl. p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is based on the legal standard for design patent infringement, which centers on the "ordinary observer" test. Plaintiff alleges that "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the ornamental design of Plaintiff's design patent and the overall design of Defendant's products are substantially the same, if not identical" (Compl. ¶25).
The core of the infringement allegation is that the resemblance is close enough to deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing the accused product believing it is the Plaintiff's patented product (Compl. ¶25). The complaint asserts direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) through Defendant’s acts of making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the accused products (Compl. ¶23-24).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central dispute will be a factual comparison of the accused product's design and the design claimed in the ’364 Patent. The case will question whether the overall visual impression of the two designs is substantially the same from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Scope Questions: While not raised in the complaint, a potential defense could involve arguing that any similarities relate to functional aspects of a shot glass or that prior art designs limit the scope of the ’364 Patent’s protectable features, thereby making any differences between the designs more significant.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. As a design patent case, the dispute is not expected to center on the construction of specific textual terms but rather on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as depicted in the patent's figures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" upon the patented design (Prayer for Relief ¶A.ii). The factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus exclusively on direct infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶11, ¶18). This allegation is based on the assertion, made "upon information and belief," that the Defendant has had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of URINAL SHOT GLASSES Design, including its exclusive right to use and license such intellectual property" (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, after viewing the prior art, find the design of the accused shot glasses to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’364 Patent, such that the observer would be induced to purchase the accused product supposing it to be the patented one?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: can Plaintiff produce evidence to substantiate its "information and belief" allegation that the Defendant, alleged to be an overseas entity operating under an alias, had actual knowledge of the ’364 Patent, which is a prerequisite for proving the claim of willful infringement?