DCT
3:10-cv-00508
Schroeder & Tremayne Inc v. TV Products USA Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc. (Missouri)
- Defendant: TV Products (USA) Inc. (New York), TV Products LLC (New York), and Menard Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thompson Coburn LLP
- Case Identification: 3:10-cv-00508, S.D. Ill., 07/13/2010
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Menard Inc. maintaining retail stores and selling the accused product within the Southern District of Illinois, and Defendants TV Products (USA) Inc. and TV Products LLC selling the accused product to Menard Inc. for subsequent sale in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ dish drying mat infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's own drying mat product.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of household goods, specifically absorbent mats used for air-drying dishes, a consumer product category where visual appeal can influence purchasing decisions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has marked its own "THE ORIGINAL" brand dish drying mats with the patent number, which may be relevant to claims for damages. The complaint also includes counts for false advertising and state law deceptive trade practices related to Defendants' use of the phrase "Superior Absorbency."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-09-23 | D609,042 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2010-02-02 | D609,042 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-07-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D609,042, "Drying Mat," Issued February 2, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Rather than solving a technical problem, the patent protects the unique visual appearance of the drying mat.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a drying mat. Key visual features depicted in the patent's figures include a generally rectangular shape with rounded corners, a textured top surface pattern, and a distinct border created by stitching, which is explicitly identified as part of the claimed design ('042 Patent, DESCRIPTION; FIG. 1-4). The combination of these elements creates the overall visual impression protected by the patent.
- Technical Importance: In the market for consumer household goods, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a source identifier and a key point of differentiation, contributing to commercial success (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is:
- The ornamental design for a drying mat, as shown and described. ('042 Patent, CLAIM).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is a dish drying mat identified as the "TV Products Mat" (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the TV Products Mat as a dish drying mat that embodies the ornamental design of the ’042 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff alleges that its own patented mats have been commercially successful and that the accused product is a direct competitor (Compl. ¶¶10, 19). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused product, which shows a light-colored, rectangular mat with rounded corners (Compl. ¶14, Exhibit B).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is 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 design of the TV Products Mat infringes by embodying the ornamental design of the ’042 Patent (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison to support its allegation (Compl. ¶14). The table below summarizes the comparison based on this visual evidence.
The complaint includes a side-by-side image comparison of the patented design (Exhibit A) and a photograph of the accused product (Exhibit B) to support its infringement claim (Compl. ¶14).
D609,042 Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature of Claimed Design | Alleged Infringing Feature of TV Products Mat | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a drying mat, as shown. | The overall ornamental design of the TV Products Mat, which is alleged to embody the patented design. | ¶12 | FIG. 1-4 |
| A generally rectangular shape with rounded corners. | The accused mat is depicted as having a generally rectangular shape with rounded corners. | ¶14 (Exhibit B) | FIG. 2 |
| A textured surface pattern. | The accused mat is depicted with a surface that appears to have a uniform texture, though the specific pattern is not clear from the photograph provided. | ¶14 (Exhibit B) | FIG. 2 |
| A border formed by broken-line stitching, which is part of the claimed design. | The photograph of the accused mat shows a distinct border, consistent in appearance with a stitched edge. | ¶14 (Exhibit B) | DESCRIPTION |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused TV Products Mat is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’042 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: The quality of the evidence will be at issue. The complaint's photograph of the accused product (Exhibit B) is taken at an angle and shows the mat in a three-dimensional, slightly curved state, whereas the patent drawings (Exhibit A) are flat, two-dimensional renderings (Compl. ¶14). The court will need to determine if the differences in appearance are due to the nature of the photographic evidence versus actual design differences.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, the "claim" is the visual design as a whole, depicted in the patent's figures. Claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression rather than the definition of specific text.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a drying mat"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on comparing the overall appearance of the accused product to the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on which specific features contribute most significantly to the overall ornamental impression and whether any aspects of the design should be considered primarily functional and thus given less weight in the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the design as a whole, as depicted in multiple views (FIGS. 1-4). A party could argue that infringement occurs if the overall visual gestalt is the same, even if minor details differ.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly states that "The broken line drawing represents stitching, which is part of the claimed design" ('042 Patent, DESCRIPTION). A party could argue that the specific appearance of the stitching and the particular surface texture shown in Figure 2 are critical limitations of the claim, and that any deviation in these features in the accused product is a material difference.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests an injunction against inducing or contributing to infringement, but the complaint body does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement (Prayer ¶2).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "deliberately and willfully infringed the '042 Patent" and requests treble damages and attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶15). The pleading does not state a factual basis for this allegation beyond the assertion that the infringement was deliberate.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two key questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: From the perspective of an ordinary purchaser of kitchen goods, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "TV Products Mat" substantially the same as the design claimed in the '042 Patent, such that a purchaser might be deceived?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of feature-for-feature correspondence: Does the accused product possess the specific combination of features shown in the patent drawings—including the rounded-corner rectangular shape, the particular surface texture, and the stitched border—or are there sufficient differences in these elements to distinguish the two designs in the eye of the ordinary observer?