DCT
1:23-cv-00305
Screenco Systems LLC v. Scott Septic & Portables Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Screenco Systems, LLC (Idaho)
- Defendant: Scott Septic & Portables, Inc. and James Scott (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Overhauser Law Offices, LLC; Constellation Law Group, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00305, S.D. Ind., 02/17/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the corporate Defendant's principal place of business, the individual Defendant's residence, and the commission of alleged infringing acts within the Southern District of Indiana.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a septic receiving station made and used by Defendants infringes the ornamental design protected by Plaintiff's design patent.
- Technical Context: The technology involves industrial equipment for filtering solid debris from liquid wastewater, specifically at septic receiving stations where collection trucks unload.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in November 2016, Plaintiff provided Defendants with a cost estimate for its products which included the notice "Patented Dual Screen Design." Following Defendants' alleged creation and use of a "replica" device, Plaintiff sent a formal cease-and-desist letter in September 2022, which allegedly received no response, leading to this lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-23 | '889 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2016-05-31 | '889 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-11-21 | Plaintiff sends cost estimate with patent notice to Defendants |
| 2022-05-XX | Defendants post video of accused device to social media |
| 2022-09-15 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendants |
| 2022-11-01 | Plaintiff's counsel attempts telephone contact with Defendant Scott |
| 2023-02-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D757,889 - Septic Receiving Station With Screen
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D757,889, issued May 31, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address a technical problem in the manner of utility patents. Instead, they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The complaint provides the functional context, identifying the article as a station for "filtering and removal of trash and debris from wastewater" (Compl. ¶2).
- The Patented Solution: The '889 Patent claims the specific ornamental design of the receiving station as depicted in its seven figures ('889 Patent, Claim 1, Figs. 1-7). Key visual features include the overall composition of a large, open-topped hopper, a V-shaped screen assembly positioned within the hopper, an angled debris chute, and the configuration of the supporting legs and framework ('889 Patent, Figs. 1, 6). The patent protects the unique visual impression created by the combination of these elements.
- Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct appearance for a piece of industrial equipment within the wastewater treatment and disposal industry (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The '889 Patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a septic receiving station with screen, as shown and described" ('889 Patent, Claim 1).
- This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the device depicted in the patent's drawings. Infringement is assessed based on substantial similarity in the eyes of an ordinary observer, not by breaking the design into a list of discrete elements.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- A "replica receiving station" allegedly made by or for, and used by, Defendants in their septic pumping business operations (Compl. ¶¶19, 28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused device is shown in operation in a video, where it is used to screen wastewater that is "simultaneously pumped to the storage tank" (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint alleges the accused station provides significant commercial benefits to Defendants, including increased efficiency and the ability to "run 2 more pumpings a day" (Compl. ¶25). This is supported by alleged public statements made by Defendant James Scott (Compl. ¶¶20, 25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of a design patent, for which the legal test is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the degree of attention a typical purchaser would give, would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent. The complaint presents several side-by-side visual comparisons to support this allegation. The complaint includes a photograph from a video posted by Defendants showing a top-down view of the accused station in operation (Compl. ¶29).
’889 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from '889 Patent, Fig. 6) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Complaint Visuals) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A large, open-topped, generally rectangular hopper | The accused device features a large, open-topped, generally rectangular hopper. | ¶29 | Fig. 6 |
| A V-shaped screen assembly with parallel bars located within the hopper | The accused device contains a V-shaped screen assembly with parallel bars inside its hopper. | ¶29 | Fig. 6 |
| An angled debris chute extending from one side of the hopper | A photograph shows the accused device has an angled debris chute that can be raised to an upright position. | ¶30 | Fig. 1 |
| A perforated discharge plate at one end of the hopper | The accused device is shown with a perforated plate at the end of the hopper opposite the screen assembly. | ¶29 | Fig. 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Overall Visual Impression: The central question for the court will be whether the accused station and the patented design are "substantially the same" from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The analysis will focus on the overall visual effect rather than minor differences in individual features. The complaint alleges that comments from third parties on social media mistook the accused device for a Screenco product, which may be presented as evidence of such similarity (Compl. ¶¶22, 24).
- Scope Questions: The dispute may involve identifying which specific features of the design are ornamental versus purely functional. Any aspects of the design dictated solely by function are not protected by the '889 Patent and cannot be the basis for an infringement finding.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific terms is rare. The "claim" is understood to be the design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a septic receiving station with screen, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire case hinges on the scope of this claimed design and its comparison to the accused product. The primary dispute will not be about the meaning of a word, but about the visual similarity between the patent's figures and the Defendants' device. Practitioners will focus on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the designs as a whole.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described." The various figures show the design from multiple angles (isometric, top, front, back, sides, bottom), defining a complete three-dimensional appearance that is not limited to a single perspective ('889 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects. Any features that are purely functional are not protected. A defendant could argue that similarities between its product and the patented design exist only in functional features, which are not part of the protected "ornamental design."
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was willful, deliberate, and malicious (Compl. ¶41). This allegation is supported by claims that: (1) Defendants received a cost estimate in 2016 that included the notice "Patented Dual Screen Design," providing potential pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶16); (2) Defendant James Scott allegedly admitted in a social media post that the product was a "Screenco" and/or a replica (Compl. ¶¶23, 35); and (3) Defendants continued to use the accused station after receiving a formal cease-and-desist letter on September 15, 2022, which provided actual notice of the specific patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' receiving station "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '889 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them?
- A key evidentiary question will be the impact of alleged admissions: What weight will the court give to Defendant Scott’s alleged public statements on social media that his device was a "Screenco" or a "replica"? These statements may be highly probative for both the infringement analysis and the claim of willfulness.
- A central question for remedy will be quantification of profits: The complaint seeks Defendants' total profits from infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy unique to design patents (Compl. ¶40, Prayer for Relief ¶3). Should infringement be found, a key issue will be establishing the "article of manufacture" to which the design was applied and calculating the total profit attributable to it.