Potato Ventures LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Potato Ventures LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02312, D. Kan., 06/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Kansas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ salt and pepper shaker products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a condiment shaker.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of household consumer goods, where the ornamental design and visual appearance of a product can be a significant driver of consumer choice and market value.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an enforcement action against numerous, largely unidentified online sellers, described as a "swarm of foreign counterfeiters." This procedural posture suggests a primary goal of obtaining injunctive relief to de-list infringing products from e-commerce platforms. The complaint notes that the patent was assigned from the inventor to the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-02-19	Plaintiff alleges its own product launch on e-commerce platforms
2022-02-16	'816 Patent priority date (filing date)
2024-11-12	'816 Patent issue date
2025-06-10	Complaint filing date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,050,816 - "Condiment shaker", issued November 12, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '816 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. It seeks to protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" ('816 Patent, p. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a condiment shaker. The design features a body with a generally rectangular cross-section and rounded vertical edges, which tapers to a cylindrical neck and a screw-on cap with dispensing holes ('816 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 8). A prominent feature is the vertically-oriented text ("PEPPER" or "SALT") in a stylized font on the front face of the shaker body ('816 Patent, FIG. 2, FIG. 9).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique design claimed in the '816 Patent" is a reason the product is "loved by consumers," suggesting the design's aesthetic appeal is a key element of its market value (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a condiment shaker, as shown and described" ('816 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the patent's drawings. The key ornamental elements depicted are:
  • The overall configuration and proportions of the shaker's body, neck, and cap.
  • The combination of a rectangular body with rounded corners and a cylindrical cap.
  • The specific, vertically-oriented, stylized text on the front face, shown in two embodiments ("PEPPER" and "SALT").
  • The pattern of dispensing holes shown on the top view of the cap.
• The complaint asserts the sole claim of the patent (Compl. ¶28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "salt and pepper shaker products" (the "Infringing Products") sold by Defendants through various online e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants are selling "unauthorized and unlicensed" products that "trade upon Plaintiff's patented design" (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly sold by numerous foreign sellers who operate under multiple aliases to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶¶6, 17). The complaint asserts that the Infringing Products are "the same in all respects relevant to the '816 Patent" and that there is an "extremely high degree of similarity" between them and the patented design (Compl. ¶6). The complaint reproduces representative figures from the '816 patent, such as FIG. 1 and FIG. 8, to illustrate the design that the defendants allegedly infringe (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart in its body, instead referencing an unattached exhibit, "Schedule A-1," which it states "shows each of the accused products compared to the claimed design of the '816 Patent" (Compl. ¶6). The infringement theory is therefore presented narratively.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused salt and pepper shakers are so visually similar to the design claimed in the '816 Patent that they would deceive an ordinary observer. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have "infringed and continue to infringe the sole claim of the '816 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering to sell the Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶28). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The complaint's assertion of an "extremely high degree of similarity" directly tracks this standard (Compl. ¶6).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the specific text ("SALT" or "PEPPER") shown in the patent drawings is a required element of the claimed design. The infringement analysis may hinge on whether an accused shaker with a similar shape but different text, or no text at all, falls within the scope of the claim.
• Evidentiary Questions: The case will depend on the visual evidence comparing the accused products to the patent's drawings. A key question is: what evidence, presumably contained in the unattached Schedule A-1, will be used to demonstrate that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the claimed design, and are there any minor visual differences that a defendant might argue would be apparent to an ordinary observer?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, rather than the definition of specific text-based terms. The central interpretive question often relates to which features in the drawings are ornamental and define the claimed design.

• The Feature: The vertically oriented text ("SALT" / "PEPPER").
• Context and Importance: The determination of whether this text is an integral and required feature of the claimed design will be critical to the scope of the patent. If the text is required, the patent would only cover shakers with that specific text and font. If the text is considered mere surface ornamentation on a broader claimed shape, the patent's scope could be much wider. Practitioners may focus on this feature because the presence, absence, or variation of this text on accused products is a likely point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claims the design "as shown and described" ('816 Patent, CLAIM). The drawings show the text in solid lines, which typically indicates the feature is part of the claimed design. Furthermore, the patent discloses two separate embodiments, one for "PEPPER" (FIG. 1) and one for "SALT" (FIG. 8), which may suggest the specific word is a material part of each embodiment's design.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the core ornamental design is the shaker's unique shape and proportions, and that the text is merely an example of surface ornamentation. However, the patent provides no drawings showing the shaker without text, which may limit the strength of such an argument.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [and] contributing to" infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶A(2)). However, the factual allegations and the single count for infringement focus exclusively on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), alleging Defendants themselves are making, using, and selling the products (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' infringement "is and has been willful" (Compl. ¶23). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be that Defendants are part of a "swarm of foreign counterfeiters" who deliberately copy products and use tactics to evade enforcement, such as operating under multiple aliases and communicating about such tactics on dedicated websites (Compl. ¶¶6, 20). This alleges a business model predicated on copying, which may support a finding of pre-suit willfulness.

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

1. Scope of the Design: A dispositive issue will be the scope of the patented design. Can the claim for the "ornamental design for a condiment shaker, as shown" be interpreted to cover products that replicate the shaker's shape but bear different text or no text at all, or is the specific stylized text an essential feature of the claimed design?
2. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: A core evidentiary question will be one of visual comparison. Assuming Plaintiff produces the comparative evidence referenced in its complaint, are the accused products "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer, or are there visual differences in proportion, font, or other features sufficient to distinguish them?
3. Propriety of Joinder: A key procedural question is whether joining numerous, unidentified e-commerce sellers is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The court will need to assess whether Plaintiff's allegations of coordinated activity and the sale of highly similar products are sufficient to establish that the claims arise from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" involving the "same accused product."