DCT

2:02-cv-01500

Hartco Eng Inc v. Wang's Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:02-cv-01500, E.D. La., 05/16/2002
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Pep Boys operating retail stores within the district and other defendants advertising and selling the accused products to customers in Louisiana via the internet and catalogues.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' novelty propeller-shaped automobile hitch cover infringes its design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of aftermarket automotive accessories, specifically ornamental covers designed to be inserted into a vehicle's trailer hitch receiver.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a prior business relationship where Defendant Wang purchased the patented product from Plaintiff Hartco for resale. Hartco alleges that during this relationship, Wang threatened to "knock off" the product, was provided with packaging bearing Hartco's patent marking, and secretly filed its own patent application on a confusingly similar design before terminating the relationship and selling its own alleged copy. The complaint also notes a prior consent judgment against Wang in a separate case for copying another company's product design.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-10-15 U.S. Patent No. Des. 401,194 Priority Date (Filing Date)
1998-11-17 U.S. Patent No. Des. 401,194 Issue Date
1998-12-11 Hartco and Wang enter into distribution agreement for hitch cover
1999-06-23 Wang applies for its own patent on a similar hitch cover design
2000-07-11 U.S. Patent Office issues a patent to Wang for its hitch cover design
Late 2000 Wang stops purchasing hitch covers from Hartco
2002-05-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. Des. 401,194 - "Automobile Hitch Cover"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not articulate a technical problem. As a design patent, it addresses the aesthetic challenge of providing a novel and inventive ornamental appearance for a functional item, in this case, a cover for an otherwise utilitarian trailer hitch receiver (Compl. ¶11; ’194 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual design of a three-bladed, marine-style propeller that is affixed to a square tube designed for insertion into a vehicle's hitch receiver (’194 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-5). The scope of the invention is defined entirely by the appearance of the object as depicted in the patent's drawings, which show the propeller from various perspectives (’194 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product embodying the patented design, the "Hartco Hitch Cover," has "met with widespread commercial success" (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for an automobile hitch cover, as shown and described" (’194 Patent, Claim).
  • As a design patent, the claim is not composed of textual elements but rather the visual characteristics of the design as a whole. Key ornamental features depicted in the patent drawings include:
    • The overall aesthetic of a three-bladed boat-style propeller.
    • The specific curvature, twist, and rounded tips of each blade.
    • The central hub from which the blades radiate.
    • The combination of the propeller element with a square mounting tube for insertion into a hitch receiver.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Wang Hitch Cover" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused product is a "copy" of Hartco's patented "Prop-R-HitchCover" (Compl. ¶16). It is described as a novelty hitch cover that bears a "shape, style, and overall appearance which is the same as or confusingly similar to" the product embodying the ’194 Patent (Compl. ¶36). The defendants are alleged to be manufacturing, importing, advertising, and selling this accused product through various channels, including automotive retail chains and online sales (Compl. ¶22, 23, 28).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The infringement analysis centers on the overall visual similarity of the designs.

’194 Patent Infringement Allegations

Key Ornamental Feature of the Patented Design (from Figs. 1-5) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for an automobile hitch cover Defendants are alleged to have infringed by "manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing hitch covers embodying the invention claimed" in the patent. ¶28 Claim
The specific shape, style, and appearance of the design The accused "Wang Hitch Cover" is alleged to be a "copy" of the Hartco product and to bear a "shape, style, and overall appearance which is the same as or confusingly similar to the SSOA [Shape, Style and Overall Appearance] of Hartco Hitch Cover." ¶16, ¶36 Figs. 1-5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely concern the scope of the patented design in light of any prior art. Defendants may argue that the scope of protection is narrow and limited to the precise design shown, and that any visual differences in their product, however minor, are sufficient to avoid infringement.
    • Technical Questions: The central factual question will be a direct visual comparison: is the accused Wang Hitch Cover "substantially the same" as the design shown in the ’194 Patent's figures? The complaint's characterization of the accused product as a "copy" suggests Hartco's position that the designs are identical or nearly so (Compl. ¶16). The existence and significance of any differences will be a core issue for the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is typically understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and formal construction of verbal terms is rare.

  • The Term: "ornamental design for an automobile hitch cover, as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the entirety of the patent's single claim. Unlike utility patents, the focus is not on defining the words but on the visual impression of the drawings. Practitioners may recognize that the case will not center on a Markman hearing to construe claim terms, but rather on a direct comparison of the accused product's appearance to the patent's figures. The legal battle is one of visual comparison, not semantic interpretation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described," which encompasses the overall visual effect rather than any single feature. A party could argue that minor deviations do not change the overall ornamental impression perceived by an ordinary observer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim is limited to what is "shown and described" in the patent's five figures (’194 Patent, Figs. 1-5). A party could argue that any feature of the accused product that is not explicitly depicted in those drawings represents a departure from the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "supplying infringing products to others to use, thereby, including and/or contributing to the infringement" (Compl. ¶28). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin inducement and contributory infringement (Prayer ¶1). The factual basis appears to be the sale of the allegedly infringing hitch covers to retailers and end-users, whose subsequent use would constitute direct infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes specific allegations that may support a finding of willfulness. It alleges that Defendant Wang had a prior business relationship with Hartco, sold the patented product, and was provided with packaging that included Hartco's patent marking, establishing knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further alleges that Wang threatened to "knock off" the product, subsequently developed a "copy," and applied for its own patent on a similar design while still in a contractual relationship with Hartco (Compl. ¶14, 16, 17). These allegations are explicitly tied to the claim that Defendants' acts "have been committed willfully and with knowledge of Hartco's patent rights" (Compl. ¶31).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the accused "Wang Hitch Cover" substantially the same as the design claimed in the '194 patent? The outcome will depend on a direct comparison and the legal significance of any visual differences between the products.
  • A second critical question will concern willfulness and intent: Do the detailed allegations of a prior business relationship, knowledge of the patent via markings, an alleged threat to copy, and the filing of a competing patent application constitute the kind of egregious conduct that would support a finding of willful infringement and lead to enhanced damages?
  • Finally, the case may raise a question of design scope: Defendants may challenge the validity or narrow the scope of the ’194 patent by introducing prior art designs of other hitch covers or propeller-shaped objects, forcing the court to determine what specific ornamental features of the Hartco design are truly novel and protected.