2:17-cv-12940
RSR Sales Inc v. Alpine Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: RSR Sales, Inc. d/b/a Echo Valley Products (Michigan)
- Defendant: Alpine Corporation (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BELZER PC; Russell & Stoychoff, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-12940, E.D. Mich., 09/07/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant allegedly selling products that infringe the patent-in-suit within the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s solar-powered garden stake product infringes a design patent for a self-contained solar-powered LED module.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of replaceable, self-powered lighting units used in decorative garden products.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-05-02 | ’348 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-04-07 | ’348 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-09-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D726,348 - "SELF-CONTAINED SOLAR-POWERED SCREW-IN LED MODULE"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D726,348, "SELF-CONTAINED SOLAR-POWERED SCREW-IN LED MODULE," issued April 7, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’348 Patent does not describe a technical problem; its scope is limited to protecting the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture shown in its figures ('348 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an LED module. The design's key visual characteristics, illustrated in the patent's figures, include a cylindrical housing with a threaded lower portion, a translucent dome on top, a top surface featuring what appear to be solar cells, and a specific layout on the bottom surface that includes a recessed on/off switch ('348 Patent, Figs. 1-3).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the accused product is a "direct knock-off," which suggests the commercial value of the specific ornamental design is at issue (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a self-contained solar-powered screw-in LED module, as shown and described" ('348 Patent, Claim).
- The claim's scope is defined by the visual appearance of the module as depicted in the patent's three figures:
- Figure 1: Side view
- Figure 2: Top view
- Figure 3: Bottom view
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "HMF116SLR Solar Old Fashion Style Spinner Stake" is the primary accused product, though the complaint reserves the right to accuse other products (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is an article that embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶8). It provides photographs of the accused product's side and bottom views for comparison against the patented design. The complaint offers a side-by-side visual comparison to support its allegation that the accused product is a "direct knock-off" of the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The test is whether this observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint presents its infringement theory through a direct visual comparison. The complaint provides drawings of the patented design's side and bottom views (Compl. ¶9). The complaint also provides photographs of the accused product's side and bottom views for comparison (Compl. ¶10).
D'726,348 Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature (from '348 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The side profile of the module, including its proportions, cylindrical housing, threaded lower portion, and upper dome. | The side profile of the Accused Product, which the complaint's photograph shows as having a similar overall shape, threaded base, and dome. | ¶10, ¶11 | '348 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| The bottom view of the module, including a circular surface with a rectangular, recessed on/off switch and other small circular and rectangular elements. | The bottom view of the Accused Product, which the complaint's photograph shows as a largely unadorned circular surface with two visible screw heads. | ¶10, ¶11 | '348 Patent, Fig. 3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Questions: The primary point of contention arises from the complaint's own evidence. While the side profiles appear visually similar, the provided photograph of the accused product's bottom view (Compl. ¶10) appears substantially different from the bottom view claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶9; ’348 Patent, Fig. 3). This raises a factual question regarding the complaint's assertion that the Accused Product is "identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶11).
- Legal Questions: The key legal question will be whether an ordinary observer would find the two designs substantially the same, despite the apparent visual differences in their bottom surfaces. The analysis may turn on whether the overall visual impression is dominated by the similar side profile or if the dissimilar bottom view is sufficient to differentiate the designs in the observer's eye.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. Consequently, claim construction of specific terms is generally not a central issue. The dispute will instead focus on the overall visual impression created by the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in Figures 1-3 of the ’348 Patent, and comparing that to the accused product.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement. The sole factual basis provided for this allegation is the assertion that "the Accused product is a direct knock-off of Plaintiff's patented design" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’348 Patent itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of visual comparison: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the accused product's design substantially the same as the patented design, particularly when the visually similar side profile is weighed against the apparently dissimilar bottom view?
A key evidentiary question will be one of factual accuracy: How will the court reconcile the complaint's allegation that the designs are "identical" with the visual evidence provided within the complaint itself, which depicts a clear difference in at least one view?