DCT

0:16-cv-00440

Johnny Rhymes With Connie LLC v. Giftland Works LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:16-cv-00440, D. Minn., 02/22/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant making its products available for purchase in the District of Minnesota through commercial websites and allegedly conducting acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Cell Phone Handle Grip" product infringes a design patent for an elastic mobile device strap and its base, and further alleges unfair competition based on the use of counterfeit packaging.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to adhesive-backed elastic grips for smartphones and other mobile devices, a product category intended to improve one-handed usability and prevent drops.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on February 10, 2016, prior to filing suit, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendant identifying the alleged infringement and providing a copy of the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-05-25 Earliest Priority Date for '695 Patent
2013-04-24 Application Date for '695 Patent
2015-08-04 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D735,695
2016-02-10 Plaintiff sent demand letter to Defendant
2016-02-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D735,695 - "Elastic Finger Strap and Its Base"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D735,695, "Elastic Finger Strap and Its Base," issued August 4, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: While design patents do not contain a formal "background" or "problem" section like utility patents, the patent's title and figures depict a solution for securely holding a mobile electronic device. (D’695 Patent, Title; FIG. 6).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a mobile device grip. The design consists of a base with a distinct hourglass or concave-sided shape, through which a simple elastic band is threaded. ('695 Patent, FIG. 1). The design is shown in context attached to the back of a mobile device and in use by a hand, though the device and hand are depicted in broken lines and are not part of the claimed design. ('695 Patent, FIG. 5, FIG. 6, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that hundreds of thousands of products embodying the patented design are in use, suggesting its commercial relevance in the mobile accessory market. (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The '695 Patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for an elastic finger strap and its base, as shown and described." ('695 Patent, Claim).
  • The key ornamental features defined by the solid lines in the patent figures include:
    • A base piece with two long, inwardly curved (concave) sides and two shorter, slightly outwardly curved (convex) ends.
    • A flat elastic strap that passes through slots at either end of the base.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is identified as the "Cell Phone Handle Grip" or "Giftland Grip." (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused product as a grip for mobile devices sold by Defendant in the United States. (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes "Illustration A," a photograph from a "Giftland product information sheet," which shows the accused product both in a package and in use on a mobile device. (Compl. ¶13). Plaintiff alleges this photograph was created and is owned by Plaintiff and depicts its own product, but is being used by Defendant to market the accused Giftland Grip. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further alleges that Defendant sells counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's licensed "LoveHandle" product, using packaging that mimics the authentic product's trade dress. (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement allegation for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design.

The complaint’s infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison between the patented design and the accused product. The complaint alleges that the Giftland Grip has a design "covered by the '695 Patent." (Compl. ¶13). This allegation is supported visually by "Illustration A," which depicts the accused product. (Compl. ¶13, p. 5). The complaint also includes figures from the '695 Patent itself, inviting a comparison. For instance, Figure 1 of the '695 Patent, showing a top-down view of the claimed design, is presented alongside allegations that the Giftland Grip infringes. (Compl. ¶8, p. 3). The core of the infringement claim is that the overall visual appearance of the accused product in Illustration A is substantially similar to the ornamental design shown in the '695 Patent figures.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into purchasing the Giftland Grip believing it to be the patented design. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the accused product compared to the '695 Patent's drawings.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether the photograph in "Illustration A" is, as alleged, a picture of Plaintiff's own product being used to market Defendant's product. (Compl. ¶14). If proven, this could significantly influence the "ordinary observer" analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is generally focused on the scope of the design as a whole as depicted in the patent's figures, rather than on interpreting specific text-based terms.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for an elastic finger strap and its base, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The scope of this "term" is the entire case. The dispute will center on the visual boundaries of the claimed design and whether the accused product falls within them. Practitioners will focus on which visual elements are protected and which are not.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the overall ornamental design, not a specific utility. The use of simple, unadorned shapes in the drawings could support an interpretation that the patent covers the general visual impression of an hourglass-shaped base with a strap, rather than being limited to exact dimensions or curvatures.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description explicitly states that "The broken lines in the drawings show unclaimed environment only and form no part of the claimed design." ('695 Patent, Description). This language definitively limits the scope of protection to the strap and base assembly itself (as shown in solid lines in FIG. 1-4) and excludes the mobile phone and hand shown in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is "intentional and willful." (Compl. ¶19). The factual basis provided for this allegation is Defendant's continued infringement after being put on notice via a demand letter, which included a copy of the '695 Patent, sent on February 10, 2016. (Compl. ¶20).

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 design of the accused "Giftland Grip" substantially the same as the design claimed in the '695 Patent, such that a purchaser would be deceived?
  • A key evidentiary question will be the role of the marketing materials: the allegation that Defendant used a photograph of Plaintiff's own product to market the accused "Giftland Grip" (Compl. ¶14), if substantiated, may be a powerful factor in the infringement analysis.
  • A parallel legal question concerns the unfair competition claim: independent of the patent infringement outcome, the court will need to decide whether Defendant's alleged use of counterfeit "LoveHandle" packaging, as depicted in "Illustration B" (Compl. ¶18), constitutes passing off or trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act.