DCT

0:24-cv-02062

Miller Mfg Co v. Zhejiang Focus On Imp & Exp Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:24-cv-02062, D. Minn., 05/31/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on a forum selection clause in a July 2023 Settlement Agreement between the parties, and also on the grounds that Defendant offers for sale, ships, and sells products to customers in Minnesota.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s poultry watering device infringes a design patent and that this conduct, along with the sale of other allegedly copied products, violates a prior settlement agreement between the parties.
  • Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of products in the farm, ranch, and pet supply market, where distinct product appearance can serve as a key market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states the parties were involved in a prior lawsuit filed in 2022, which was resolved by a Settlement Agreement in July 2023 wherein Defendant allegedly agreed to cease infringing Plaintiff's intellectual property. This new action alleges a breach of that agreement and new acts of patent, trademark, and copyright infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-12-21 '067 Patent Priority Date
2013-11-05 '067 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-06 Prior Action filed (as referenced in current complaint)
2023-07-XX Parties reached Settlement Agreement
2024-04-28 Alleged importation of infringing "FOT Traps" by Defendant
2024-05-31 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D693,067 - “WATERING DEVICE,” issued November 5, 2013.

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D693,067, “WATERING DEVICE,” issued November 5, 2013. (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '067 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead protects the specific aesthetic and ornamental appearance of the article shown in its figures. ('067 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a watering device. ('067 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of the specific visual appearance of an inverted water reservoir seated within a circular base trough. Key ornamental features illustrated in the figures include the overall configuration and proportions of the cylindrical reservoir with its domed top, a distinct raised handle element on the top surface, and the shape of the circular base. ('067 Patent, Figs. 1-4). Broken lines in the drawings indicate that an electrical cord is not part of the claimed design. ('067 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: In the market for farm and animal supplies, a unique product design can establish a recognizable trade dress and differentiate a product from competitors. (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a watering device, as shown and described." (Compl. ¶71; '067 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict the overall visual impression created by:
    • The combination and arrangement of the reservoir and base.
    • The specific shape of the handle on the reservoir's top.
    • The proportions and contours of the device's components.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "FOT Watering Device," which is included in a "Poultry Starter Kit." (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the FOT Watering Device as a gravity-fed waterer for poultry, consisting of a translucent tank and a red circular base. (Compl. ¶20, p. 15).
  • Plaintiff alleges that this product is offered for sale by at least one retailer, L and M Fleet Supply, and is available for purchase online. (Compl. ¶19).
  • The complaint alleges this product is a "knock-off" of Miller's product and that its design is "identical and/or near identical" to the design protected by the '067 Patent. (Compl. ¶7, 20). The complaint presents a side-by-side comparison of the Miller poultry kit and the FOT poultry kit, both including their respective watering devices, to illustrate the alleged copying. (Compl. ¶22, p. 17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the design of the accused FOT Watering Device is "substantially the same as the patented design of the ’067 Patent" such that "an ordinary observer would be deceived" into believing the products are the same, thereby directly invoking the legal standard for design patent infringement. (Compl. ¶21).

To support this allegation, the complaint provides a visual comparison table that juxtaposes figures from the '067 Patent with photographs of the accused FOT Watering Device. (Compl. ¶20, pp. 15-16). This table presents multiple views, including side, front, and top perspectives, to argue for a substantial similarity in the overall visual appearance. The complaint specifically points to the "handle, body, and bottom portion" of the FOT device as being "the same or substantially the same" as the patented design. (Compl. ¶21). This direct visual evidence forms the core of the infringement allegation.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central issue will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the FOT Watering Device is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '067 Patent, from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison of the two designs. A court will assess the significance of any minor differences in proportion, curvature, or surface finish between the accused product and the patent drawings. The key question is whether any such differences are sufficient to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived into purchasing the accused product thinking it is the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design as shown in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Consequently, claim construction is typically not a central point of dispute. The analysis focuses on a comparison of the accused design to the patent's drawings from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The primary legal question is the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than the definition of any particular term.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While the patent-specific count of the complaint (Count VI) alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶71), the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin acts of contributory and induced infringement. (Prayer for Relief, ¶5). The complaint does not, however, set forth specific factual allegations of knowledge and intent to encourage infringement by third parties, as would be required to sustain a standalone claim for indirect infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the infringement was and continues to be "knowing, intentional, and willful." (Compl. ¶72). This allegation is primarily based on the parties' litigation history, including the Prior Action from 2022 and the subsequent July 2023 Settlement Agreement. (Compl. ¶2, 3, 22). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the '067 Patent and Miller's products prior to the alleged infringement, based on its industry involvement and the prior legal dispute. (Compl. ¶22).

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

  1. Breach of Settlement: A threshold issue is whether Defendant's alleged activities constitute a breach of the July 2023 Settlement Agreement. The interpretation of this agreement and whether the accused conduct falls within its prohibitions may be a primary focus of the case, potentially influencing or overlapping with the separate intellectual property claims.

  2. Design Patent Infringement: The core patent question is one of visual similarity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused FOT Watering Device substantially the same as the design claimed in the '067 patent? The resolution will depend on a direct visual comparison of the products in the context of the relevant prior art.

  3. Willfulness and Egregious Conduct: Given the asserted history of prior litigation and settlement, a key question will be one of intent: Do the facts establish that the alleged infringement was undertaken with deliberate or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s patent rights? The answer will be critical in determining whether the case is "exceptional" and if enhanced damages or attorney's fees are warranted.