DCT
4:25-cv-00111
Dynamite Marketing Inc v. Magnet Group
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dynamite Marketing, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: THE MAGNET GROUP (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC; McGeary Cukor LLC
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00111, E.D. Mo., 01/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a Missouri corporation and is therefore a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s credit-card-shaped multi-tool infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "Wallet Ninja" product.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the market for compact, portable multi-tools, specifically those designed to fit within a wallet like a credit card.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff previously litigated the patent-in-suit against a third party, Sherman Specialty, Inc., resulting in a 2023 jury verdict in the Eastern District of New York finding the patent valid and willfully infringed. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant, who responded on or around April 28, 2023, establishing a date of alleged actual knowledge.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-02-26 | Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D751,877 ('877 Patent) |
| 2016-03-22 | '877 Patent Issued |
| 2023 | Jury finds '877 Patent valid and willfully infringed in prior case |
| 2023-04-28 | Defendant responds to Plaintiff's cease-and-desist letter |
| 2025-01-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D751,877, titled "WALLET CARD MULTI TOOL", issued on March 22, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the inventor sought to create a "unique, novel and distinct design of a credit card sized 18-part tool" (Compl. ¶8, ¶11). In the context of design patents, the "problem" is one of aesthetics—creating a new, original, and ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design of a flat multi-tool. The claimed design, depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a generally rectangular, credit-card-sized body with a specific combination and arrangement of cutouts and edge contours that form various tools ('877 Patent, Figs. 1-4). The patent's description explicitly disclaims matter shown in broken lines, limiting the protected design to the solid-line features ('877 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial embodiment of the patented design, the "WALLET NINJA," became a "number one selling flat multi tool on Amazon and Groupon" and a "highly desirable product in the promotional products market" (Compl. ¶21, ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a wallet card multi tool, as shown and described" ('877 Patent, CLAIM).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the tool as depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1 through 4 of the patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "credit card sized multi tool" (Compl. ¶44).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant sells a "knock off version" of Plaintiff's product that is "identical, or nearly identical" in appearance (Compl. ¶33). An image included in the complaint shows the accused product, a flat multi-tool with various integrated tools such as a bottle opener, screwdrivers, and wrench cutouts (Compl. ¶34). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's product is sold at a significantly lower price point, causing customer confusion as to the source of the goods (Compl. ¶35, ¶39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused product's design is "substantially the same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶45). The complaint provides an image from the patent (Compl. ¶17) and multiple images of the accused product (Compl. ¶34, ¶44), inviting a direct visual comparison.
’877 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from '877 Patent, as shown in the Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall rectangular, credit-card-like profile with specific corner treatments, including a hooked "can opener" feature. | The complaint alleges the accused tool utilizes the "overall look and feel" and "patented design" of Plaintiff's product, which embodies these features. The provided image shows a tool with a similar profile and corner features. | ¶33, ¶44, ¶45 | '877 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A linear arrangement of hexagonal cutouts of varying sizes along one of the long edges of the tool. | The image of the accused tool shows a similar linear series of hexagonal cutouts along one long edge. | ¶44 | '877 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A curved cutout on a short edge functioning as a bottle opener. | The accused product is shown to have a similarly shaped and placed bottle opener cutout. | ¶44 | '877 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A slender, curved cutout on a long edge identified as a "letter opener." | The accused tool appears to incorporate a slender, curved cutout in the same location. | ¶44 | '877 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| An interior, generally hourglass-shaped cutout intended for use as a cell phone stand. | The provided image of the accused product does not clearly show this interior feature, raising a potential point of distinction for the ordinary observer analysis. | ¶34, ¶44 | '877 Patent, Fig. 1 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question is whether the overall visual impression of the accused product is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '877 Patent. The analysis will focus on the similarities in the shape, placement, and configuration of the various tool cutouts.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the differences between the accused product and the patented design—such as potential variations in the interior cutouts or other minor details—are significant enough to defeat a claim of infringement in the eye of an ordinary observer. The complaint itself notes Defendant's tools may have "a few minor changes" (Compl. ¶77), the materiality of which will be a central issue.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, there are typically no "terms" to construe in the manner of utility patents. Instead, the focus is on the scope of the design as a whole, as defined by the patent's drawings.
- The "Term": The scope of "the ornamental design... as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The scope of protection is dictated by the solid lines in the patent's figures. The patent explicitly states that "The broken lines shown in the drawings... form no part of the claimed design" ('877 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This disclaimer is critical, as it limits the protected design to the specific visual elements shown in solid lines, excluding, for example, the "triple ring setting."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of features, and that minor variations in individual elements do not escape infringement so long as the overall appearance is substantially similar.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim is strictly limited to the exact shapes, proportions, and arrangements depicted in the solid lines of the figures. The patent's own express disclaimer of the broken-line elements could be used to support an argument that the protected design is precisely what is shown, and nothing more.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, based on Defendant's alleged "encouraging and promoting the use and/or sale by others of the infringing tool on various websites" (Compl. ¶49). It further alleges Defendant sells to consumers and resellers with the intent that they will use or resell the products in a manner that infringes the '877 Patent (Compl. ¶51).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on several allegations: Defendant's alleged "substantial copying of the claimed design" (Compl. ¶47); Defendant's alleged awareness of the "fame of the WALLET NINJA product" (Compl. ¶47, ¶52); and Defendant's actual knowledge of the '877 Patent as of its response to a cease-and-desist letter on approximately April 28, 2023 (Compl. ¶50). Plaintiff's successful prior enforcement of the patent against another party may also be used to argue that Defendant's infringement was objectively reckless (Compl. ¶32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, be deceived into thinking Defendant's multi-tool is the same as the patented design, or are the visual differences between the products sufficient to distinguish them?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of intent and damages: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant's alleged infringement was willful, particularly after receiving notice of the patent? The outcome of the prior litigation finding the patent valid and willfully infringed may significantly influence this analysis and the potential for enhanced damages.