DCT

3:25-cv-00364

Easepal Enterprises Ltd v. Millennium Outdoors LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00364, S.D. Miss., 05/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper because Defendant Millennium is a resident of Mississippi and has its principal place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff EasePal seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Textilene Seats" do not infringe Defendant Millennium’s two design patents for boat seats, and that those patents are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of portable, folding mesh seats used primarily in recreational boating and fishing, a market where visual appearance can be a significant competitive differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: This action follows prior litigation in the Western District of Wisconsin where Millennium sued Leader Accessories (a distributor of EasePal's products) for infringement of the same patents-in-suit. EasePal notes that it was not named as a party in that prior case, which resulted in a default judgment against Leader Accessories. EasePal also alleges that during the prosecution of its own patent (U.S. Design Patent No. D993,649), the USPTO initially cited Millennium's patents but ultimately withdrew the rejection after argument, suggesting the designs were patentably distinct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-10-21 Millennium allegedly began selling products with similar designs (comfortMAX, L360, M100, T100, etc.)
2013-04-14 Ascend FS12 kayak, alleged prior art, marketed to the public
2013-07-01 Ascend FS128T and Old Town Predator kayaks, alleged prior art, marketed to the public
2014-01-23 Prowler Big Game II kayak, alleged prior art, marketed to the public
2014-07-16 Priority Date for D’046 and D’047 Patents
2015-04-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D727,046
2015-04-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D727,047
2023-02-15 Millennium filed "Prior Litigation" against EasePal's distributor, Leader Accessories
2025-05-19 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D727,046 - "Boat Seat" (Issued: April 21, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem, which is typical for a design patent. The implicit goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for a boat seat.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a boat seat, characterized by a tubular frame, a mesh seat and backrest, and a particular side profile and support structure (D’046 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The design features a generally rectangular seat and back, with the frame members forming a triangular support structure on each side when viewed in profile (D’046 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the basic design of a folding seat restrained by a strap has been known for over 100 years, suggesting the claimed design seeks to provide a specific aesthetic variation within a well-established product category (Compl. ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a boat seat, as shown and described." (D’046 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual impression of the design depicted in the patent’s figures.

U.S. Patent No. D727,047 - "Boat Seat" (Issued: April 21, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the D'046 patent, the implicit goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for a boat seat.
  • The Patented Solution: This patent also claims the ornamental design for a boat seat. While similar to the D’046 patent, this design is distinguished by the use of visible grommets or rivets along the side edges of the backrest and seat to attach the mesh fabric to the frame (D’047 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 6). The side profile and overall structure are otherwise very similar to the D'046 design (D’047 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides an alternative aesthetic to the D'046 patent, focusing on a different method of fabric attachment that contributes to the overall look.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a boat seat, as shown and described." (D’047 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The products at issue are EasePal’s "Portable Textilene Seats" ("Textilene Seats") (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Textilene Seats as commercial embodiments of EasePal’s own U.S. Design Patent No. D993,649 (Compl. ¶11). EasePal alleges it manufactures these seats and sells them in the U.S. through distributors, and that it is a direct competitor to Millennium in the mesh boat seat market (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The complaint argues that the Textilene Seats have "significant ornamental design differences" from Millennium's B100 Seats, which are allegedly associated with the asserted patents (Compl. ¶68).

IV. Analysis of Non-Infringement and Invalidity Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. Instead, it presents a narrative argument for non-infringement and invalidity, supported by visual comparisons.

A. Non-Infringement Allegations

EasePal's primary argument for non-infringement is that its Textilene Seats, which embody its own D'649 patent, are visually distinct from Millennium's patented designs. The complaint alleges that the USPTO, during prosecution of the D'649 patent, considered and ultimately found EasePal's design to be patentably distinct from the asserted D’046 and D’047 patents, which were cited as prior art (Compl. ¶¶23, 30-31). This prosecution history may be presented as evidence that an ordinary observer would not find the designs to be substantially the same. The complaint asserts that the "overall appearances of the design of the D’046 Patent and the corresponding design of the D’649 Patent are not substantially the same," and makes an identical assertion regarding the D'047 Patent (Compl. ¶¶35-38).

B. Invalidity Allegations

EasePal's invalidity argument centers on the assertion that numerous products with similar or "basically the same" designs were publicly known and sold before the July 16, 2014 filing date of the asserted patents. The complaint identifies several specific examples of alleged prior art:

  • Millennium's Own Prior Sales: The complaint alleges that Millennium itself sold products of a "nearly identical design" more than two years before the patents' filing date, including the "comfortMAX seat," "L360 Ladder Stand," and others, dating back to at least October 21, 2012 (Compl. ¶¶43-50). A visual provided in the complaint compares the D'046 patent design to Millennium's T100 seat (Compl. ¶51, Table 1).
  • Third-Party Prior Art: The complaint provides photographic evidence and alleges public marketing dates for several third-party kayak seats that it claims create a "basically the same" visual impression as the patented designs.
    • The complaint displays a side-by-side comparison of the D'046 patent design and the seat from the Prowler Big Game II kayak, allegedly marketed as early as January 23, 2014 (Compl. ¶¶53-55, Table 2).
    • Another visual compares the D'046 patent design to the seat of the Old Town Predator kayak, allegedly marketed as early as July 1, 2013 (Compl. ¶¶63-65, Table 3).
    • The complaint also cites the Ascend FS12 and FS128T kayaks as prior art with similar seat designs (Compl. ¶¶57, 60).

The complaint further lists numerous patent and application references that allegedly "disclose similar designs to the B100 Seats" and predate the asserted patents (Compl. ¶67).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Will the "ordinary observer" test, when applied to the overall designs, find EasePal's Textilene Seats to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the D’046 and D’047 patents, despite the USPTO's apparent finding of patentable distinction during prosecution of EasePal's own patent?
  • Technical Questions: Does the visual evidence of prior art products, such as the seats from the Old Town Predator and Prowler Big Game II kayaks, disclose an overall ornamental design that is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the D'046 and D'047 patents, potentially rendering them invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. For design patents, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations, and disputes typically focus on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the design as a whole, not the construction of specific terms.

VI. Other Allegations

Actual Controversy

The complaint establishes the basis for a declaratory judgment action by citing Millennium's prior lawsuit against EasePal's distributor, Leader Accessories, for infringement of the asserted patents by the same Textilene Seats at issue here (Compl. ¶¶14, 70). EasePal alleges that Millennium intends to include EasePal in any injunctive relief granted in that litigation and has sought discovery from Leader Accessories concerning EasePal, creating a direct and immediate controversy (Compl. ¶¶71, 73).

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

This declaratory judgment action appears to center on two fundamental questions in design patent law:

  1. A core issue will be one of infringement and patentable distinction: Would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, be deceived into purchasing EasePal's Textilene Seat believing it to be Millennium's patented design, especially in light of the USPTO's allowance of EasePal's own design patent over the asserted patents?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of validity: Does the array of alleged prior art—including Millennium's own earlier products and various third-party kayak seats—disclose designs so similar to those claimed in the D’046 and D’047 patents that the patents are rendered invalid as anticipated or obvious?