DCT
2:17-cv-03538
Durst Corp Inc v. Afeel Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Durst Corporation, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Afeel Corporation (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McCarter & English, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-03538, D.N.J., 05/18/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Afeel Corporation offers to sell and sells accused products throughout the United States, including within the district, via its website and through at least five retail locations within ten miles of the Newark courthouse.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Rain Shower Head" products infringe two of its design patents for showerheads.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental appearance of showerheads, a product category within the larger market for bath and plumbing fixtures where aesthetic design is a significant differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The U.S. Design Patent No. D738,991 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Design Patent No. D694,357, indicating a relationship in the protected design concepts. The complaint also alleges that the Plaintiff has marked its patented products, which is a prerequisite for recovering certain past damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-03-09 | Priority Date for '357 and '991 Patents |
| 2013-11-26 | U.S. Design Patent No. D694,357 Issue Date |
| 2015-09-15 | U.S. Design Patent No. D738,991 Issue Date |
| 2017-05-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D694,357 - "Showerhead"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D694,357, "Showerhead," issued November 26, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '357 Patent does not address a functional problem. Instead, it protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture—in this case, a showerhead ('357 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a showerhead, characterized by a thin, flat body with a distinct profile and patterns of nozzles on its face ('357 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The patent's figures depict multiple embodiments of this design concept, including both circular and square-faced showerheads, each presenting a minimalist aesthetic ('357 Patent, FIGS. 1, 29).
- Technical Importance: The patent protects a range of minimalist, thin-profile showerhead designs, reflecting an aesthetic trend in the modern bath fixture market.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a showerhead, as shown and described" ('357 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's drawings. The essential elements of the design include:
- The overall configuration and shape of the showerhead (e.g., circular or square).
- The thin, generally flat profile of the showerhead body.
- The specific arrangement, density, and appearance of the nozzles on the showerhead face.
- The visual impression created by the combination of these features as a whole.
U.S. Design Patent No. D738,991 - "Showerhead"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D738,991, "Showerhead," issued September 15, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent patent, the '991 Patent protects an ornamental design for a showerhead rather than a functional solution ('991 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: As a continuation of the application for the '357 Patent, the '991 Patent protects related ornamental designs for a showerhead ('991 Patent, (63)). The figures illustrate multiple embodiments, including circular and square profiles, that share the thin, minimalist aesthetic of the parent patent but show variations in the nozzle design and pattern ('991 Patent, FIGS. 4, 32).
- Technical Importance: The filing of a continuation patent suggests an effort to protect variations on the original design theme, which may broaden the patentee's portfolio covering a particular aesthetic.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "an ornamental design for a showerhead, as shown and described" ('991 Patent, Claim).
- The key visual elements defining the claim's scope are analogous to those in the '357 Patent, encompassing the showerhead's overall shape, thin profile, and specific nozzle patterns as depicted in the '991 Patent's figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "Rain Shower Head" products sold by Defendant Afeel under its "Huntington Brass" brand, including, but not limited to, model numbers P1427101, P1427129, P1327101, and P1327129 (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 37, 38).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are showerheads offered in both square (e.g., P1427101) and circular (e.g., P1327101) designs (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 47). The complaint alleges these products are sold through Defendant's website and via third-party retailers in New Jersey and across the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 32, 41). The complaint provides visual evidence, including a specification sheet for model P1427101 that shows top-down and side views of the square showerhead, detailing its dimensions and nozzle layout (Compl. ¶44).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products are so similar in appearance to the patented designs that an ordinary observer would be deceived, the legal standard for design patent infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 73).
D694,357 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a showerhead, as shown and described. | The overall visual appearance of the accused square showerheads (e.g., P1427101) and circular showerheads (e.g., P1327101) allegedly creates the same visual impression as the designs depicted in the '357 Patent. The complaint provides a direct visual comparison by juxtaposing a photograph of a purchased accused product with FIG. 39 of the patent. | ¶¶ 52, 53, 62, 63 | Claim 1; as shown in FIGS. 29-35 |
D738,991 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a showerhead, as shown and described. | The overall visual appearance of the accused products allegedly creates the same visual impression as the designs shown in the '991 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the designs are the same. The complaint points to specific images from the '991 Patent as representative of the claimed design. | ¶¶ 55, 56, 72, 73 | Claim 1; as shown in FIGS. 29-35 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The core of the dispute will involve defining the scope of the patented designs in view of the prior art. The complaint invokes the "ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs" standard (Compl. ¶63), raising the question of whether the accused products are substantially the same as the patented designs or if any differences are sufficient to distinguish them in the context of pre-existing showerhead designs.
- Technical Questions: A factual analysis will focus on a detailed visual comparison. This raises the question: do the specific proportions, profile thickness, edge details, and nozzle patterns of the accused products create the same overall visual impression as the patented designs, or are the differences significant enough to be apparent to an ordinary observer?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, claim construction does not focus on textual terms but on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as interpreted through the patent's drawings. The "term" for construction is therefore the design itself.
- The Term: The "ornamental design for a showerhead."
- Context and Importance: The resolution of the case hinges on the visual scope of this "term." The court's interpretation of how broadly the patent's figures protect the underlying design aesthetic—considering both the similarities and differences among the claimed embodiments—will be determinative of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents show multiple embodiments, including both circular and square showerheads with various nozzle patterns ('357 Patent, FIGS. 1, 8, 29, etc.). A party may argue that this demonstrates the protected design is not limited to any single, specific shape or nozzle layout but covers the broader, common aesthetic of a thin, minimalist, flat-faced showerhead.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that each figure depicts a discrete, patentably distinct design. Under this view, the inclusion of many specific embodiments could suggest that protection for any single embodiment is narrow and limited to the precise visual details shown, such as the exact nozzle shape, spacing, and edge curvature.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Afeel induces infringement by supplying the accused showerheads to third parties, such as retailers, with the intent that those parties will subsequently offer for sale and sell the products within the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 65-66, 75-76).
- Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful," it requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees, a remedy often predicated on a finding of willful infringement (Prayer ¶H). The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of the patents and its infringement "at least through the filing of this Complaint," establishing a basis for alleging infringement is willful for any conduct occurring after the complaint was served (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 71).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue for the court will be one of design scope in view of prior art: In the context of other showerhead designs existing before the patents, are the accused Afeel products "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the '357 and '991 patents, or are the visual differences between them significant enough to be distinguished by an ordinary observer?
- A key factual question will be one of visual comparison: Does a detailed comparison of the products' overall shapes, profiles, and nozzle patterns support the allegation that they create the same visual impression as the patented designs, or will the defense be able to highlight differences that create a distinct aesthetic?
- The dispute may also raise a question of design prosecution: How does the parent-continuation relationship between the '357 and '991 patents affect the scope of each design? The court may need to consider whether the patents protect a single, broad design concept or a collection of related but individually narrow designs.