DCT

2:17-cv-11808

Hanson v. Tiger Supplies

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-11808, D.N.J., 11/17/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district and have allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ standing and wall-mounted blueprint support racks infringe the ornamental design claimed in a U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns document organizational tools, specifically storage racks for large, rolled documents like blueprints used in the architectural, engineering, and construction industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-23 U.S. Design Patent No. D557,543 application filed
2007-12-18 U.S. Design Patent No. D557,543 issued
2017-11-17 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D557,543 - “Support Rack For Holding Rolled Drawings”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D557,543, “Support Rack For Holding Rolled Drawings,” issued December 18, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific problem, as is typical for design patent filings. The context implies a need for an ornamental design for a device that organizes and stores rolled drawings or blueprints (Compl. ¶11).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual, ornamental characteristics of a support rack for holding rolled drawings, as depicted in its figures (’543 Patent, Claim). The design features a frame with two vertical supports connected by cross-members, from which a series of parallel, horizontal prongs or arms extend to hold documents. The patent discloses several embodiments, including floor-standing and wall-mounted versions, with variations in the number and style of the prongs (’543 Patent, Figs. 1-31). The claim is for the overall ornamental appearance of the rack, not its functional aspects (’543 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The patent protects a specific aesthetic design in the market for office and architectural organization tools (Compl. ¶11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a support rack for holding rolled drawings, as shown and described" (’543 Patent, Claim). The scope of the claim is defined by the drawings in the patent. The complaint alleges infringement of the designs shown in Figures 15, 16, 30, and 31, among others (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendants’ "AdirOffice™ Standing Blueprint Storage Rack Model Nos. ADI692-01-BLK and ADI692-01-WHI" and "AdirOffice™ Wall Mount Blueprint Storage Rack Model Nos. ADI692-50-BLK and ADI692-50-WHI" (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are described as blueprint storage racks sold under the AdirOffice™ brand (Compl. ¶14-15). The complaint alleges they are marketed and sold through Defendants' own e-commerce website, a brick-and-mortar showroom, and third-party websites like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶24). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are direct competitors (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts direct infringement under the "ordinary observer" test, which is the standard for design patent infringement (Compl. ¶17, ¶19, ¶21). This test asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.

The core of the infringement allegation is presented through visual comparisons. Table 1 in the complaint juxtaposes patent figures with an image of the accused standing rack. This table presents a side-by-side view of Figure 16 from the ’543 Patent and a photograph of the accused AdirOffice™ Standing Blueprint Storage Rack (Compl. ¶18, p. 5). Similarly, Table 2 compares patent figures with the accused wall-mounted rack. This table shows Figure 30 from the ’543 Patent next to a photograph of the accused AdirOffice™ Wall Mount Blueprint Storage Rack (Compl. ¶20, p. 6).

The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of both the standing and wall-mounted versions of Defendants' blueprint storage racks is "substantially the same as and/or a colorable imitation of the overall appearance of the designs of the '543 Patent" (Compl. ¶17). The plaintiff argues this similarity is sufficient to deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing the accused products thinking they were the patented design (Compl. ¶19, ¶21).

V. Scope of the Claimed Design

In design patent cases, the "claim" is the visual design itself, so analysis focuses on the overall visual impression rather than the construction of individual text terms.

The "Term"

  • "The ornamental design for a support rack for holding rolled drawings, as shown and described" (’543 Patent, Claim).

Context and Importance

  • The central issue will be the scope of the claimed ornamental design and whether the visual appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer. Practitioners may focus on identifying the novel ornamental features of the design and distinguishing them from purely functional elements, as functional aspects are not protected by a design patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent shows multiple embodiments, including standing and wall-mounted versions with different numbers of prongs (e.g., ’543 Patent, Figs. 1-31). A party could argue this demonstrates that the core protected design is the general configuration of vertical supports with extending horizontal arms, regardless of minor variations in mounting or prong count.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that specific details shown in the solid lines of the drawings, such as the shape of the feet on the standing model (e.g., ’543 Patent, Fig. 16) or the specific profile of the support arms, are critical limitations of the claimed design. Any deviation in the accused product from these specific details could be argued to create a different overall visual impression.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The claims for relief focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and 289 (Compl. ¶29).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful, stating that their conduct was undertaken "knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith, and with knowledge of Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶33). It further alleges that Defendants had "knowledge that the design of each infringing blueprint storage rack is substantially the same as the designs of the '543 Patent" (Compl. ¶25).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of visual identity: In the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art blueprint racks, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused AdirOffice™ racks substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’543 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to create a distinct impression?
  2. A related evidentiary question will be the impact of prior art: The scope of a design patent is viewed in the context of the prior art. The degree of similarity required for a finding of infringement will depend on how crowded the field of blueprint rack design was at the time of the invention.
  3. A key question for damages will be the basis for willfulness: What evidence, if any, will demonstrate that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’543 Patent and its applicability to their products, as required to support a finding of willful infringement?