Urban Intelligence Inc v. Spring Scaffolding LLC

I. Executive Summary and Conclusion

Based on the provided documents, a standard patent infringement analysis report cannot be generated. The "Second Amended Complaint" (Case 1:23-cv-01789-RPK-PK) is exclusively for trade dress infringement and unfair competition, not patent infringement.

Furthermore, the U.S. Design Patent D958,412 provided for review is not mentioned, referenced, or asserted anywhere in the complaint. As no patent infringement has been alleged, it is impossible to produce the requested analytical report. An analysis of non-existent patent infringement claims would be speculative and contrary to the prompt's requirement to be "grounded in the provided documents."

II. Analysis of Provided Documents

A. The Complaint: Case 1:23-cv-01789-RPK-PK

The complaint explicitly defines its legal basis, which does not include patent infringement.

• Nature of the Action: The complaint states, "This is an action for trade dress infringement arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and unfair competition..." (Compl. ¶1).

• Causes of Action: The two counts asserted are:

  • "Trade Dress Infringement" (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
  • "Common Law Trade Dress Infringement and Unfair Competition"
    (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 54).

• Prayer for Relief: The Plaintiff requests a judgment that "Defendant has infringed the Urban Umbrella Trade Dress" (Compl. Prayer for Relief, ¶A). There is no request for a judgment of patent infringement.

B. The Patent: U.S. Design Patent D958,412

The provided design patent is not a patent-in-suit in this litigation. According to the prompt's own rules for identifying patents-in-suit, a patent must have specific infringement allegations made against it in the complaint body and be mentioned in the prayer for relief. The '412 patent meets none of these criteria.