DCT

2:17-cv-06134

Juka Innovations Corp v. Jobar Intl Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Juka Innovations Corporation v. Jobar International, Inc., et al., 2:17-cv-06134, E.D.N.Y., 10/20/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants transact business in the district and have committed the alleged acts of infringement and unfair competition within the district by selling or offering to sell the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sink and tub drain strainers infringe its design patent for a "Tub Drain Hair Collector."
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to consumer plumbing accessories, specifically devices placed in drains to capture hair and debris to prevent clogs.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the product design originated from a successful 2015 Kickstarter campaign that significantly exceeded its funding goal. It also alleges that Plaintiff has successfully enforced its intellectual property rights against numerous other third parties through over one thousand takedown notices and cease and desist letters, suggesting an established pattern of IP enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-09-28 Plaintiff's predecessors launch Kickstarter campaign for the product design.
2016-01-07 Priority date for U.S. Patent No. D785,767 based on parent application filing.
2017-05-02 U.S. Patent No. D785,767 issues.
2017-06-12 Plaintiff's agents conduct "test buy" of accused product from Defendant Support Plus Holdings, Inc.
2017-08-29 Plaintiff's agents conduct "test buys" of accused products from Defendants Dream Products Inc. and PulseTV.
2017-10-20 Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D785,767 - "Tub Drain Hair Collector"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D785,767, "Tub Drain Hair Collector", issued May 2, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: While not explicitly stated in the patent, the context of the complaint and the product’s name imply the invention addresses the common household problem of hair and debris clogging bathtub and sink drains (Compl. ¶38).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a tub drain hair collector. The design consists of a mushroom-like shape featuring a wide, flat top cap with several apertures, a central cylindrical body with multiple rows of perforations, and a bottom flange with notched feet meant to stabilize the device in a drain opening ('767 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The claim protects the purely aesthetic and non-functional aspects of this configuration ('767 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the design was met with high market demand, as evidenced by a Kickstarter campaign that raised nearly five times its initial goal and generated over $200,000 in pre-orders, suggesting the design's commercial appeal (Compl. ¶30-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • As a design patent, the '767 Patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a tub drain hair collector, as shown and described."
  • The protected design is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's eight figures, which include:
    • A generally cylindrical body with a wider top cap and a flanged base.
    • A specific pattern of perforations on the cylindrical body.
    • A specific pattern of apertures on the top cap.
    • The overall proportions and configuration of these elements.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "Softee Sink Strainers" and "Softee Tub Strainers" (collectively, "Infringing Strainers"), allegedly manufactured by Defendant Jobar International, Inc. and sold by the other named Defendants (Compl. ¶38, 53-58).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are drain strainers marketed to "Trap[] hair + debris" and prevent "No more clogged drains" (Compl. ¶38). An image of the accused products' packaging is provided in the complaint, showing two strainers per package. The complaint alleges that Jobar is a "large multinational company" and that the products are sold through various online retailers, including dreamproducts.com, supportplus.com, and pulsetv.com (Compl. ¶37, 53, 55, 57).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the '767 Patent because their overall ornamental design is "substantially the same" as the patented design, such that an "ordinary observer" would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one (Compl. ¶39-40). To support this, the complaint provides a multi-page visual comparison. For example, a provided image shows the packaging for the accused "Softee Sink Strainers" and "Softee Tub Strainers" (Compl. ¶38). A more detailed, side-by-side visual analysis in "Table 1" compares figures from the '767 Patent with photographs of the accused products from multiple perspectives (Compl. ¶41).

Design Feature (from '767 Patent Figures) Alleged Substantially Similar Feature in Accused Product Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a tub drain hair collector as shown and described. The complaint alleges the accused "Softee" strainers have an overall appearance that is substantially the same as the patented design. ¶39, ¶40 Figs. 1-8
A flat, circular top cap with a pattern of central apertures. The complaint's photographic evidence in Table 1 shows the accused products featuring a nearly identical top cap and aperture pattern. ¶41 Figs. 1, 3
A hollow, cylindrical body with multiple rows of circular or oblong perforations. The accused products are alleged to possess a cylindrical body with rows of perforations that create the same overall visual impression as the patented design. ¶41 Figs. 5-8
A bottom flange with notched features at the base of the cylinder. The photographic evidence alleges the accused products incorporate a visually similar bottom flange with notched feet. ¶41 Figs. 2, 4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The core legal question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would find the overall ornamental design of the accused products to be substantially similar to the design claimed in the '767 Patent.
    • Technical Questions: A potential issue is the application of the functionality doctrine. The defense may argue that key similarities (e.g., the cylindrical shape fitting a drain, the presence of holes to allow water flow) are dictated by function and cannot be part of the protected ornamental design. The court would then have to determine which aspects of the design are ornamental versus purely functional.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As this case involves a design patent, the claim consists of the drawings themselves, and formal construction of specific textual terms is not typically a central issue. The analysis will instead focus on a visual comparison of the claimed design with the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by all Defendants for making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the accused strainers (Compl. ¶61). While it alleges that Defendant Jobar sells through third-party resellers (Compl. ¶43), it does not plead the specific elements of knowledge and intent required for indirect infringement under § 271(b) or (c).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly alleges that "JOBAR intended to copy the Design covered by the JUKA Patent" (Compl. ¶42). This allegation of intentional copying forms the basis for the request for enhanced damages up to three times the amount found, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and for a determination that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p.22, ¶11, 16).

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

  • A central question for the court will be one of visual similarity: in the eye of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "Softee" strainers substantially the same as the design claimed in the '767 Patent, or are any visual differences sufficient to avoid infringement?
  • The case may also turn on the scope of design protection: to what extent are the shared visual elements between the patented design and the accused products (e.g., the general shape, the perforations) dictated by their utilitarian function, and therefore ineligible for design patent protection?
  • A key factual question for damages will be intent: does the evidence support the complaint’s allegation that the defendant intentionally copied the patented design, which could form the basis for a finding of willful infringement and lead to enhanced damages?