DCT
1:24-cv-03221
Ye v. Guangzhoushikaermansixinxikejiyouxiangongsi
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jiaxiang Ye (Individual)
- Defendant: Guangzhoushikaermansixinxikejiyouxiangongsi a/k/a Marycele Official (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Albert Wai-Kit Chan, PLLC
- Case Identification: 7:24-cv-03221, S.D.N.Y., 08/24/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s candle warmer lamps sold on e-commerce platforms infringe two U.S. design patents covering ornamental designs for such lamps.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of electric candle warmer lamps, a product category within the home fragrance and decorative lighting market.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint, filed to amend the original complaint against the Defendant. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or licensing history between the parties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-04-10 | '877 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2023-05-10 | '438 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2023-08-29 | '438 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-03-12 | '877 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-08-24 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,017,877 S - "Warmer Lamp," issued March 12, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve functional problems; they protect new, original, and ornamental designs for an article of manufacture. The filing of the patent application suggests a perceived need for a new aesthetic for a warmer lamp. (’877 Patent, p. 3, "CLAIM").
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "warmer lamp." Key visual features include a rectangular base with a circular recess for a candle, a slender, J-shaped gooseneck arm extending from one end of the base, and a downward-facing, frustoconical, pleated lampshade suspended from the arm. (’877 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The power cord and plug are shown in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the claimed design. (’877 Patent, p. 3, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The design represents a specific aesthetic choice combining minimalist geometry (the rectangular base and slender arm) with a more traditional element (the pleated shade) for a decorative home appliance. (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a warmer lamp, as shown and described." (’877 Patent, p. 3, "CLAIM"). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the lamp as depicted in the patent's eight figures.
U.S. Design Patent No. D997,438 S - "Table Lamp," issued August 29, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '877 Patent, this patent protects a new, original, and ornamental design, not a functional solution. (’438 Patent, p. 3, "CLAIM").
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "table lamp." Its distinct visual features include an elongated, pill-shaped or racetrack-oval base with a circular recess, a C-shaped curved arm that rises from the base and arches over the candle recess, and a downward-facing, frustoconical, pleated lampshade. (’438 Patent, Figs. 1, 2). The power cord, plug, and inline switch are depicted in broken lines and are not part of the claimed design. (’438 Patent, p. 3, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: This design offers an alternative aesthetic to the '877 Patent, featuring softer, more rounded forms in its base and supporting arm while retaining the pleated shade element. (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a table lamp, as shown and described." (’438 Patent, p. 3, "CLAIM"). The scope of protection is defined by the overall visual appearance illustrated in the patent's seven figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: the "First Infringing Product," which allegedly infringes the ’877 Patent, and the "Second Infringing Product," which allegedly infringes the ’438 Patent. (Compl. ¶3, ¶8). Defendant allegedly sells these products on Amazon and Temu e-commerce platforms. (Compl. ¶2, ¶15, ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are electric candle warmer lamps that use a light source to melt scented wax candles from above, releasing fragrance without an open flame. (Compl. ¶8). The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of a patent drawing and an image of the "First Infringing Product" in use. (Compl. ¶8, p. 3). A similar side-by-side comparison is provided for the "Second Infringing Product." (Compl. ¶8, p. 4). The complaint alleges these products are sold to consumers in the United States and the State of New York. (Compl. ¶1, ¶3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The analysis focuses on the overall similarity of the designs, not on minor differences. (Compl. ¶9).
'877 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a warmer lamp, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that the "First Infringing Product" has an overall visual appearance that is "at least substantially similar, if not virtually identical to" the patented design. The photograph of the accused product shows a lamp with a rectangular wooden base, a slender metallic gooseneck arm, and a downward-facing pleated shade, which the plaintiff alleges is visually confusingly similar to the patented design. | ¶8, ¶10 | '877 Patent, p. 3, "CLAIM"; Figs. 1-8 |
'438 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a table lamp, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that the "Second Infringing Product" has an overall visual appearance that is "at least substantially similar, if not virtually identical to" the patented design. The provided image shows a lamp with a curved C-shaped arm, an oval base, and a pleated shade, which the plaintiff alleges is visually confusingly similar to the patented design. | ¶8, ¶10 | '438 Patent, p. 3, "CLAIM"; Figs. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Overall Visual Impression: The central question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of each accused product is "substantially the same" as the corresponding patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. (Compl. ¶9).
- Significance of Differences: The defense may point to minor differences in proportion, materials, or the precise curvature of certain elements between the accused products and the patent drawings. The court will have to determine whether these differences are sufficient to distinguish the designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer or if they are trivial variations that do not change the overall visual impression.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is typically construed by reference to the figures. The scope of the claim is "the ornamental design for the article, as shown and described." There are no traditional claim terms requiring extensive construction.
- The Term: "warmer lamp" ('877 Patent) and "table lamp" ('438 Patent)
- Context and Importance: While the name of the article provides context, the scope of protection is dictated by the drawings, not the name. A key aspect of construction is identifying what is and is not part of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on the broken lines in the patent figures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is not limited to any particular material, color, or texture, which are not shown in the line drawings. This may support an argument that the design covers lamps made of various materials (e.g., wood, metal, plastic) so long as they embody the claimed shape and configuration.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is strictly limited by the solid lines in the drawings. The patent specifications explicitly state that "The broken lines shown in the drawings are included for the purpose of illustrating portions of the [lamp] that form no part of the claimed design." (’877 Patent, p. 3, DESCRIPTION; ’438 Patent, p. 3, DESCRIPTION). This explicitly disclaims the power cord, plug, and any inline switch from the scope of protection.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of indirect infringement for both patents. (Compl. ¶14, ¶19). However, it does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendant might have induced or contributed to infringement by others, with the primary allegations focusing on Defendant's own direct infringement through making, using, and selling the products.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has acted "knowingly and willfully." (Compl. ¶12). The pleading does not specify whether this allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge (e.g., a cease-and-desist letter) or knowledge gained from the filing of the lawsuit itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
- A core issue will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test: From the perspective of a consumer of decorative lamps, are the accused products' overall ornamental designs substantially the same as the designs depicted in the ’877 and ’438 patents, such that the observer would be deceived?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of visual comparison: Will the trier of fact, upon comparing the accused products to the patent figures, conclude that any differences in proportion, curvature, or specific features are minor and do not alter the overall visual impression, or are they significant enough to avoid infringement?