DCT
1:24-cv-03221
Ye v. Guangzhoushikaermansixinxikejiyouxiangongsi
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jiaxiang Ye (Jurisdiction not specified in complaint)
- Defendant: Guangzhoushikaermansixinxikejiyouxiangongsi a/k/a Marycele Official (P.R. China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Albert Wai-Kit Chan, PLLC
- Case Identification: 7:24-cv-03221, S.D.N.Y., 04/27/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electric warmer lamp products, sold on Amazon, infringe a U.S. design patent for a "Warmer Lamp."
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer home goods, specifically candle warmer lamps, which use a heat source to melt scented candles or wax, releasing fragrance without an open flame.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has granted licenses to other e-commerce stores to sell products under the asserted patent. The front page of the asserted patent indicates it is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-04-10 | '877 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2024-03-12 | '877 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-04-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,017,877 S (“’877 Patent”), “Warmer Lamp,” issued March 12, 2024. (Compl. ¶1; ’877 Patent).
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,017,877 S - "Warmer Lamp"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The implicit problem addressed is the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a warmer lamp that is aesthetically distinct from prior designs in the marketplace. (’877 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a warmer lamp as depicted in its figures. The design features a combination of a flat, rectangular base with a recessed circular area for a candle, a single, slender, J-shaped arm extending vertically from one side of the base, and a downward-facing, frustoconical lampshade with a distinct pleated texture. (’877 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The broken lines showing the power cord and plug indicate that these functional elements do not form part of the claimed ornamental design. (’877 Patent, col. 1:61-65).
- Technical Importance: In the consumer goods market, a unique product design can serve as a key differentiator. The complaint alleges that the patented design has been subject to "substantial and continuous marketing" and is "widely recognized" by consumers. (Compl. ¶5, ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The ’877 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a warmer lamp, as shown and described." (’877 Patent, col. 1:50-51).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies several accused products sold under the "Marycele" brand on Amazon, including the "Marycele-Candle-Electric-Bedroom-Dimmable" warmer lamp. (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are electric lamps designed to be placed on a tabletop, with a base to hold a candle and an overhead lamp to provide heat for melting the candle's wax. (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that Defendant sells these products through multiple, distinct Amazon web store listings. (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement theory centers on the "ordinary observer" test, alleging that the accused product's design is "at least substantially similar, if not virtually identical to the claimed design." (Compl. ¶9-10). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison table showing a figure from the '877 Patent next to a photograph of the accused 'Marycele' product to illustrate their alleged visual similarity (Compl. ¶8).
’877 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Single Design Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a warmer lamp, as shown and described. | The overall visual appearance of Defendant's "Marycele" warmer lamp, which is alleged to be "substantially similar, if not virtually identical" to the patented design, thereby infringing the '877 Patent. | ¶8, ¶10 | col. 1:50-51, Figs. 1-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be a direct visual comparison under the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court is whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused Marycele lamp believing it to be the patented design. The analysis will compare the overall visual impression created by the combination of the base shape, arm curvature, and lampshade style in both the patented design and the accused product. (Compl. ¶8, ¶9).
- Impact of Prior Art: The infringement analysis for a design patent is conducted in light of the prior art. A key question will be how the scope and variety of prior art lamp designs inform the comparison. The '877 patent itself cites numerous previous designs, which may suggest a crowded field where an ordinary observer would be accustomed to distinguishing between designs based on smaller differences. (’877 Patent, (56)).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For a design patent, the "claim" is understood to be the visual design depicted in the figures. Formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, but the interpretation of the article of manufacture can be a point of contention.
- The Term: "warmer lamp"
- Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent's title and claim defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines the universe of prior art that is relevant for the "ordinary observer" test and for any potential invalidity arguments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The title "Warmer Lamp" is general and does not, on its face, limit the article to a specific type of warming (e.g., candle vs. wax melt). (’877 Patent, (54)). This could suggest the design's scope encompasses a broader category of heating lamps.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict a base with a recessed circular platform sized to accommodate a standard jar candle, which could be argued to implicitly limit the article of manufacture to a "candle warmer lamp." (’877 Patent, Fig. 1, 7). The complaint itself refers to the accused products as "Candle-Electric" warmers, suggesting this narrower context is central to the dispute. (Compl. ¶15).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint includes a general allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing activity. (Compl. ¶14). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendant instructed third parties on how to infringe or sold a component with knowledge that it was especially made for use in an infringing manner.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant acted "knowingly and willfully." (Compl. ¶12). It does not provide a factual basis for this allegation, such as referencing a pre-suit notice letter sent to the Defendant or other circumstances demonstrating knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental impression of the accused Marycele lamp substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '877 patent, or are there sufficient visual differences in the base, arm, or lampshade to distinguish them in the eyes of a typical purchaser?
- A second determinative question will relate to the influence of the prior art: how crowded is the design space for warmer lamps? The answer will dictate the level of similarity required for a finding of infringement, as minor differences between designs can be patentably distinct in a crowded field.
- A final evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to support its allegations of willful infringement? The complaint currently lacks specific factual assertions that would elevate the infringement claim beyond recklessness.