DCT

1:24-cv-08019

Klutchtech Direct v. Shenzhen Starlink Origin Network Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08019, S.D.N.Y., 10/22/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities with no established place of business within the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their cable products do not infringe Defendant's design patent for a "Starlink Cable" and that the patent is invalid due to prior public disclosure.
  • Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of replacement cables for the Starlink satellite internet system, a market segment for consumer electronic accessories.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by "Amazon Infringement Complaints" filed by Defendants on or around October 21, 2024, which led to the delisting of Plaintiffs' products from the e-commerce platform. Plaintiffs allege these complaints were made in bad faith, asserting the patent is invalid based on public disclosures that predate the patent's filing date by more than one year.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-07-04 First alleged prior art disclosure (YouTube tutorial)
2022-10-01 Second alleged prior art disclosure (YouTube tutorial)
2023-12-20 'D806 Patent Filing/Priority Date
2024-10-08 'D806 Patent Issue Date
2024-10-21 Defendants file Amazon Infringement Complaints
2024-10-22 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,045,806 S - "Starlink Cable"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,045,806 S, "Starlink Cable," issued October 8, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the 'D806 Patent does not describe or purport to solve a technical problem; rather, it protects a specific aesthetic and non-functional appearance for an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a cable, specifically the visual characteristics of the two distinct connector ends (Compl. ¶8; ’D806 Patent, Fig. 1). The design is defined by the shapes, contours, and overall configuration of the elements shown in solid lines in the patent's figures. A critical aspect of the claimed design is that the flexible cord portions of the cable are depicted in broken lines, indicating that the cord itself is not part of the protected ornamental design (’D806 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design's importance relates to its use as a replacement cable for the "Starlink Actuated Gen 2" system, indicating a specific consumer market for accessories with this appearance (Compl. ¶12, p. 4 visual).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a starlink cable, as shown and described." (’D806 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the cable connectors as depicted in the solid-line portions of Figures 1-7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Plaintiffs' "starlink cable" products sold under the brand names Klutchtech Direct and STARGEAR-US (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The products are marketed as replacement cables "Compatible with Starlink Actuated Gen 2" (Compl. p. 4, visual). The complaint alleges these products are sold on the Amazon platform, where they compete with Defendants' own storefront, and that Plaintiffs' products have achieved "considerable commercial success over time" (Compl. ¶¶4, 12). A photograph of the STARGEAR-US branded cable is included in the complaint (Compl. p. 4, visual).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s primary argument for non-infringement is a legal one, derivative of its invalidity assertions. It posits that because the 'D806 Patent is allegedly invalid, it cannot be infringed (Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not provide a detailed, feature-by-feature comparison to argue for non-infringement in the alternative. Instead, it presents a side-by-side visual comparison table to support its invalidity argument, which also allows for a visual comparison between the patented design, the accused product, and the alleged prior art (Compl. p. 5, visual). This table shows the patented design figure, images from two YouTube tutorials, and a photograph of the Plaintiffs' cable (Compl. ¶13, p. 5).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central question for infringement will be whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the Plaintiffs' cable believing it to be the patented design. The analysis will depend on the overall visual similarity between the accused product and the claimed design, not on a dissection of minor features.
    • Scope Questions: A key dispute will likely concern the scope of the design patent in light of the alleged prior art. If the prior art is as close as the complaint alleges, the scope of the 'D806 patent's protection may be considered very narrow, limited to only those aspects that distinguish it from the prior art. The question for the court will be whether the Plaintiffs' design is substantially the same as the patented design when viewed in this context.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, "claim construction" involves defining the scope of the design as a whole, rather than construing individual text-based terms.

  • The Term: "the ornamental design for a starlink cable, as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: The entire dispute hinges on the scope of the claimed design. The construction will define what visual features are protected and how similar a competing product must be to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the complaint's central invalidity argument rests on the assertion that the claimed design is nearly identical to what was publicly available in the prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression and aesthetic appeal created by the combination of shapes and contours of the two distinct connectors, viewed as a whole.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent itself provides significant evidence for a narrow interpretation by depicting the cable cords in broken lines. This explicitly disclaims the cable portion from the protected design, limiting the scope to the specific ornamental features of the connector housings alone (’D806 Patent, Description, Fig. 1). Furthermore, the existence of allegedly very similar prior art, if proven, would further narrow the scope of patentable subject matter to only minor differences from those prior art designs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: Willful infringement by the Plaintiffs is not at issue in this declaratory judgment complaint. Instead, the complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in "bad faith" by filing Amazon Infringement Complaints with alleged knowledge that the 'D806 Patent was invalid due to prior public disclosures (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 34). These allegations form the basis for Plaintiffs' claims of tortious interference and a request for attorneys' fees for an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. §285 (Compl. ¶¶31-41; Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

  • A dispositive issue will be one of validity: do the prior art YouTube tutorials from 2022, as alleged in the complaint, publicly disclose an ornamental design that is "identical or substantially identical" to the design claimed in the 'D806 Patent, thereby anticipating or rendering obvious the claim?
  • Should the patent survive the validity challenge, a central question will be one of infringement under the "ordinary observer" test: considering the prior art, would an ordinary observer be deceived into purchasing Plaintiffs’ cable believing it to be the patented design, or are the differences between the accused product and the claimed design, if any, sufficient to avoid infringement?
  • A third key question relates to commercial conduct: did Defendants file their Amazon infringement complaints in bad faith with knowledge of the patent's potential invalidity, which could support Plaintiffs’ claims for tortious interference and a finding that this is an exceptional case?