DCT

6:24-cv-06660

Cup Cozy Pillow LLC v. JD E Commerce America Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-06660, W.D.N.Y., 11/14/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct business in the district, are subject to personal jurisdiction, and have engaged in infringing activities causing harm within the district. For the patent claim specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have committed acts of infringement and maintain regular and established places of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ beverage holder pillow products, sold through Walmart's online marketplace, infringe a design patent covering the ornamental features of a supporting cushion.
  • Technical Context: The technology falls within the consumer home goods sector, involving a foam cushion designed to securely hold beverage containers on unstable surfaces like couches or beds.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously reported infringing listings to Defendant Walmart, who subsequently removed them. However, Plaintiff alleges Walmart failed to identify and remove other, similar infringing listings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-04-01 '261 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2017-01-01 Plaintiff's "Cup Cozy Pillow" product launched (During 2017)
2017-12-05 U.S. Design Patent No. D804,261 S Issues
2024-03-25 Plaintiff registers related Copyrighted Images
2024-11-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D804,261 S - “BEVERAGE CONTAINER SUPPORTING CUSHION”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D804,261 S, “BEVERAGE CONTAINER SUPPORTING CUSHION,” issued December 5, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the problem anecdotally as the inventor being unable to find a way to keep a drink nearby without spilling it, leading her to cut a hole in a pillow to create a stable holder (Compl. ¶38).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent does not claim a functional solution, but rather the specific ornamental appearance of a beverage holder. The claimed design consists of a generally rectangular, cushion-like block with a specific arrangement of recesses on its top surface: two circular cutouts, a central circular cutout with an attached rectangular slot, and a separate narrow rectangular tray-like cutout ('261 Patent, DESCRIPTION; FIGS. 1-2). The invention is the unique overall visual impression created by these elements.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a novel ornamental appearance for a beverage-supporting cushion, a product category within the consumer home accessories market. The complaint suggests the commercial appeal of the design by noting the product "garnered widespread acclaim" after its launch (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the '261 Patent (Compl. ¶171).
  • As a design patent, there is only one claim:
    • "The ornamental design for a beverage container supporting cushion, as shown and described." (’261 Patent, CLAIM).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as "Counterfeit Goods" and "cheap knockoffs" of Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶90). A specific example is a product titled "Couch Cup Holder Pillow, Cup Cozy Pillow Spills Prevention For Car," sold on Walmart.com by a merchant identified as "JOYBUY EXPRESS" (Compl. ¶90; ¶91, p. 15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a foam pillow with cutouts designed to hold cups and other items, intended for use on a couch or in a car (Compl. ¶91, p. 15). The complaint alleges these products are sold by the JD Defendants through the Walmart.com online marketplace, directly competing with Plaintiff's genuine goods (Compl. ¶¶81, 90). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Walmart.com website depicting the accused product listing (Compl. ¶91, p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement analysis for a design patent centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether the accused design is substantially similar to the patented design in its overall appearance. The complaint supports its allegations with a side-by-side visual comparison between a figure from the '261 Patent and a photograph of the accused product (Compl. ¶93, p. 16).

D804,261 S Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (Feature of Claim 1 "as shown and described") Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a beverage container supporting cushion Defendants' product is alleged to be a "knockoff" that embodies the overall visual appearance of the patented design, creating a similar visual impression through its shape, proportions, and arrangement of features (Compl. ¶¶90, 92). ¶90, ¶92, ¶93 col. 1:57-58
A generally rectangular cushion-like body with multiple recesses The accused product is a dark-colored, generally rectangular foam block containing several cutouts on its top surface, as shown in the provided image of the "Defendant's Infringing Goods" (Compl. ¶93, p. 16). ¶93, p. 16 col. 1:60-66
An arrangement of circular and non-circular recesses for holding items The accused product features at least two large circular recesses and a central recess that appears to accommodate a mug with a handle, visually corresponding to the layout shown in the patent's figures (Compl. ¶93, p. 16). ¶93, p. 16 col. 1:61-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The analysis will focus on the overall visual effect rather than a simple tally of differences.
    • Factual Questions: A key factual question is whether the visual differences between the accused product (as depicted in Compl. ¶93, p. 16) and the patent drawings are significant enough to prevent a finding of substantial similarity. This may involve comparing the specific contours, depths, and proportions of the recesses and the overall shape of the products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is defined by the drawings. However, the scope of the article of manufacture can be relevant.

  • The Term: "beverage container supporting cushion"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase, from the patent's title, defines the article of manufacture to which the design is applied. Its interpretation frames the context for the ordinary observer and the scope of relevant prior art. Practitioners may focus on this term to argue for a particular field of design, which could influence the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general terms "supporting cushion" could be argued to encompass a wide variety of materials and forms that serve the stated purpose, so long as they embody the claimed ornamental design. The complaint alleges infringement by a product made of foam, consistent with a broad reading (Compl. ¶93, p. 16).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "cushion" could be interpreted more narrowly to imply a soft, deformable object, potentially limiting the scope to exclude holders made of hard plastic or other rigid materials. The patent drawings, with their soft, rounded edges, may support such a narrower view ('261 Patent, FIG. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants, with knowledge of the '261 Patent, are "actively and knowingly inducing others to build and develop Infringing Goods" (Compl. ¶176). The allegations extend to inducing investors, partners, and employees, and are based on the claim that Defendants continued their conduct even "after receiving notices from Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶178).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing, intentional, and willful" (Compl. ¶179). This claim is based on allegations of continued infringement after receiving notice from the Plaintiff and on general allegations that Defendants had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's exclusive rights" and acted with "reckless disregard or willful blindness" (Compl. ¶¶112, 114, 178).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product substantially the same as the design claimed in the '261 Patent? The case will likely depend on a holistic comparison of the products' designs, focusing on whether the aesthetic appeal is the same.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and willfulness: What evidence will be presented to establish that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '261 Patent and deliberately disregarded Plaintiff's rights, particularly in light of the allegation that infringement continued after Plaintiff provided notice?
  • A third question will concern platform liability: To what extent can the Walmart Defendants be held liable for direct or indirect infringement for products sold by third-party merchants on their e-commerce platform? The resolution will depend on the facts presented regarding Walmart's knowledge, control, and facilitation of the alleged infringement.