DCT
1:24-cv-00329
Creative Plastic Concepts LLC v. Edge Plastics Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Creative Plastic Concepts, LLC (Ohio)
- Defendant: Edge Plastics, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.; Thompson Coburn LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00329, N.D. Ohio, 02/21/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant being an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in the district, where it also allegedly has a regular and established place of business and commits acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendant’s tote lids for industrial storage containers infringes Plaintiff's design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of plastic tote lids, a component in the competitive market for home and industrial storage solutions where visual appearance can be a key differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff marks its products in accordance with patent law, a fact that may be relevant to future claims for damages and willfulness.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-10-20 | '821 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date) |
| 2016-12-13 | '821 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-02-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D773,821 - Medium Tote Lid with Stacking Supports
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D773,821, "Medium Tote Lid with Stacking Supports," issued December 13, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent, being a design patent, does not contain a background section describing a technical problem. Its purpose is to protect a novel ornamental appearance rather than a functional solution. (D773,821 Patent).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a tote lid as depicted in its figures. The claimed design consists of the overall visual impression created by a combination of features, including a generally rectangular shape with rounded corners, a recessed top surface, and a distinct reinforcing grid of ribs arranged diagonally to the lid's primary axes. ('821 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3). The design also includes the specific profile and contours of the lid's edges, as shown in the side elevational views. ('821 Patent, FIGS. 5-6).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a specific ornamental appearance for a tote lid, which can serve as a source identifier and point of aesthetic differentiation in the consumer and industrial storage container market. (Compl. ¶¶ 2-3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a medium tote lid with stacking supports, as shown and described." ('821 Patent, Claim).
- The "elements" of a design patent claim are the visual features of the design as shown in the patent's drawings. Key ornamental features of the '821 Patent design include:
- The overall configuration and shape of the tote lid.
- A recessed central portion surrounded by a raised peripheral rim.
- A grid-like pattern of intersecting diagonal ribs within the recessed portion.
- The specific shape and placement of openings and indentations along the peripheral rim.
- The profile and contours of the lid as seen from the side.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant's "Industrial Polymer Storage Containers with accompanying tote lids," with the infringement allegations directed specifically at the tote lids. (Compl. ¶ 14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a lid for a plastic storage container. The complaint includes a photograph showing a yellow lid on a black container base. (Compl. ¶ 14, Image). Plaintiff alleges Defendant offers to sell and sells these products through its website and retailer partners throughout the United States. (Compl. ¶ 16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint's infringement theory rests on the "ordinary observer" test, alleging that the accused lid's design is "substantially the same" as the patented design, such that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived. (Compl. ¶ 24). To support this, the complaint provides side-by-side visual comparisons of the patent figures and photographs of the accused product. (Compl. ¶ 26). The complaint's image of the accused product shows a yellow lid with a dark base, featuring a recessed top and a diagonal grid pattern. (Compl. ¶ 14, Image). A subsequent comparison chart shows the accused product from multiple angles corresponding to the patent drawings. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26).
'821 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from '821 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression from a top perspective view, showing a recessed surface with a diagonal rib pattern. | The complaint presents a photograph of the accused lid from a top perspective view, which also shows a recessed surface with a diagonal rib pattern. | ¶26 (p. 5) | FIG. 1 |
| The top-down plan view, showing the specific layout of the diagonal grid, corner radii, and peripheral features. | A top-down photograph of the accused lid is presented, showing a similar overall layout, grid pattern, and corner shape. | ¶26 (p. 6) | FIG. 3 |
| The bottom-down plan view, showing an alternative recessed pattern on the underside of the lid. | A photograph of the underside of the accused lid is presented, showing a recessed pattern alleged to be visually similar. | ¶26 (p. 6) | FIG. 4 |
| The side elevational view, showing the profile and contours of the lid's edge. | A photograph of the side of the accused lid is presented, showing its profile for comparison. | ¶26 (p. 7) | FIG. 5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would find the two designs substantially the same. The analysis will not be a feature-by-feature dissection but a comparison of the designs in their entireties.
- Technical Questions: The dispute will likely focus on the visual impact of any differences between the patented design and the accused product. A question for the fact-finder will be whether variations in the density of the rib pattern, the precise shape of the corner radii, or the profile of the side walls are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression, or if they are minor details that do not detract from the substantial similarity of the designs.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As the '821 Patent is a design patent, the "claim" consists of the ornamental design as depicted in the drawings rather than textual limitations. Consequently, traditional claim construction of specific terms is not the central issue. The analysis instead focuses on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as a whole, as compared to the accused product.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and continues to be willful. (Compl. ¶ 21). This allegation is based on the assertion that Plaintiff marks its products with the patent number, giving constructive notice, and on the belief that Defendant's alleged "copying of CPC's designs was deliberate." (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18-19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual comparison: will an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical purchaser of storage containers would, be deceived into believing the accused Edge Plastics lid is the same as, or originates from the same source as, the design protected by the '821 Patent?
- A key evidentiary question will concern the materiality of differences: the court or jury will need to determine whether any identifiable variations between the two designs—such as in the ribbing, edge contours, or surface textures—are sufficient to create a distinct overall visual impression, or if they are trivial in the context of the designs' substantial and overarching similarities.
- Finally, the willfulness claim will raise a question of knowledge and intent: did the Defendant have pre-suit knowledge of the '821 Patent, either actual or constructive via Plaintiff's product marking, and does the evidence suggest deliberate copying, as the complaint alleges, or independent design?