DCT
2:22-cv-02911
Laltitude LLC v. Dreambuilder Toy LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Laltitude LLC (California)
- Defendant: Dreambuilder Toy LLC (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Standley Law Group LLP; Omni Legal Group
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-02911, S.D. Ohio, 07/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant resides in the judicial district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s magnetic building tile toys infringe two U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of such toys.
- Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental designs of magnetic construction toys, a segment of the toy market where visual appearance is a key driver of consumer choice.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff attempted to address the alleged infringement through takedown notices on Amazon.com, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The provided patent documents for U.S. Patent No. D789,312 also include several Supplemental Examination Certificates, indicating that the patent has survived post-grant challenges based on prior art, which may strengthen its presumption of validity against the art considered in those proceedings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-10-06 | Priority Date for D'938 Patent & D'312 Patent |
| 2017-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. D784,938 Issued |
| 2017-06-13 | U.S. Patent No. D789,312 Issued |
| 2022-07-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D784,938 - Magnetic Brick, Issued April 25, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the manner of utility patents. Their purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D'938 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "magnetic brick." The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a square tile with a raised perimeter frame, internally divided by cross-shaped supports into four smaller, equal square-shaped regions (D'938 Patent, FIG. 1-3). The claimed design is defined by the solid lines in the drawings, while broken lines represent unclaimed subject matter (D'938 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the "success and novelty" of the patented designs prompted third parties to create and sell what are alleged to be "blatant counterfeits" (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a magnetic brick, as shown and described." (D'938 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.
U.S. Patent No. D789,312 - Single Magnetic Brick, Issued June 13, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '938 Patent, the purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D'312 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "single magnetic brick." This design features a square tile with a prominent raised border. The internal surface of the tile features diagonal structural lines creating a distinct visual pattern within the border (D'312 Patent, FIG. 1-3). The claim's scope is dictated by the solid lines in the patent's drawings (D'312 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: This design is part of the same product line as the '938 Patent and is alleged to possess similar "success and novelty" in the marketplace (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a single magnetic brick, as shown and described." (D'312 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "magnetic building tiles" ("Infringing Products") offered for sale and sold by Defendant Dreambuilder Toy LLC, including through online platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
The products are magnetic construction toys. The complaint alleges that these products embody an ornamental design that is "substantially similar, if not identical," to the designs protected by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶2, ¶15). The complaint provides visual evidence to support this allegation, including a photograph of a pink, translucent tile accused of infringing the '938 Patent and a blue, translucent tile accused of infringing the '312 Patent (Compl. ¶17). Plaintiff alleges that the sale of these products constitutes infringement and that they are "blatant counterfeits" intended to compete with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint presents its infringement allegations through a side-by-side visual comparison rather than a textual claim chart. The analysis in a design patent case turns on the "ordinary observer" test, which questions whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.
D'938 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison image showing the D'938 patent figure next to a photograph of a pink, translucent accused product with a similar four-pane design (Compl. ¶17).
| Patented Design Feature (as shown in Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (as shown in Complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A square overall shape with a raised perimeter frame. | The accused product is a square tile with a raised perimeter frame. | ¶17 | FIG. 2 |
| Internal cross-shaped supports dividing the tile into four smaller, equal square regions. | The accused product features internal cross-shaped supports that divide the tile into four smaller square regions. | ¶17 | FIG. 2 |
| The overall visual impression of a four-paned window structure. | The accused product creates a visually similar impression of a four-paned window structure. | ¶17 | FIG. 1 |
D'312 Patent Infringement Allegations
A second comparison image shows the D'312 patent figure next to a photograph of a blue, translucent accused product with a similar beveled edge and internal structure (Compl. ¶17).
| Patented Design Feature (as shown in Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (as shown in Complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A square overall shape with a prominent raised border. | The accused product is a square tile with a prominent raised border. | ¶17 | FIG. 2 |
| An internal surface characterized by diagonal structural lines. | The accused product features a visually similar pattern of internal diagonal lines. | ¶17 | FIG. 2 |
| The overall visual impression of a single tile with a distinct frame and internal diagonal bracing. | The accused product presents a substantially similar overall visual appearance. | ¶17 | FIG. 1 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall ornamental designs are "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression rather than a side-by-side comparison of minute details. The inquiry may consider whether differences in color, translucency, or minor surface details between the patent drawings and the physical accused products are sufficient to differentiate the designs in the mind of a typical consumer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be defined by the drawings, and formal claim construction of verbal terms is less common than in utility patent cases. The primary focus is the visual comparison. However, the title of the patent may be referenced to define the "article of manufacture" to which the design applies.
- The Term: "Magnetic Brick" / "Single Magnetic Brick"
- Context and Importance: This term, taken from the patent titles, identifies the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied (D'938 Patent, Title; D'312 Patent, Title). While a dispute over whether the accused "tile" is a "brick" is unlikely to be dispositive, the identification of the article of manufacture will be critical for the damages analysis, specifically for calculating a potential award of infringer's profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is simple: "the ornamental design for a magnetic brick, as shown and described" (D'938 Patent, Claim). A court may find that the term "brick" is a general descriptor for a building block and that the core of the claim lies entirely in the visual depiction in the figures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent drawings themselves provide the definitive and limiting description of the article's appearance (D'938 Patent, FIG. 1-7; D'312 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The scope is limited to the ornamental features shown in solid lines in those drawings.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and is "knowing[], intentionally, and willfully" (Compl. ¶23). The basis for this allegation includes the assertion that Defendants had "actual knowledge of Plaintiff's right in the designs" and acted with "reckless disregard" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint also notes that Plaintiff filed unsuccessful takedown notices on Amazon.com, which may be argued to have put Defendant on notice of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central, fact-intensive question will be one of visual similarity: Will an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser would, find the overall ornamental design of the accused magnetic tiles to be substantially the same as the designs shown in the '938 and '312 Patents?
- A key legal and evidentiary question will relate to willfulness: Does the complaint provide sufficient factual support for the allegation that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents? Further, can the alleged Amazon takedown notices establish the knowledge and intent required for a finding of willful infringement for any post-notice conduct?
- Should infringement be found, a critical issue for damages will be the scope of the "article of manufacture": For the purpose of calculating the infringer's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, is the relevant article the individual infringing tile, or is it the entire multi-piece set in which the tile is sold?