DCT

2:25-cv-00415

100 Speedlab LLC v. Vampire Optical Coatings Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00145, S.D. Ohio, 04/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Ohio because the Defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Ohio, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s eyewear accessories infringe a design patent for an ornamental "tear-off" lens cover.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves disposable protective lens covers for goggles, commonly used in motorsports and other activities to maintain clear vision by allowing a user to remove a soiled layer.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patent and its alleged infringement via a demand letter sent approximately seven months before the suit was filed, and that Defendant subsequently refused to cease its accused activities, forming the basis for a willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-09-23 '050 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date)
2024-05-21 '050 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-23 Accused Product Sample Purchased
2024-09-19 Plaintiff Sent Demand Letter to Defendant
2024-12-06 Defendant Responded to Demand Letter
2025-04-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,028,050 - "TEAR-OFF"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,028,050, "TEAR-OFF", issued May 21, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture rather than addressing a technical problem (Compl. ¶20; '050 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The '050 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a goggle tear-off. The claimed design, depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of the overall visual appearance created by the specific contours of the main lens-covering portion and an extended tab piece ('050 Patent, Fig. 1, DESCRIPTION). The patent discloses two embodiments of the design and uses broken lines to disclaim portions of the tear-off that do not form part of the claimed design ('050 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The design pertains to accessories for sports eyewear, a market where product aesthetics and brand identity can be significant commercial differentiators (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a tear-off, as shown and described" ('050 Patent, CLAIM). In design patents, this single claim incorporates all of the views of the design shown in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentality is the set of tear-offs sold by Defendant under the name “100% Strata2, Accuri2, Racecraft2” (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are tear-off lenses for eyewear, sold through Defendant's retail website (Compl. ¶10). The complaint includes a photograph of the purchased Accused Product, showing a transparent, shaped sheet of plastic (Compl. ¶13). Plaintiff alleges that the design of the Accused Product is "substantially the same as the design in the '050 Patent" and that the resemblance is deceptive to an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The complaint does not use a traditional claim chart but instead relies on narrative allegations and a visual comparison to assert that the Accused Product's design is substantially the same as the patented design.

The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison intended to support its infringement claim (Compl. ¶14). This image places a photograph of the blue-tinted Accused Product next to what appears to be a line drawing from the '050 Patent, inviting a direct comparison of their shapes and features (Compl. ¶14). The core of the infringement allegation is that this comparison confirms the resemblance is close enough to deceive an observer into purchasing the Accused Product believing it to be the Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶12, ¶14).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The '050 Patent discloses two embodiments and uses broken lines to disclaim certain features ('050 Patent, DESCRIPTION). A central question will be how these elements affect the scope of the claimed design's overall appearance in the eye of an ordinary observer.
    • Technical Questions: A likely point of dispute will be whether the similarities between the patented design and the Accused Product are ornamental, or whether they are dictated by the functional requirements of fitting specific goggle models (e.g., the "100% Strata2, Accuri2, Racecraft2" models named in the complaint) (Compl. ¶13). If features are primarily functional, they are not protected by a design patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the patent's drawings. The analysis focuses on a comparison of the accused design to the claimed design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. However, the scope of what the drawings cover will be a critical point of contention.

  • The "Term": The scope of "the ornamental design for a tear-off, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The definition of the claimed design's scope is critical. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on which visual features are considered part of the protected design and how much variation is permitted while remaining "substantially the same."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the "ornamental design" generally and provides two distinct embodiments, which may support an argument that the protected design covers the overall visual impression rather than being limited to a single, exact configuration ('050 Patent, Fig. 1-12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific, detailed contours shown in the solid lines of the drawings could be argued to narrowly define the protected design ('050 Patent, Fig. 1). Further, the use of broken lines to explicitly disclaim parts of the article of manufacture demonstrates an intent to limit the design's scope to only the features shown in solid lines ('050 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations for indirect (induced or contributory) infringement, focusing instead on direct infringement by the Defendant (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23). This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the '050 Patent, stemming from a demand letter sent by Plaintiff on September 19, 2024, and Defendant’s alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16).

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

  • A central issue will be a visual one under the "ordinary observer" test: Is the overall ornamental design of the accused Vampire tear-off substantially the same as the design claimed in the '050 Patent? The outcome will depend on a holistic comparison of the two designs, viewed in the context of the prior art.
  • The case may turn on the distinction between functionality and ornamentality. A key question for the court will be whether the shared visual features are dictated by the functional need to fit specific goggle models, or if they constitute protectable, non-functional ornamentation appropriated from the patented design.
  • A third question concerns the scope of the patent's protection: How will the existence of two embodiments and the specific use of broken-line disclaimers in the '050 Patent drawings influence the interpretation of the overall visual appearance that is protected?