DCT

4:10-cv-00060

Specialty House Of Creation Inc v. Cherokee Nation Entertainment LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:10-cv-00060, USDC ND/OK, 02/01/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' operation of multiple hotel and casino properties within the Northern District of Oklahoma.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' imported "counterfeit" slot machine card holders infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a holder.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to promotional items for the casino and gaming industry, specifically novelty holders for player loyalty cards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior commercial relationship where Defendants purchased authentic, patent-marked products from Plaintiff's distributor. Following this relationship, Defendants allegedly acknowledged the patent in an email before sourcing nearly identical, allegedly infringing products from a foreign manufacturer. The complaint also includes a count for false marking, alleging the accused products are improperly stamped with Plaintiff's patent number.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-05 '531 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2004-02-10 '531 Patent Issue Date
2006-05-10 Defendants order 20,000 authentic card holders
2006-09-12 Defendants re-order 20,000 authentic card holders
2007-01-12 Defendants order 200,000 authentic card holders
2008-11-17 Plaintiff provides quote for 300,000 card holders
2009-02-13 Plaintiff provides quote for 500,000 card holders
2009-02-13 Defendants email Plaintiff declining purchase, referencing patent scope
2010-02-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D486,531 - “Slot Machine Card Holder,” issued February 10, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The context is the casino industry's market for distinctive promotional items used to hold player loyalty cards.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a card holder that is configured to resemble a miniature slot machine (D486531 Patent, FIG. 1). The design consists of a body featuring a slot machine display with the word "JACKPOT" and the number "777," a lobster-claw style clip at the top, and a D-ring at the bottom, with the overall shape and configuration defined by the patent's drawings ('531 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The commercial relevance of such a design is suggested by the complaint's allegations that Defendants previously ordered hundreds of thousands of the authentic units and later procured approximately 700,000 of the accused units for distribution to casino patrons (Compl. ¶12, ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • As a design patent, the '531 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a slot machine card holder, as shown and described" ('531 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's figures. The essential ornamental elements include:
    • A body shaped like a slot machine, featuring a display with the text "JACKPOT" and the number "777" (D486,531 Patent, FIG. 1).
    • A top attachment clip with the appearance of a lobster claw (D486,531 Patent, FIG. 1, 5).
    • A bottom attachment point in the form of a D-ring (D486,531 Patent, FIG. 1).
    • The overall visual impression created by the specific combination and arrangement of these elements as depicted in Figures 1-6.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused articles are "counterfeit Slot Machine Card Holders" allegedly produced for Defendants by Yiwu Boyan Plastic Products Co. in China (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are "identical to genuine Slot Machine Card Holders produced and sold by Specialty House" (Compl. ¶21). Their function is to hold casino player cards and be attached to a player's clothing or lanyard. The complaint alleges these products were imported into the United States and offered to patrons at Defendants' various casino locations (Compl. ¶20, ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges the accused products are "identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶21).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused products are visually identical to the patented design.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central dispute will be a factual one: are the accused card holders visually, substantially the same as the design shown in the '531 Patent? The complaint’s allegation that the products are "identical" (Compl. ¶21) and are stamped with the patent number (Compl. ¶22) will be primary evidence for the Plaintiff.
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether certain elements of the design are primarily functional rather than ornamental. A defendant could argue that standard hardware components, such as the lobster claw clip, are functional and should be given less weight in the "ordinary observer" comparison. The complaint itself notes that Defendants' buyer specifically referenced the "lobster claws" as being unpatented (Compl. ¶17), foreshadowing a potential argument over the scope of the claimed design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patents, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed "ornamental design" as a whole, rather than on discrete text-based terms. The key legal determination is often the distinction between ornamental and functional features.

  • The Term: "ornamental design"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of patent protection hinges on what aspects of the "slot machine card holder, as shown and described" are considered ornamental versus functional. Functional elements are not protected by a design patent. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because if key features are deemed functional, they are excluded from the infringement analysis, potentially narrowing the patent's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (more features are ornamental): Plaintiff may argue that the entire visual impression, including the specific stylized appearance of the lobster claw and D-ring in combination with the slot machine body, creates a unitary, non-functional aesthetic ('531 Patent, FIG. 1). The choice to use a slot machine motif is purely ornamental.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (some features are functional): A defendant may argue that the clip and ring are standard, utilitarian hardware for attaching a holder, and thus their functional aspects must be disregarded. The defendant’s email, quoted in the complaint, which states "since you do not hold a patent on the lobster claws" (Compl. ¶17), may be used to argue that the clip was understood by the parties to be a separable, functional component not covered by the ornamental design patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants contributed to and actively induced infringement (Compl. ¶26). This is factually supported by allegations that Defendants arranged for the production of the infringing articles by a third-party manufacturer and then offered them to casino patrons, who would be direct infringers by "using" the patented design (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful and in knowing violation of the patent (Compl. ¶29). This is supported by allegations of pre-suit knowledge based on: (1) previous purchases of authentic products marked with the patent number (Compl. ¶10-12); (2) receipt of quotes from Plaintiff that referenced the patent (Compl. ¶14-15); and (3) an email from Defendants' buyer explicitly mentioning the patent before allegedly sourcing the counterfeit product (Compl. ¶17).
  • False Marking: Count II of the complaint is a separate claim for false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292 (Compl. ¶30-34). It is based on the allegation that the "counterfeit Slot Machine Card Holders" imported and offered by Defendants are stamped "PATENT #D486531" without the patentee's consent and with an intent to counterfeit or deceive the public (Compl. ¶22, ¶33).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: Under the "ordinary observer" test, is the ornamental design of the accused card holders substantially the same as the design claimed in the '531 patent? The allegation that the accused products are not only "identical" but are also marked with the patent number itself will be a central piece of evidence.
  2. The case will likely involve a question of design scope: To what extent, if any, are elements of the patented design, such as the "lobster claw" clip, considered purely functional and therefore outside the scope of protection? The defendant's own communications, as alleged in the complaint, suggest this will be a key point of dispute.
  3. A third major focus will be on intent: Do the facts alleged—including a prior business relationship, explicit acknowledgment of the patent, and subsequent sourcing of an allegedly identical product also bearing the patent number—support a finding of willful infringement and an intent to deceive for the purpose of the false marking claim?