DCT
2:17-cv-04754
Radix Products LLC v. Atziloose LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Radix Products LLC (California)
- Defendant: Atziloose LLC (Pennsylvania), Axelrad, Do4U, Casfer, et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Schwie Law, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-04754, E.D. Pa., 10/16/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendants conduct substantial business in the district, including by selling and offering to sell the accused products to consumers in Pennsylvania via intermediaries such as Amazon.com.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that minimalist wallets sold by numerous online retailers infringe two of its design patents.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods space, specifically concerning the ornamental design of minimalist wallets, a product category that emphasizes slim profiles and capacity for cards and cash.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that many of the named defendants are foreign entities who have allegedly refused to provide information regarding their place of business. The lawsuit appears to be an enforcement action against multiple, potentially unrelated, sellers on a common e-commerce platform.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-11-10 | Priority Date for D'382 and D'383 Patents |
| 2016-10-11 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D768,382 |
| 2016-10-11 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. D768,383 |
| 2017-10-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D768382 - “Wallet,” Issued October 11, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian function. The patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead provides a new ornamental design for a wallet. (D’382 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a wallet depicted in its figures. The design consists of two primary plates with symmetrical, curved notches on the longer sides, creating a distinctive hourglass or "dog-bone" silhouette. A central band, shown wrapping around the narrowest part of the body, holds the plates together. (D’382 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). A key feature of this specific design is a rectangular cutout, or window, on one of the plates. (D’382 Patent, FIG. 1, 6). The text "RADIX ONE" shown in broken lines is not part of the claimed design. (D’382 Patent, Description).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a wallet, as shown and described." (D’382 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- A body comprising two opposing plates.
- Symmetrical, inwardly-curved notches on the elongated sides of the plates, creating an hourglass shape.
- A central, encircling band.
- A rectangular cutout on one of the plates.
U.S. Patent No. D768383 - “Wallet,” Issued October 11, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’382 Patent, this patent protects a new, ornamental design for a wallet. (D’383 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The design claimed in the ’383 Patent is visually very similar to that of the ’382 Patent, featuring the same hourglass-shaped plates and a central retaining band. (D’383 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The critical distinction is that the design in the ’383 patent does not include a cutout on either plate; both plates are depicted as solid surfaces. (D’383 Patent, FIG. 1, 6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a wallet, as shown and described." (D’383 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- A body comprising two opposing, solid plates.
- Symmetrical, inwardly-curved notches on the elongated sides of the plates, creating an hourglass shape.
- A central, encircling band.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies fourteen distinct "Products" sold by the various Defendants, which are generally described as minimalist, slim, or pocket wallets. (Compl. ¶¶ 4-22).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentalities are wallets designed to hold credit cards and cash between two plates, which are held together by a band. (Compl. ¶¶ 4-22). The complaint alleges these products are sold and offered for sale throughout the United States via the e-commerce platform www.amazon.com. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6, 7 et seq.). The allegations position the products as direct competitors in the online consumer market for minimalist wallets.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused wallets infringe because their overall ornamental appearance is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’382 and ’383 patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23). The infringement allegations rely on visual comparisons between the patented designs and images of the accused products. For example, the complaint references images of "Product 3," an aluminum wallet, as evidence of infringement by Defendant Do4U. (Compl. ¶6). Similarly, it points to images of "Product 8," a polycarbonate wallet, as evidence of infringement by Defendant Kicty. (Compl. ¶12).
D768,382 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a wallet, as shown and described. | The accused wallets are alleged to have an overall ornamental design that is substantially the same as the patented design, including the hourglass-shaped plates, central band, and a rectangular cutout on one plate. | ¶¶ 16-18, 4-14 | D’382 Patent, DESCRIPTION |
D768,383 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a wallet, as shown and described. | The accused wallets are alleged to have an overall ornamental design that is substantially the same as the patented design, including the hourglass-shaped plates made of solid material and a central band, but without a cutout. | ¶¶ 21-23, 4-14 | D’383 Patent, DESCRIPTION |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue will be the scope of the design claims. The question for the court will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as that of the patented designs in the eye of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely depend on a comparison of specific features. A key question will be whether any differences in the proportions, curvature of the notches, or band design between the accused products and the patent figures are significant enough to avoid infringement. Further, the distinction between the ’382 patent (with cutout) and the ’383 patent (without cutout) raises the question of which patent, if any, each specific accused product design infringes.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design as depicted in the drawings, and formal construction of verbal terms is disfavored. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance.
- The Term: The ornamental design for a wallet.
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of the claimed design as a whole is the central issue of the case. The scope of protection afforded to the visual elements shown in the patent figures—and how much deviation is permissible before a design is no longer "substantially the same"—will be dispositive for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope may argue that the core of the invention is the overall "hourglass" or "dog-bone" silhouette combined with a central band, and that the claims should cover any wallet embodying this general concept, irrespective of minor differences in material or proportion. The solid lines in the drawings define the claimed design. (D’382 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope may argue that the claim is limited to the precise visual details shown in the drawings. The existence of two separate patents, one with a cutout (’382) and one without (’383), suggests that the presence or absence of that single feature is a material, and therefore limiting, part of each respective design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's allegations focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23). While it uses the phrase "causing to be used," it does not plead specific facts required to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as knowledge of the patents and intent to induce infringement by others.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it does request a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle the plaintiff to an award of attorneys' fees. (Compl. ¶25.I). No specific facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patents are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into purchasing an accused wallet believing it to be the patented design? The case will turn on whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the specific designs claimed in the '382 and '383 patents.
- A second key question will be the impact of prior art: While not detailed in the complaint, the scope of protection for the patented designs will ultimately be defined by comparison to prior art in the minimalist wallet field. The degree to which the "hourglass" shape is novel and non-obvious will determine whether the claims are construed broadly to cover a general concept or narrowly to protect only the specific execution shown.
- A final question relates to remedies: If infringement is found, a central issue may become the calculation of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which allows a patent owner to recover the infringer's total profit from the article of manufacture. Determining the "total profit" attributable to the infringing design for products sold by numerous, disparate foreign entities could present significant evidentiary challenges.