DCT
2:23-cv-01293
Happy Hour Thinking LLC v. Zeus
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Happy Hour Thinking, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: ZEUS, Jiaroswwei, KOSZAL, et al. (Jurisdictions alleged to be foreign)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ference & Associates LLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01293, W.D. Pa., 07/18/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants transacting business and soliciting sales in Pennsylvania through online marketplaces, deriving revenue from the district, and causing tortious injury within the Commonwealth.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers operating on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Temu are infringing its U.S. design patent for an electrical cord organizer.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adhesive-backed cord management devices designed for small household appliances, a market segment focused on consumer convenience and organization.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-12-10 | D'913,776 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2020-01-01 | Plaintiff's Product Launched (approx. "early 2020") |
| 2021-03-23 | D'913,776 Patent Issued |
| 2023-07-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D913,776 - Electrical cord storage device
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D913,776, issued March 23, 2021.
The Invention Explained
As this is a design patent, the "invention" is the ornamental appearance of the object, not its functional characteristics.
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes a common household problem where a loose appliance cord, such as from a toaster, jams a cabinet door or presents a tripping hazard (Compl. ¶1).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design of a cord organizer. The claimed design consists of a circular body with a domed top, a distinct scalloped or fluted peripheral edge, and a central raised portion around which a cord can be wound (D'913,776 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The complaint states that the product embodying this design has a flexible base to conform to curved surfaces and an "innovative scalloped edge" to secure the wound cord (Compl. ¶2).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a specific, recognizable aesthetic for a consumer product intended to solve a common organizational annoyance in the kitchen (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for an electrical cord storage device, as shown."
- The essential ornamental elements shown in the patent's solid-line drawings include:
- A generally circular body with a domed top surface.
- A continuous, scalloped or fluted peripheral edge.
- A raised central portion, creating a channel for cord wrapping between it and the outer edge.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "cord organizers that are nearly identical to Plaintiff's Product" sold by the numerous named Defendants through online marketplaces including Amazon.com, eBay.com, Temu.com, and others (Compl. ¶¶8, 67).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are alleged to be adhesive-backed cord wrappers for household appliances (Compl. ¶¶1-2). The complaint alleges that Defendants' products are "confusing similar imitations of Plaintiff's product" and are offered for sale at a price below the usual retail price of Plaintiff's genuine product (Compl. ¶38.a, ¶38.d). A side-by-side visual comparison provided by the Plaintiff shows its product next to a listing from Defendant ZEUS, which displays a visually similar cord organizer (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.
D'913,776 Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from D'913,776 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for an electrical cord storage device... | Defendants are alleged to make, use, sell, and import "cord organizers that are nearly identical to Plaintiff's Product," which embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶67). | ¶67 | col. 2:20-22 |
| ...as shown. [Overall Appearance] | The complaint alleges the accused products are "nearly identical" and "confusing similar imitations" (Compl. ¶38.a, ¶67). Visual evidence is provided to show the similarity between the accused products and Plaintiff's product, which embodies the patented design (Compl. pp. 4, 6, Exhibit 1). | ¶38, p. 4 | D’913,776 Patent, Figs. 1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary issue for infringement will be whether an ordinary observer would find the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' various cord organizers to be substantially the same as the claimed design in the D'913,776 Patent. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression rather than minor differences in individual features.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be the direct visual comparison of the specific contours, proportions, and surface ornamentation of the accused products against the claimed design as depicted in the patent's figures. The court will need to assess whether any differences are significant enough to defeat a claim of infringement under the ordinary observer test.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction is minimal as the claim is defined by the drawings. The scope is determined by the overall visual appearance of the design as shown in the solid-line figures.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for an electrical cord storage device, as shown."
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is coextensive with the visual content of the patent's drawings. Practitioners may focus on the overall visual impression created by the combination of features, as this is the standard for infringement, rather than on dissecting any single element. The dispute will center on comparing the accused products' appearance to the holistic design shown in the patent's figures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall "ornamental design," suggesting that the holistic visual impression is what is protected. An argument could be made that infringement exists so long as the accused design appropriates the novel overall appearance, even if minor details differ.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is strictly limited by what is "shown" in the solid lines of the drawings (D'913,776 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The broken-line showing of an electrical appliance and cord in FIG. 7 explicitly disclaims that environment, limiting the claimed design to the cord storage device itself (D'913,776 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of "contributory infringement or inducement" (Compl. ¶67). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the element of intent required for inducement, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that instructs or encourages an infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that "Defendants have notice of or knew of the Plaintiff's Patent" and had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's... patent rights" (Compl. ¶34, ¶69). The complaint also alleges Defendants did not obtain an opinion from U.S. counsel regarding the legality of their sales (Compl. ¶58). These allegations suggest a claim based on pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Will an ordinary observer, examining the accused products sold by the numerous online Defendants, be so deceived by the similarity in overall appearance as to purchase one believing it is the design patented in the D'776 Patent? This will require a holistic comparison of the designs' aesthetics.
- A significant procedural question will be one of liability and proof: The complaint names dozens of distinct online storefronts. A key challenge for the Plaintiff will be proving that the specific products sold by each individual Defendant are "substantially the same" as the patented design, and a question for the court will be how to manage such a multi-defendant action where product variations may exist.