DCT

2:24-cv-00568

Ningbo Dongchuan Swimming Pool Equipment Co Ltd v. Ondway

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00568, W.D. Pa., 05/19/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants transact substantial business in the Western District of Pennsylvania, target consumers in the district through online sales platforms, and cause injury there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various pool brush heads sold by Defendants on online marketplaces infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of pool cleaning equipment, a consumer product category where visual appearance can be a significant factor in purchasing decisions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendants in or around August 2023, putting them on notice of the alleged infringement prior to the lawsuit's filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-04-21 U.S. Design Patent No. D985,947 Priority Date
2023-05-16 U.S. Design Patent No. D985,947 Issues
c. 2023-08 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist notices
2024-05-19 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D985,947 - "POOL BRUSH HEAD"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D985,947, titled "POOL BRUSH HEAD," issued May 16, 2023 (the "’947 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’947 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Its purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a pool brush head (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the pool brush head depicted in the patent's figures. The design's key ornamental features include an elongated central body with rows of bristles, flanked at each end by distinct, hemispherical bristle clusters that extend outwards, and a central mounting bracket of a particular shape (’947 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The patent notes that elements shown in broken lines are for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design (’947 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design is "distinctive" and provides "differentiation to other competitors' pool brush designs" (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
  • The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a pool brush head, as shown and described." (’947 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of the claim are the features depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, including:
    • The overall configuration and proportions of the brush head.
    • The combination of a linear central brush section with hemispherical end sections.
    • The specific shape of the mounting bracket centered on the brush body.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various models of pool brush heads sold by the eight named Defendants through online storefronts on platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 22; Schedule A). Brands associated with the accused products include LALAPOOL, Unipool, Tenrry, and Poolergetic, among others (Compl., Schedule A).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are pool brushes intended for cleaning pool walls, tiles, and floors (Compl., Ex. 2). The complaint alleges that these products are marketed and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania, via major e-commerce websites (Compl. ¶¶ 4(a), 19). The complaint provides visual evidence in claim chart exhibits, such as the chart comparing the patented design to the ONDWAY/LALAPOOL product sold on Amazon.com (Compl., Ex. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the ’947 Patent under the "ordinary observer" test, asserting that the resemblance between the designs is such that it would deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing one product supposing it to be the other (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 33).

’947 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single design claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a pool brush head as depicted in the patent figures. The overall ornamental design of the accused pool brush heads, which feature an elongated body with bristle rows, prominent hemispherical bristle clusters at each end, and a central mounting bracket. ¶¶ 22, 33; Ex. 2-9 FIGS. 1-8

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary legal question is whether the accused designs are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the products, not on a direct comparison of minute details. A screenshot from an Amazon.com listing for an accused product shows it from an angle similar to Figure 1 of the patent (Compl., Ex. 4).
  • Technical Questions: The dispute is not technical but rather aesthetic. The key factual question will be whether any minor differences in bristle color, density, or the precise curvature of the mounting bracket are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression, thereby avoiding infringement in the eye of an ordinary observer. The complaint provides side-by-side comparisons of each patent figure with a corresponding photograph of an accused product to argue for substantial similarity (Compl., Ex. 2-9).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction of specific terms is not typically a central issue in design patent litigation. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The analysis will likely focus on a visual comparison based on the "ordinary observer" test rather than the interpretation of any textual claim terms (Compl. ¶21).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general prayer for relief regarding contributory and induced infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might have actively induced or contributed to infringement by third parties.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶37). This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge, stating that Plaintiff provided actual notice of infringement via cease-and-desist letters around August 2023, and that Defendants continued their infringing conduct despite this warning (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25, 31).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, when considering the accused pool brushes in the context of the prior art, find their overall ornamental design to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’947 Patent? The case will turn on the perceived similarity of the designs' overall visual impression, particularly the combination of the linear body and hemispherical ends.
  2. A secondary issue may be one of collective liability: The complaint targets multiple, seemingly distinct online sellers. A key question may be proving infringement and damages for each defendant individually, and whether discovery reveals a common source or coordinated activity among them, as suggested by the allegation that Defendants "may offer and provide products between each other" (Compl. ¶20).
  3. A final key question will relate to damages and willfulness: Assuming infringement is found, the court will need to determine the extent of damages. The allegations of pre-suit notice via cease-and-desist letters (Compl. ¶24) raise the significant possibility of enhanced damages for willful infringement.