DCT
2:25-cv-02008
Patent One LLC v. Schedule A
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Patent One LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Whitewood Law PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02008, W.D. Pa., 12/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district, specifically by offering for sale and selling the accused products to consumers within the forum.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ adjustable organizing cubes infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a single panel used in such products.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer home goods sector, concerning the aesthetic design of adjustable drawer and cabinet organization systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff licenses its patent to other manufacturers. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patent are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-04-07 | D949,612 S Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-04-26 | D949,612 S Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-12-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D949,612 S - "SINGLE PANEL OF AN ADJUSTABLE ORGANIZING CUBE"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D949,612 S, "SINGLE PANEL OF AN ADJUSTABLE ORGANIZING CUBE," issued April 26, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests a market need for adjustable organizing cubes with a "novel appearance" and "enhanced aesthetic appeal" not found in existing designs (Compl. ¶2).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a single panel of an adjustable organizing cube (’612 Patent, CLAIM). The design, as shown in the patent’s figures, consists of an elongated, rectangular panel with an end piece and a series of evenly spaced, transverse notches along its top edge, creating a distinct visual appearance (’612 Patent, Figs. 1-4). The complaint characterizes this as an "elongated panel shape, with evenly spaced notches for varying configuration" (Compl. ¶23).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this "distinctive patented design" is "broadly recognized by consumers" and has achieved "demonstrated commercial success in the market" (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the single claim of the ’612 Patent (Compl. ¶25).
- As is standard for design patents, the claim covers:
- The ornamental design for a single panel of an adjustable organizing cube, as shown.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- "Organizing Cubes" sold by Defendants through online e-commerce platforms, including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and Temu.com (Compl. ¶¶1, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are adjustable drawer dividers alleged to "closely mimic the invention patented by Plaintiff, including the same overall shape, dimensions, and aesthetic features" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint asserts that the accused products "directly copy the design described in the patent drawings," including "the exact proportional relationships and surface contours that distinguish the patented design" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and an "Infringing Listing" to demonstrate the alleged verbatim reproduction of design elements (Compl. ¶27, p. 15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products create such a deceptive similarity.
D949,612 S Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a single panel of an adjustable organizing cube, as shown. | The accused "Organizing Cubes" are alleged to embody the patented design by utilizing the "same elongated panel shape, with evenly spaced notches for varying configuration," and copying the "overall aesthetic features, including the exact proportional relationships and surface contours" shown in the patent drawings. | ¶¶23, 25, 51 | ’612 Patent, Figs. 1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’612 Patent. The analysis will focus on the design as a whole, not on a simple comparison of discrete features.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether any differences in proportion, surface ornamentation, or configuration between the accused products and the patented design are significant enough to be noticed by an ordinary observer, thereby preventing deception. The complaint's allegation of "verbatim reproduction" suggests Plaintiff's position is that no such meaningful differences exist (Compl. ¶27).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction for design patents differs from that for utility patents, as the "claim" is defined by the drawings rather than text. The central analysis is the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the visual appearance of the design as a whole. Therefore, the construction of specific textual terms is not a central issue in this case. The scope of protection will be determined by the visual impression conveyed by Figures 1-4 of the ’612 Patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin Defendants from "inducing others to do the same," but the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement through acts of making, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products (Compl. ¶49; Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' continued sale of accused products despite having "actual and constructive notice" of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶55). The basis for this alleged knowledge is Plaintiff's practice of marking its products and online storefronts with the patent number, as shown in a screenshot from Plaintiff's website (Compl. ¶54; p. 21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art for drawer dividers, be deceived into believing the accused organizing cube panels are the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’612 Patent?
- A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be one of notice: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the numerous, allegedly foreign-based "Doe" defendants had actual knowledge of the ’612 Patent, beyond the constructive notice provided by Plaintiff’s patent marking, sufficient to support a finding of willful conduct?
- A significant procedural issue may be one of jurisdiction and joinder: can the Plaintiff establish personal jurisdiction over the numerous, anonymous online sellers and demonstrate that their conduct arises from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions" to justify joining them as defendants in a single action? (Compl. ¶6).