Baby Delight Inc v. Clute

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Baby Delight, Inc. (Rhode Island)
  • Defendant: Lorne Jason Clute (California); Keezio Group, LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vrountas, Ayer & Chandler, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00559, D.R.I., 10/18/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in the District of Rhode Island because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, and because Defendants have alleged patent infringement acts occurred in Rhode Island, where Plaintiff maintains a regular and established place of business.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its infant napper products do not infringe Defendants' design patent covering an ornamental design for an infant cradle.
• Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the consumer baby products industry and concerns the ornamental design, rather than the functional utility, of infant sleep products.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was initiated by Baby Delight following receipt of a September 26, 2019 demand letter from Defendants' counsel. The letter alleged that Plaintiff's products infringe the patent-in-suit, thereby creating the "actual, immediate, and substantial controversy" that provides the basis for this lawsuit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D712,677 - "Infant Cradle," Issued September 9, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. As such, the '677 patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an infant cradle (D'677 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of an infant cradle as depicted in its six figures (D'677 Patent, col. 1:57-58). The design is characterized by a single, continuous body with a flowing, curved profile from back to front, raised sides, a contoured sleeping surface, and specific seam lines that define its shape, as illustrated in the perspective and side views (D'677 Patent, figs. 1, 4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for an infant cradle, as shown and described" (D'677 Patent, col. 1:57-58).
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design, as depicted in the patent figures, include:
  • A continuous, uninterrupted curved profile extending from the rear to the front of the cradle.
  • Raised "arms" or sides that are integral to the body and extend continuously to the supporting surface.
  • A rectangular rear profile where the sides appear to rise perpendicularly.
  • Distinctive seam lines that follow the contours of the cradle's arms and sleeping surface.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are the "Baby Delight Napper," which includes the "Baby Delight Nestle Nook™" and "Baby Delight Comfort Nook™" models (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused products as infant nappers sold through traditional retail and online marketplaces such as Amazon (Compl. ¶10). The complaint focuses on the visual design characteristics of the napper, alleging they are distinct from the patented design. These alleged distinctions include a truncated profile that ends abruptly at a flat front panel, arms that terminate at a seam rather than flowing to the supporting surface, and a trapezoidal rear shape (Compl. ¶¶24, 32, 34). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the patent's Figure 1 and a photograph of the accused napper to illustrate these alleged differences (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the plaintiff's arguments as to why its product does not infringe the single claim of the '677 patent.

U.S. Design Patent D'712,677 Non-Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central issue for the court is whether the overall visual impression of the accused Baby Delight Napper is "substantially the same" as the '677 patent's design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The plaintiff's complaint raises the question of whether the patented design is limited to the specific smooth, continuous, and integrated form shown in the figures, or if it can be read broadly to cover designs with segmented parts and different profiles. The complaint provides a comparative view contrasting the patented design's continuous side profile with the accused product's allegedly truncated profile to support its position (Compl. p. 9).
  • Technical Questions: While design patent cases are not "technical" in the utility patent sense, a key factual question is how an ordinary observer would perceive the collection of differences alleged by the plaintiff. The court will need to determine if features like the truncated front, the separate front panel, the trapezoidal rear, and the visible zipper create a distinct visual impression, or if they are minor variations that do not alter the overall aesthetic similarity to the patented design. A rear-view comparison in the complaint highlights the patented design's rectangular profile against the accused product's allegedly trapezoidal shape to frame this question (Compl. p. 10).

V. Other Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain allegations by the plaintiff of indirect or willful infringement.

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

This case will likely be decided by the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the specific facts. The central questions for the court are:

• Holistic Design Comparison: Will an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, be deceived into purchasing the Baby Delight Napper believing it to be the product embodying the '677 patent's design? The resolution will depend not on an itemized list of differences, but on whether the accused product's overall ornamental appearance is substantially the same as the patented design.
• Significance of Differences: A key factual question is whether the specific differences articulated in the complaint—particularly the truncated profile versus the continuous curve and the rectangular versus trapezoidal rear shape—are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression, or if they are merely minor variations on the core aesthetic of the patented design.