DCT

0:25-cv-06882

Jameson LLC v. Feimiershagnhaimaoyifazhanyouxianzerengongsi

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:25-cv-06882, D.S.C., 07/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events, including Defendant's acts of infringement, occurred in the District, and because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and can be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Portable Reel Buck" infringes a design patent covering the ornamental design for a reel buck apparatus.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is a portable, collapsible apparatus used in the telecommunication and cable installation industries to hold and dispense large spools of cable.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's own product, the RB-54, practices the patent-in-suit and is marked "patent pending." There is no mention of prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-11-28 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,448
2025-05-06 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,448 Issues
2025-07-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,448 S - "Reel Buck Apparatus"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific problem addressed by the patent. However, the associated commercial product is described as a tool for setting up strand and cable reels, suggesting a need for a portable and robust solution in the cable installation field (Compl. ¶18).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a "reel buck apparatus" as depicted in its single figure ('448 Patent, FIGURE). The design consists of two A-frame style side supports connected by a central axle bar, with adjustable vertical members and handles. The FIGURE shows the apparatus in an exploded, disassembled state, illustrating the distinct shapes and configuration of its component parts, which include two upper T-shaped assemblies, four vertical legs with adjustment holes, and two lower horizontal feet ('448 Patent, FIGURE).
  • Technical Importance: The design is embodied in a commercial product intended for the telecommunication cable installation and maintenance field, designed to be portable, collapsible, and support weights up to 1,000 pounds (Compl. ¶7, ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim of the '448 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a reel buck apparatus as shown and described" ('448 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Portable Reel Buck" or "Heavy Duty Portable Reel Buck, 1000 lbs load Capacity Multipurpose Cable Release Device with Adjustable Height," sold by Defendant Feimire (Compl. ¶1, ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Product is a portable, collapsible stand for holding cable reels, advertised with a 1,000 lbs load capacity (Compl. ¶22).
  • Its marketing materials highlight features such as a "heavy duty durable steel frame" and "[e]asy setup and breakdown for transportation" (Compl. ¶22; Exhibit 4). The complaint provides a screenshot of the product listing on an e-commerce website, where it is sold for $299.99 (Compl. ¶21; Exhibit 4). Plaintiff alleges Defendant markets, sells, and distributes the Accused Product to customers nationwide, including in South Carolina (Compl. ¶12). A photograph from the product's e-commerce listing shows the Feimire brand name on the product (Compl. p. 9, ¶27; Exhibit 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product infringes the '448 Patent because its design is "substantially similar" to the claimed design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design (Compl. ¶31).

The core of the infringement allegation is a direct visual comparison. The complaint presents a side-by-side photographic comparison of the patented design (as shown in the patent's figure) and the Accused Product (as purchased by the Plaintiff) (Compl. p. 10). This image juxtaposes the exploded view from the '448 Patent with a photograph of the disassembled components of the Accused Product, alleging they "create the same visual impression" and are "disassembled into a similar number of pieces for assembly by the end user" (Compl. p. 10, ¶32). Plaintiff argues that an "ordinary observer or purchaser would find the overall design of the 'D448 Patent and the Accused Product substantially similar" (Compl. ¶31).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases. The central analysis is a comparison of the accused design to the claimed design from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The key legal question revolves around the scope of the patented design as a whole.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a reel buck apparatus"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the design is the ultimate issue. The dispute will center on whether the visual impression created by the Accused Product is substantially the same as that created by the claimed design depicted in the '448 Patent's figure. Practitioners may focus on whether any aspects of the design are dictated primarily by function, which could limit the scope of design patent protection, although the complaint does not raise this issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described" ('448 Patent, Claim). A party could argue this covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of all depicted elements, not just isolated features. The single exploded-view figure provides a comprehensive look at the shape and configuration of each component part, which could be argued to define a broad and detailed design scope ('448 Patent, FIGURE).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the scope is limited to the exact proportions, configurations, and surface ornamentation shown in the drawings. Any variation in the Accused Product, even if minor, might be argued to fall outside the claimed design. The patent's title, "Reel Buck Apparatus", and the functionality of the commercial embodiment (e.g., adjustability, collapsibility) could be used to argue that certain features are primarily functional and should be given less weight in the infringement analysis (Compl. ¶18).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that "Defendant induces its end-users to use the Accused Product as advertised" (Compl. ¶48).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting on "information and belief" that Defendant has known of the '448 Patent and Plaintiff's RB-54 product "since before it engaged in infringing conduct," based on the "substantial similarity between the ornamental design of the products, and the way they are advertised" (Compl. ¶33, ¶45).

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

  1. A Core Issue of Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be a factual one, guided by the "ordinary observer" test: Is the overall ornamental design of Feimire's "Portable Reel Buck" substantially the same as the design claimed in the '448 Patent? The case will likely depend heavily on visual evidence, such as the side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint.

  2. An Evidentiary Question of Knowledge: The viability of the willfulness claim will depend on what evidence emerges in discovery. A key question will be: What evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '448 Patent, beyond the allegation of "substantial similarity" between the products?

  3. A Question of Functional vs. Ornamental Scope: While not explicitly raised in the complaint, a potential point of contention could be the extent to which the claimed design is dictated by its function. The court may need to consider whether an ordinary observer would view certain elements (e.g., the number and placement of adjustment holes, the general A-frame structure) as functional necessities for a reel buck, which could influence the scope of the design patent's protection.