DCT

0:25-cv-08212

Jameson LLC v. Dongguanshizeyuwangluokejiyouxiangongsi

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:25-cv-08212, D.S.C., 07/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because a substantial part of the infringing events occurred in the district, the harm to Plaintiff is felt in the district, and Defendant is a foreign entity that can be sued in any judicial district where it commits acts of infringement.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Portable Reel Buck" infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a reel buck apparatus.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to tools used in the telecommunication cable installation and maintenance field for holding and dispensing large spools of cable.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted design patent is a continuation of a prior U.S. utility patent application. Plaintiff’s commercial embodiment of the patent, the RB-54, is marketed as "patent pending."

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-11-28 Earliest Priority Date (filing of parent application No. 18/520,678)
2025-05-06 U.S. Design Patent D1,073,448 S issues
2025-07-23 Complaint filed

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,073,448 S (“’D448 Patent”), Reel Buck Apparatus, issued May 6, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article, not its function. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for a reel buck apparatus (D’448 Patent, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a reel buck apparatus as depicted in its single figure (D’448 Patent, CLAIM; DESCRIPTION). The design, shown in an exploded view, consists of two identical A-frame style side supports, each with a top horizontal bar featuring several cylindrical protrusions for holding a reel axle. These supports connect to two vertical legs that terminate in small, perpendicular feet. The overall impression is one of an industrial, modular, and tubular construction (D’448 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a leader in providing easy-to-use, dependable, and durable tools for the cable installation industry, suggesting the design is associated with these attributes in the market (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • As is standard for a design patent, there is a single claim: “The ornamental design for a reel buck apparatus as shown and described” (D’448 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The claim's scope is defined by the visual elements depicted in the patent's drawing, which include:
    • Two A-frame support structures.
    • A horizontal top bar on each support with multiple rounded notches or holders.
    • Two long, tubular vertical legs for each support.
    • Small, perpendicular stabilizing feet at the bottom of each leg.
    • An overall exploded or disassembled configuration suggesting modular assembly.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s “Heavy Duty Portable Reel Buck, Adjustable & Foldable Wire Spool Rack, 1000 lbs Capacity, Steel Fully Welded Cable Caddy for Large Cable Reels,” also referred to as the “Accused Product” (Compl. ¶1, ¶21, Exhibit 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Accused Product as a tool sold via online sellers, such as Amazon, under the “Lifeswell” brand for $269.99 (Compl. ¶21). The product listing, depicted in Exhibit 3 of the complaint, shows an orange-colored, steel reel buck with features that Plaintiff alleges embody the patented design (Compl. ¶22, Exhibit 3). The complaint alleges that Jameson purchased an Accused Product and had it delivered into the District of South Carolina to confirm the infringing sales (Compl. ¶22). The packaging of the received product is shown in a photograph included as "Exhibits 4 and 5" (Compl. p. 7).

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 device believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Accused Product and the patented design create the same visual impression and are "virtually identical" (Compl. ¶28-30). A side-by-side visual comparison provided in the complaint shows the patented design drawing next to a photograph of the disassembled Accused Product (Compl. p. 10).

The complaint does not use a traditional claim chart. The core of the allegation is a direct visual comparison.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Overall Visual Impression: The primary question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the Accused Product is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’D448 Patent. The court will compare the two designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
  • Scope Questions: The patent’s single figure shows the design in an exploded, perspective view (D’448 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The complaint alleges the Accused Product is sold disassembled into a similar number of pieces, creating the same visual impression (Compl. ¶30). A question for the court may be the extent to which the similarity in the disassembled state, as both shown in the patent and sold by the Defendant, contributes to the finding of infringement.
  • Technical Questions: Since this is a design patent case, the dispute is over appearance, not technical operation. The question is not how the devices work, but how they look. The complaint provides a direct visual comparison in an unlabeled exhibit on page 10, asserting that the Accused Product has the "same ornamental design" as the patent (Compl. ¶28, p. 10). The court will need to assess whether any minor differences in color, proportion, or surface finish are sufficient to make the designs patentably distinct in the eyes of an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is typically focused on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings, rather than on construing specific textual terms. The claim is understood to be for the overall visual appearance of the article.

  • The Term: "ornamental design for a reel buck apparatus"
  • Context and Importance: While "reel buck apparatus" defines the article of manufacture to which the design applies, it is the "ornamental design" as "shown and described" that is the subject of the claim. The dispute will not likely center on the definition of "reel buck apparatus," as both products clearly fall into this category. Instead, litigation will focus on comparing the visual totality of the Accused Product to the patent’s drawings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might emphasize that the claim is not limited to any particular color, material, or surface texture, as these are not shown in the line drawings. The exploded view itself could be argued to cover the design in both assembled and disassembled states.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope would contend that the claim is strictly limited to the exact proportions, shapes, and configuration of all elements as depicted in the patent’s single figure (D’448 Patent, Fig. 1). Any deviation in the Accused Product, even if minor, could be argued to alter the overall visual appearance and thus avoid infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant actively induces infringement by its end-users "to use the Accused Product as advertised" (Compl. ¶46). The factual basis appears to be the act of selling a product that, when assembled and used by the customer as intended, embodies the patented design.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on "information and belief" that Defendant knew of the ’D448 Patent and Plaintiff’s corresponding RB-54 product "since before it engaged in infringing conduct" (Compl. ¶31, ¶43). The complaint asserts that despite this knowledge, Defendant continued to infringe in "reckless disregard" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶43).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of visual identity under the ordinary observer test: Will the trier of fact, comparing the patented design with the Accused Product, find their overall ornamental appearances to be substantially the same, such that a consumer would be confused? The side-by-side comparison provided by the Plaintiff will be a critical piece of evidence in this analysis.
  2. A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness and pre-suit knowledge: What evidence can Plaintiff produce to substantiate its "information and belief" allegation that Defendant had actual knowledge of the specific ’D448 Patent prior to the lawsuit? A finding of willfulness hinges on proving this knowledge and subsequent disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights.
  3. The case raises a question of remedies specific to design patents: Should infringement be found, a primary issue will be the calculation of damages. The court will need to consider whether to award a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. § 284 or, as is uniquely available for design patents, disgorgement of the infringer's total profits from the sale of the infringing articles under 35 U.S.C. § 289.