Katlyn Gerardi v. Tractor Supply Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Katlyn Gerardi (Individual)
  • Defendant: Tractor Supply Company (DE Corporation)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00228, E.D. Tex., 02/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a design patent for a dog collar by making, using, and selling certain dog collar products.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of pet accessories, a market where visual appearance and product differentiation are key consumer considerations.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a series of prior applications, with the earliest application dating to December 2019. The complaint alleges that its service constitutes actual knowledge for the purposes of post-suit infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,002,119 - “Dog collar”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,002,119, “Dog collar,” issued October 17, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems in the manner of utility patents; rather, they protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D1,002,119 Patent, Title). The goal is to create a unique visual appearance for a product.
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific ornamental design for a dog collar. The claimed design, shown in solid lines in the figures, consists of the visual characteristics of the collar's buckle, its D-ring for leash attachment, and the manner in which the collar strap is looped and stitched around the hardware (D1,002,119 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The patent explicitly disclaims the portions of the dog collar shown in broken lines, including the main length of the strap, meaning these elements are not part of the protected design (D1,002,119 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The design focuses on the functional hardware area of the collar, seeking to provide a distinct and recognizable aesthetic for these components, which are often generic in appearance.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim of a design patent protects the overall ornamental appearance of the article as depicted in the drawings.
• The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a dog collar, as shown and described" (D1,002,119 Patent, CLAIM).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports dog collar products that practice the patented design (Compl. ¶11). No specific details regarding the functionality or market position of the accused products are provided beyond the general allegation of infringement.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unattached Exhibit 2 to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). As the exhibit is not provided, the specific visual comparisons cannot be analyzed. The narrative infringement theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the patented technology and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused collars is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’119 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: The court's analysis will focus on the ornamental features shown in solid lines in the patent's figures (the buckle, D-ring, and associated looping). The fact that the patent disclaims the main strap via broken lines raises the question of how this disclaimer will affect the comparison between the overall appearance of the accused products and the claimed design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Formal claim construction is rare. The central dispute is not over the meaning of a word but the scope of the visual design.

• The "Claim": The Scope of the Visual Design
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the claimed design is the dispositive issue. The analysis will focus on what visual features are protected (solid lines) versus what is disclaimed as mere context (broken lines). Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it defines the boundaries of the infringement comparison.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might contend that the claimed design, as a whole, creates a total visual impression that should be compared against the accused product's overall appearance, even if some elements are disclaimed. The perspective view in Figure 1 shows the claimed elements as an integrated part of a complete collar, which may support an argument based on the overall commercial impression (D1,002,119 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope will heavily emphasize the disclaimer language in the specification: "The broken lines shown in the drawings depict portions of the dog collar that form no part of the claimed design" (D1,002,119 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language suggests the infringement analysis must focus only on the specific appearance of the hardware and its immediate strap interface, ignoring similarities in the disclaimed length of the collar strap.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by selling the accused products to end-users and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct on their use (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter supports a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). This frames the willfulness allegation as being based on post-suit conduct.

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the ordinary observer test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the hardware and strap configuration on Defendant's accused collars substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the ’119 Patent?
2. A related question concerns the impact of the disclaimer: How will the court weigh the visual similarities or differences in the unclaimed portions of the dog collars (i.e., the main strap shown in broken lines) when assessing the overall visual impression of the products?
3. An initial evidentiary question will be one of identification: As the complaint itself does not identify the "Exemplary Defendant Products," the case will depend on the specific evidence Plaintiff produces to demonstrate precisely which of Defendant's products are accused of infringement.