DCT

2:25-cv-00718

Katlyn Gerardi v. Walmart Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00718, E.D. Tex., 07/16/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and Plaintiff has suffered harm in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a design patent for a dog collar by making, using, selling, and importing infringing products.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer pet product, a field where visual appearance and branding are significant drivers of consumer choice.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a prior application which issued as U.S. Design Patent No. D967,559. This relationship may be relevant for establishing the design's history and for any potential challenges to the patent's validity or scope.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-12-20 Priority Date (filing of parent application No. 29/718,095)
2023-05-19 Application for 'D1002119 Patent filed
2023-10-17 'D1002119 Patent issued
2025-07-16 Complaint filed

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

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

Issued October 17, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents address the challenge of creating a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture, rather than solving a functional or technical problem (Compl. ¶8; ’D1002119 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a dog collar as depicted in its seven figures ('D1002119 Patent, Claim, FIGS. 1-7). Key visual features of the claimed design include the configuration of the buckle, the shape and placement of the D-ring for leash attachment, the relative proportions of the hardware elements, and the visible stitching patterns, all of which combine to create a distinct overall visual impression ('D1002119 Patent, FIG. 1). The patent specifies that the broken lines in the drawings, including the symbolic break showing indeterminate length, do not form part of the claimed design ('D1002119 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic for a common consumer product, aiming to distinguish it visually from other collars available in the marketplace ('D1002119 Patent, Claim).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a dog collar, as shown and described." ('D1002119 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article as illustrated in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name or model number. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that allegedly infringe the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and/or imports dog collars that incorporate the patented design (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide specific details about the functionality or market positioning of the accused products beyond their general classification as dog collars.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, "claim charts comparing the Exemplary 'D1002119 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" in an external Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit is not provided, a detailed element-by-element comparison is not possible.

The infringement test for a design patent 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. This comparison must be made in the context of the prior art.

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the 'D1002119 Patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary 'D1002119 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Without visual evidence of the accused products, it is not possible to analyze this allegation.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Product Identification: A primary issue will be the identification of the specific "Exemplary Defendant Products" that Plaintiff accuses of infringement. The current complaint lacks this specificity.
  • Visual Comparison: The central question for infringement will be whether the overall ornamental design of the yet-to-be-identified accused products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the 'D1002119 Patent. This will involve a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the patent's figures.
  • Prior Art Scope: The infringement analysis depends on the context of the prior art. The scope of the patent's protection and the viability of the infringement claim will be influenced by how similar the claimed design is to pre-existing dog collar designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. Design patent claims are defined by the drawings, not by textual limitations, and thus do not typically involve claim construction of specific terms.

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 providing "product literature and website materials" that instruct on their customary use (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge of infringement" since the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). The allegations appear to support a claim for post-filing willfulness rather than pre-suit willfulness, as there is no allegation of knowledge prior to the lawsuit's filing.

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

  1. Evidentiary Specificity: The most immediate question is which specific Walmart products are accused of infringement. The complaint's reliance on the undefined term "Exemplary Defendant Products" leaves the core of the dispute—the visual comparison between the patent and the accused product—entirely to be determined.
  2. Design Patent Infringement: Once products are identified, the case will turn on the "ordinary observer" test. A court will need to determine if the overall visual impression of the accused collars is substantially the same as the design shown in the 'D1002119 Patent's figures, considering the universe of prior art dog collar designs.
  3. Scope and Validity in View of Prior Art: The strength of the infringement claim and the patent's validity will hinge on the novelty and non-obviousness of the claimed design relative to prior art. The numerous design patents and other publications cited during prosecution suggest a crowded field, which may lead to a narrow interpretation of the patent's scope.