DCT

4:23-cv-00199

YETI Coolers LLC v. Three Drops Of Life LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00199, E.D. Tex., 03/10/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and the alleged infringing activities occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of dog bowls and drinkware infringes seven of Plaintiff's design patents and related trade dress.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the highly competitive consumer market for premium, durable drinkware and pet accessories, where brand identity and ornamental design are significant market differentiators.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, challenges to the patents-in-suit at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or relevant licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-03-17 U.S. Patent No. D882,343 Priority Date
2017-12-08 U.S. Patent No. D899,862 Priority Date
2018-08-01 U.S. Patent Nos. D909,819, D933,427, & D933,428 Priority Date
2018-08-03 U.S. Patent Nos. D909,818 & D911,779 Priority Date
2020-04-28 U.S. Patent No. D882,343 Issues
2020-10-27 U.S. Patent No. D899,862 Issues
2021-02-09 U.S. Patent Nos. D909,818 & D909,819 Issue
2021-03-02 U.S. Patent No. D911,779 Issues
2021-10-19 U.S. Patent Nos. D933,427 & D933,428 Issue
2023-03-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D909,819 - "Bowl"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D909,819, "Bowl," Issued February 9, 2021 (Compl. ¶9).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’819 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects the ornamental appearance of an article (D909,819 Patent, Claim).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a bowl, which consists of a generally cylindrical body with a textured exterior surface, a smooth upper rim, and a smooth base ('819 Patent, FIG. 1). A Certificate of Correction clarifies that the stippling shown on the exterior "represents a contrast in appearance only and does not represent any particular color, materials, texture, or finish" ('819 Patent, Certificate of Correction, p. 1). Broken lines in the figures indicate that the bowl's interior and specific proportions are not part of the claimed design ('819 Patent, Certificate of Correction, p. 1).
    • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design is a well-known indicator of the origin and quality of YETI's "Boomer™ Dog Bowls" and has acquired substantial secondary meaning (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The single claim covers "the ornamental design for a bowl, as shown and described" ('819 Patent, Claim).
    • The essential visual elements of the design are:
      • A generally cylindrical bowl shape.
      • An exterior surface featuring a contrasting appearance, depicted as stippling.
      • A smooth, unadorned upper rim and base portion.

U.S. Design Patent No. D933,427 - "Bowl"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D933,427, "Bowl," Issued October 19, 2021 (Compl. ¶10).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent protects the ornamental appearance of a bowl (D933,427 Patent, Claim).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a bowl featuring a cylindrical body with a series of distinct vertical flutes or grooves around its exterior (’427 Patent, FIG. 1). The design includes a smooth, rounded upper rim and a smooth base ('427 Patent, FIG. 2). The broken lines showing concentric circles on the interior indicate that this aspect is not part of the claimed design ('427 Patent, Description).
    • Technical Importance: The complaint associates this design with YETI's line of "Boomer™ Dog Bowls," alleging it serves as a source identifier for the brand (Compl. ¶¶7, 16).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a bowl, as shown and described" ('427 Patent, Claim).
    • The essential visual elements of the design are:
      • A generally cylindrical bowl shape.
      • An array of vertical flutes on the exterior surface.
      • A smooth upper rim and base.

Additional Patents-in-Suit

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D933,428, "Bowl," Issued October 19, 2021 (Compl. ¶11).

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’428 Patent claims an ornamental design for a bowl. The design features a textured exterior surface, similar in concept to the '819 Patent, but with potentially different visual proportions and texture appearance.
    • Asserted Claims: The single design claim.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Oezzo's 32 oz. and 64 oz. Dog Bowls of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶50).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D882,343, "Cup," Issued April 28, 2020 (Compl. ¶12).

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’343 Patent claims an ornamental design for a cup with a handle. The design consists of a simple, smooth-surfaced cylindrical body and a distinctively angular handle.
    • Asserted Claims: The single design claim.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Oezzo's "two different styles of 12 oz. Mugs and two different styles of 15 oz. Mugs" of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶58).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D899,862, "Cup," Issued October 27, 2020 (Compl. ¶13).

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’862 Patent claims an ornamental design for a cup with a handle and a textured exterior. The design combines a cylindrical body featuring a contrasting surface appearance (depicted as stippling) with an angular handle.
    • Asserted Claims: The single design claim.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Oezzo's "two different styles of 12 oz. Mugs and two different styles of 15 oz. Mugs" of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶66).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D909,818, "Mug," Issued February 9, 2021 (Compl. ¶14).

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’818 Patent claims an ornamental design for a taller mug with a handle and a textured exterior surface. Compared to the '862 Patent, this design shows a more slender body profile.
    • Asserted Claims: The single design claim.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Oezzo's 24 oz. and 32 oz. Mugs of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶74).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D911,779, "Mug," Issued March 2, 2021 (Compl. ¶15).

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’779 Patent claims an ornamental design for a taller mug with a handle and a smooth exterior surface. The overall shape and handle appear similar to the '818 Patent design but without the textured surface treatment.
    • Asserted Claims: The single design claim.
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Oezzo's 24 oz. and 32 oz. Mugs of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶82).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are identified as Oezzo's 32 oz. and 64 oz. Dog Bowls; 12 oz., 15 oz., 24 oz., and 32 oz. Mugs; and 20 oz. and 30 oz. Tumblers (collectively, "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶30).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are "confusingly similar imitations of YETI's products" sold in direct competition with YETI's own drinkware and dog bowls (Compl. ¶¶28, 29). The complaint provides photographic evidence of the accused products, such as Illustration 12, which depicts two sizes of the accused Oezzo Dog Bowls with dark, smooth exteriors and metallic interiors (Compl. Illustration 12, p. 16). Additionally, Illustration 13 shows several of the accused Oezzo Mugs, which feature cylindrical bodies and handles of varying proportions (Compl. Illustration 13, p. 17). These products are allegedly advertised and sold on Defendant's principal website (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed element-by-element breakdown of its infringement allegations. Instead, it asserts its infringement theory in prose, tracking the legal standard for design patent infringement.

  • Infringement Theory for '819 Patent and '427 Patent: The complaint alleges that Oezzo's 32 oz. and 64 oz. Dog Bowls directly infringe the '819 and '427 patents. The core of the allegation is that "the overall appearances of Oezzo's 32 oz. and 64 oz. Dog Bowls are substantially the same as the overall appearance of the design" of the respective patents, such that "an ordinary observer would perceive" them to be substantially the same (Compl. ¶¶35, 43). This theory relies on a holistic visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused products.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central issue for the court will be the scope of the patented designs as a whole and whether an ordinary observer, when considering the prior art, would be deceived by the similarity between the accused and patented designs.
    • Technical Questions: A primary point of contention may arise from the differences in surface ornamentation. The '819 Patent claims a design with a contrasting surface appearance (depicted as stippling), and the '427 Patent claims a design with vertical flutes (Compl. Illustrations 1, 2). The photographic evidence of the accused Oezzo dog bowls, however, shows a smooth, unadorned exterior surface (Compl. Illustration 12). This raises the evidentiary question of whether a smooth surface is "substantially the same" as a textured or fluted surface from the perspective of an ordinary observer in the context of the overall design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for claim construction analysis, as is typical in cases involving only design patents. The single claim in each asserted patent covers the "ornamental design for a [bowl/cup/mug], as shown and described." The dispute will likely not focus on the definition of specific words but on the visual comparison of the patented designs as a whole to the accused products, as viewed by an ordinary observer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Oezzo's infringement of all seven patents-in-suit was "intentional, willful, and malicious" (Compl. ¶¶37, 45, 53, 61, 69, 77, 85). The basis for this allegation is on "information and belief," citing Oezzo's alleged knowledge of YETI's products and patent rights, the asserted similarity of the products, and Oezzo's "continuing disregard for YETI's rights" (Compl. ¶37).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual similarity versus specific features: Will an ordinary observer find the smooth exterior of the accused Oezzo dog bowls to be substantially the same as the patented designs for the '819 and '427 patents, which explicitly claim designs with textured and fluted surfaces, respectively? The case may explore how much weight the ordinary observer gives to surface ornamentation versus overall form and proportion.
  • A second central question will be the impact of the prior art: The scope of protection for YETI's designs will be heavily informed by the crowdedness of the design space for consumer drinkware and bowls. The ultimate infringement determination will depend on whether the similarities between the patented designs and the accused products are trivial or are appropriations of the novel ornamental features that distinguish YETI's designs from prior art.
  • A third key question will be one of evidentiary proof for willfulness: Beyond alleging that Oezzo was aware of YETI's popular products, the case will question what specific evidence YETI can present to demonstrate that Oezzo had pre-suit knowledge of the particular design patents and acted with egregious disregard for YETI's rights, sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement.