Caterpillar Inc v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Caterpillar Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Foley & Lardner LLP
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01050, E.D. Tex., 09/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants' alleged purposeful direction of commercial activities to residents of Texas, including the offering for sale, selling, and shipping of products to customers in the district via the eBay online marketplace.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous foreign sellers on eBay infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a cap for an engine filter.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumable fluid filters, a high-volume replacement part category for heavy machinery engines where brand identity and product integrity are significant market factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes Plaintiff's prior unsuccessful attempts to enforce its patent rights through eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (“VeRO”) program, alleging that eBay refuses to remove patent-infringing listings without a court order.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-01-26	U.S. Patent No. D754,304 Priority Date
2016-04-19	U.S. Patent No. D754,304 Issued
2021-07-08	Defendant "construction-site-man" eBay Member Since Date
2022-03-30	Defendant "tz-cable" eBay Member Since Date
2025-09-24	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D754,304 - "Filter cap"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D754304, titled "Filter cap," issued April 19, 2016 (the "’304 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for an "original and unique ornamental design" for a functional article of manufacture—a cap for an engine filter (Compl. ¶16).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional visual appearance of a filter cap. The design, as illustrated in the patent figures, is characterized by a circular body with a series of concentric rings, radial ribs or spokes extending from a central recessed area, and a distinct shape for the central opening ('304 Patent, Figs. 1-2, 5). The claim’s scope is defined by the features shown in solid lines in the patent drawings ('304 Patent, col. 1:62-64).
• Technical Importance: In the market for consumable and frequently replaced parts, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a visual source identifier, helping customers distinguish genuine, high-performance components from aftermarket "will-fit" products that may be of lower quality (Compl. ¶¶11, 14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a filter cap, as shown and described" ('304 Patent, col. 1:47-49). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "aftermarket so-called replacement filters" advertised as compatible with Caterpillar engines and sold by Defendants on eBay.com (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶¶15, 20). The complaint specifically identifies products marketed as replacements for Caterpillar part numbers 479-4131 and 479-4133 (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The Infringing Products are fluid filters intended to be used with Caterpillar engines and machinery (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that these are non-genuine, "will-fit" parts sold at a lower price than Caterpillar's authentic filters (Compl. ¶22). It further alleges that the Defendants' product listings share numerous characteristics, including identical product photography and common typographical errors, suggesting the products may originate from a common source or that the sellers are engaged in a coordinated operation (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 26). The complaint includes images from several Defendants' listings that show the accused filters from multiple angles, such as the "Upright orientation image" and "Diagonal orientation image" used across different sellers' pages (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D754,304 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the Single Claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a filter cap, as shown and described.	The Infringing Products embody an ornamental design that the complaint alleges is "substantially the same" as the patented design. A photograph of an accused filter shows a cap with a similar arrangement of concentric rings, radial ribs, and a central opening.	¶¶40, 42; p. 13	col. 1:47-49

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary question for infringement of a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The analysis will require a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the claimed design. The complaint facilitates this by presenting a figure from the patent alongside an image of an accused product (Compl. pp. 13-14).
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether any minor differences between the accused filter caps and the patent drawings are sufficient to alter the overall visual impression, or if the designs remain "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, making traditional term construction less common. However, a central issue will be defining the scope of the claimed design.

• The "Term": The scope of the claimed ornamental design as defined by the patent's use of solid and broken lines.
• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on what specific visual elements are protected. Practitioners will focus on this because the comparison must be between the accused product and only the claimed aspects of the design (the solid lines), not any functional or environmental features shown in broken lines.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown," which may support an argument that the overall visual effect and impression created by the combination of elements is the core of the invention.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states: "The dashed broken lines illustrate structure or features that form no part of the claimed design" ('304 Patent, col. 1:62-64). This language provides a basis to argue that the claim is strictly limited to the visual features rendered in solid lines and does not extend to any part of the article shown in dashed lines.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing others to infringe, or contributing to the infringement" (Compl., Prayer ¶B.i). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement through Defendants' own offers for sale and sales on eBay, and do not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for indirect infringement claims.

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

• A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused filter caps sold by Defendants substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’304 Patent, such that an observer would be deceived?
• A significant procedural issue will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: Given that the Defendants are alleged to be a large and potentially shifting group of anonymous foreign entities operating through an online marketplace, key questions will involve the court's ability to effectively exercise personal jurisdiction, manage the case, and fashion a meaningful and enforceable remedy.