DCT

4:25-cv-01440

Dexas Intl Ltd v. Trimax Sports Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01440, E.D. Tex., 12/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district, and that it has purposefully directed infringing sales into the Eastern District of Texas through an interactive commercial website.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable dog paw cleaner infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of Plaintiff's "Pet Paw Washer."
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer pet care products market, concerning the aesthetic and ornamental design of a device used for cleaning animal paws.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff Dexas is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit, including all substantial rights and the right to sue for infringement. It also alleges that products sold under the patent are marked with the patent number.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-06-14 ’126 Patent Priority Date
2017-10-03 ’126 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D799,126 - *"Pet Paw Washer"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D799,126, "Pet Paw Washer," issued October 3, 2017 (the “’126 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’126 Patent does not address a technical problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case a "pet paw washer" (’126 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for the pet paw washer as depicted in its figures (’126 Patent, Claim). The design's primary features include a generally cylindrical, tumbler-shaped body that tapers slightly towards the base; a distinct pattern of raised circular dimples arranged in vertical columns around the body; a ribbed collar or lid at the top opening; and an interior view showing an array of flexible, inwardly-projecting bristles (’126 Patent, FIGs. 1, 2, 4). The complaint includes Figure 1 from the patent to illustrate the claimed design (Compl. ¶18).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product line embodying the patented design is "innovative and popular" (Compl. ¶2).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The ’126 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pet paw washer, as shown and described" (’126 Patent, Claim).
  • The core ornamental features comprising the claimed design are:
    • A tumbler-like overall configuration.
    • A pattern of raised circular features on the exterior surface.
    • A ribbed top collar.
    • An internal array of cleaning bristles visible from the top.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are portable paw cleaner products sold under the "PawsAthletics" brand (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused product as a "portable dog paw cleaner" and provides a photograph of it. The photograph shows a device with a translucent white tumbler-shaped body and a solid blue top piece containing flexible interior bristles (Compl. p. 5). The products are allegedly marketed and sold throughout the United States via the defendant's e-commerce website (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. Instead, it alleges infringement based on the legal standard for design patents, asserting that the accused products have an "overall design substantially the same" as the claimed design and that an "ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would consider the Dexas Patented Design and the Accused Design to be substantially the same in light of the prior art" (Compl. ¶19).

The complaint provides a photograph of "Trimax Sports's Accused Product" (Compl. p. 5), allowing for a direct visual comparison with the patented design shown in Figure 1 (Compl. p. 4). This side-by-side comparison suggests the core of the infringement dispute will be a factual determination of visual similarity.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary legal question is whether the "ordinary observer" test is met. This will depend on whether the overall visual impression of the two designs is substantially the same, considering any relevant prior art.
    • Technical Questions: The central factual question is one of visual comparison. The complaint's own evidence raises the question of whether key ornamental features are substantially similar. For instance, does the smooth, unadorned surface of the accused product's body (Compl. p. 5) create the same visual impression as the patented design's body, which is characterized by a distinct pattern of raised circular dimples (’126 Patent, FIG. 1)? Further, does the solid blue top piece of the accused product appear substantially the same as the ribbed collar and visible bristle structure claimed in the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the drawings themselves effectively constitute the claim, making traditional claim construction less central than in utility patent cases. The primary term subject to interpretation is the title of the patent, which defines the article of manufacture to which the design is applied.

  • The Term: "Pet Paw Washer"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the scope of the article of manufacture. In this case, both the patented design and the accused product are unambiguously identified as pet paw washers, so the construction of this term is not expected to be a primary point of contention. The dispute is more likely to focus on the visual similarity of the designs themselves rather than the definition of the article. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for further analysis of claim construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of inducing and contributing to infringement (Compl. ¶22). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the requisite elements of knowledge and intent, such as alleging that Defendant's instructions or user manuals direct customers to use the product in an infringing manner.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions for the court:

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, examining the accused product with its smooth-surfaced body and solid-colored top, consider its overall ornamental design to be substantially the same as the patented design, which is defined by specific features including a pattern of circular dimples and a ribbed collar?
  2. A key contextual question will be the impact of prior art: What does the landscape of prior art designs for pet paw washers reveal? The answer will determine whether the patented design's features are a significant departure from the prior art, which could lead an ordinary observer to focus on and give more weight to the specific visual differences between the patented design and the accused product.