DCT

3:17-cv-01229

Fatboy Original BV v. Dumbo Lounge Sacks LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-01229, N.D. Tex., 05/08/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim, including marketing and sales activities, occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ inflatable lounger products infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental design of the "LAMZAC Lounger."
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of portable, air-filled lounge chairs, a consumer product marketed for outdoor and casual use.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents claim priority to a Registered European Community Design, which may be relevant for determining the scope and validity of the patents against prior art.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-01-28 Priority Date for D'823 and D'479 Patents
2016-08-30 U.S. Patent No. D764,823 Issued
2017-01-03 U.S. Patent No. D775,479 Issued
2017-05-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D764,823

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D764,823, titled "Chaise Lounge," issued August 30, 2016.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The patent addresses the creation of a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of furniture (Compl. ¶11; D'823 Patent, Claim).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an ornamental design for a chaise lounge characterized by a soft, elongated, two-lobed body that tapers toward the foot end and is sealed at the head end with a rolled closure (D'823 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3, 5). The figures in the ’823 Patent use solid shading, which depicts the specific surface texture and contours of the design in an inflated state (D'823 Patent, Description, FIG. 1).
    • Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes the commercial embodiment of the design, the "LAMZAC Lounger," as "wildly popular," suggesting the design's commercial significance (Compl. ¶1).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a chaise lounge, as shown and described" (D'823 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings.
    • The key ornamental features depicted include:
      • An elongated body comprised of two parallel, rounded chambers.
      • A distinct central indentation running longitudinally between the two chambers.
      • A wider head end featuring a rolled-up closure secured by a buckle.
      • A narrower foot end tapering to a joined point.
      • A concave side profile, creating a cradle-like shape.

U.S. Patent No. D775,479

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D775,479, titled "Chaise Lounge," issued January 3, 2017.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Like the '823 Patent, this patent protects the novel ornamental appearance of a chaise lounge (D'479 Patent, Claim).
    • The Patented Solution: The ’479 Patent claims a design with the same overall shape and configuration as the '823 Patent but presents it differently. The design is shown using line drawings rather than shading, which typically claims the shape and contour of the article irrespective of surface texture (D'479 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). Critically, the patent explicitly disclaims certain features: "The broken line showing of the crease lines, buckle, and straps show unclaimed subject matter for the design" (D'479 Patent, Description).
    • Technical Importance: As a continuation of the application leading to the '823 Patent, the '479 Patent protects a related, and potentially broader, version of the same commercially significant design (Compl. ¶1; D'479 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a chaise lounge, as shown and described" (D'479 Patent, Claim).
    • The key ornamental features are the same overall shape as the '823 Patent, but the claim specifically excludes the buckle, straps, and crease lines from the protected design. The infringement analysis for this patent will therefore focus only on the claimed shape.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two sets of accused products: the "Dumbo Lounge Sack" sold by Defendant Dumbo Lounge Sacks, LLC, and the "Hangout Sofa" sold by Defendant Jared Goetz (Compl. ¶¶14, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are described as "inflatable loungers" marketed and sold online through the websites "dumboloungesacks.com" and "thegadgetsnob.com", as well as at physical locations such as an "outdoor festival in Dallas, Texas" (Compl. ¶4, ¶15, ¶20).
  • The complaint provides an image of the "Dumbo Lounge Sack," a blue inflatable lounger with the "DUMBO" brand name visible (Compl. p.5). Another image shows the "Hangout Sofa" in use, depicting a similar overall shape and construction (Compl. p.6). These visuals assert that the products embody a design that is "substantially the same as the designs depicted in the LAMZAC Lounger Patents" (Compl. ¶14, ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that an "ordinary observer familiar with the prior art designs... would find Plaintiffs' and Dumbo's designs to be substantially the same" (Compl. ¶28). The core of the infringement claim rests on the visual similarity between the patented designs and the accused products.

D'823 Patent Infringement Allegations

Ornamental Feature (from D'823 Design) Alleged Infringing Functionality in Accused Products Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Elongated, two-lobed body with a central longitudinal indentation. The accused "Dumbo Lounge Sack" and "Hangout Sofa" are depicted as having an elongated body with two inflated lobes separated by a central channel. ¶14; p.5 (Image) D'823 Patent, FIG. 1
Wider head end with a rolled, sealed closure. The image of the "Dumbo Lounge Sack" shows a wider head end with a dark, rolled-up closure, consistent with the patented design's closure method. ¶14; p.5 (Image) D'823 Patent, FIG. 3
Tapered foot end. The accused products are depicted as tapering to a narrower foot end, similar to the profile shown in the patent's figures. ¶19; p.6 (Image) D'823 Patent, FIG. 1
Overall visual impression from a side profile view. A profile view of the patented design is provided in the complaint, which alleges the accused products create a substantially similar overall impression. ¶11; p.4 (Image) D'823 Patent, FIG. 5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the specific surface shading shown in the '823 Patent's figures limits the scope of the design. The court may need to determine if the untextured appearance of the accused products, as depicted in the complaint, is "substantially the same" as the more detailed, shaded design.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement test hinges on the perception of an "ordinary observer." A factual question is whether the presence of prominent branding, such as the "DUMBO" logo on the accused product, is sufficient to create a different overall visual impression and prevent observer confusion (Compl. p.5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings, and formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the scope of the article of manufacture can be relevant.

  • The Term: "chaise lounge"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of "chaise lounge" helps establish the relevant field of prior art. A broad interpretation could introduce a wider range of prior art designs for seating, potentially making the patented design appear less novel. A narrow interpretation focused on inflatable, portable loungers would limit the universe of relevant prior art. Practitioners may focus on this term to frame the context in which the "ordinary observer" evaluates the designs.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "chaise lounge" itself is a generic term for a long reclining chair (D'823 Patent, Title).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All figures in both the '823 and '479 patents depict a very specific type of article: a portable, air-filled, ground-resting lounger without a rigid frame. This consistent depiction may suggest the term should be construed in the context of this specific embodiment.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of contributory and induced infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶¶29, 38, 47, 56). However, it does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants allegedly induced or contributed to infringement by third parties, such as through user manuals or instructions.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful and undertaken with knowledge of Plaintiffs' patent rights (Compl. ¶¶16, 21, 30, 39). This allegation is made "on information and belief" and appears to be based on the assertion that the similarity of the designs is so close as to imply knowledge.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "Dumbo Lounge Sack" and "Hangout Sofa" substantially the same as the patented designs, or do differences in branding, surface texture, or other minor features create a distinct visual impression?

  2. A second issue involves the scope of the patent claims: does the shaded, textured depiction in the D'823 patent limit its protection to loungers with a similar surface appearance, and how does the disclaimer of the buckle and straps in the D'479 patent affect the infringement analysis for that patent?

  3. A key evidentiary question will be the impact of prior art: the ultimate test for design patent infringement requires comparing the designs in light of the relevant prior art. The strength of the infringement case will depend on how novel and distinct the patented design is when compared to other inflatable loungers that existed before January 28, 2015.