DCT
6:23-cv-00053
Sportspower Ltd v. Zhejiang Hongcheng Information Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sportspower Ltd. (Hong Kong)
- Defendant: Zhejiang Hongcheng Information Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: NEWHOPE LAW, PC
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00053, W.D. Tex., 01/26/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a non-U.S. resident, sells the accused products to residents in the district through online retailers like Amazon, which utilizes local distribution centers. Venue is also asserted under the provision that an alien may be sued in any district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s children's trampoline infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hexagonal trampoline.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the market for backyard recreational equipment, specifically trampolines designed for children that incorporate safety enclosures.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Sportspower is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-17 | ’299 Patent Priority Date (Filing) |
| 2012-01-31 | ’299 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-01-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D653,299 - “HEXAGONAL TRAMPOLINE”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D653,299, titled “HEXAGONAL TRAMPOLINE,” issued January 31, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a specific technical problem and solution; rather, they protect a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a trampoline as depicted in its seven figures ('299 Patent, FIGs. 1-7). The design’s key visual features include a hexagonal frame, a safety enclosure supported by six poles that curve inward at the top to create a scalloped profile, and a distinctive U-shaped leg structure where each leg supports two adjacent corners of the hexagonal base ('299 Patent, FIG. 1, 7). The claim is for the overall visual appearance created by the combination of these elements ('299 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is embodied in one of its "bestselling SPORTSPOWER® branded trampolines" (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hexagonal trampoline, as shown and described." ('299 Patent, Claim).
- The "elements" of a design claim are the visual features depicted in the drawings. Key features of the '299 Patent design include:
- A hexagonal trampoline frame and jumping mat.
- A safety enclosure with six upright support poles.
- An arched or scalloped upper profile of the safety net created by the curvature of the support poles.
- A leg structure comprised of three U-shaped legs, each connecting two corners of the hexagonal frame.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Blanketown 7FT Kids Trampoline" sold by Defendant on Amazon and other websites (Compl. ¶9, 13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a children's trampoline that, according to the complaint, is a "copy" of Sportspower's commercial product and embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶9). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product, which is a color photograph of a blue and orange trampoline with a black safety net (Compl. p. 5). It is alleged to be sold in direct competition with Sportspower's products (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for infringement of a design patent is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused product is "substantially similar" to the patented design (Compl. ¶14).
The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of a line drawing from the '299 Patent and a color photograph of the accused Blanketown trampoline (Compl. p. 5).
The infringement theory can be summarized by comparing the key visual features of the patented design to the allegations about the accused product.
| Claim Element (Visual Feature from ’299 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a hexagonal trampoline | The accused "Blanketown 7FT Kids Trampoline" is alleged to be a "copy" that embodies the patented design and is "substantially similar." | ¶9, ¶13, ¶14 | FIGs. 1-7 |
| A hexagonal frame with a safety enclosure | The accused product is shown with a hexagonal frame and a safety enclosure. | p. 5 | FIG. 1, 6 |
| Six upright poles supporting the net, creating an arched or scalloped upper profile | The accused product is depicted with six upright poles and a safety net that appears to have a similar arched profile. | p. 5 | FIG. 1, 2 |
| A specific leg assembly configuration | The complaint alleges the accused product uses the same components "with only a minor modification of changing the assembly orientation of the legs." | ¶9 | FIG. 1, 7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary infringement question will turn on the visual effect of the differences between the patented and accused designs. The complaint itself concedes a difference in the leg assembly (Compl. ¶9). The key question for the court will be whether this difference is a "minor modification" that does not alter the overall visual impression for an ordinary observer, or if it is significant enough to create a distinct design.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the precise structure of the accused product's leg assembly beyond noting a different "orientation." The court will need to compare the U-shaped leg structure spanning two corners as shown in the patent ('299 Patent, FIG. 7) with the actual construction of the accused product's legs to determine the significance of this difference.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the design as depicted in the patent's drawings. Formal construction of specific text-based terms is generally not the central issue. Instead, the analysis focuses on the overall visual impression of the claimed design as a whole. However, practitioners may focus on the interpretation of specific visual features that are points of difference.
- The Term: The configuration of the "leg assembly."
- Context and Importance: This feature is critical because the complaint explicitly identifies it as a point of difference, albeit a "minor" one (Compl. ¶9). The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused leg design is deemed substantially similar to the claimed leg design within the context of the overall appearance.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for infringement might assert that the legs are just one component of a larger design and that an ordinary observer's attention would be drawn to the more prominent hexagonal shape and scalloped net profile. The overall impression, they might argue, is dominated by these other similarities.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent drawings consistently and clearly depict a specific leg structure: three U-shaped legs that each connect two corners of the hexagon, creating a particular visual stance ('299 Patent, FIGs. 1, 7). A party could argue that this specific, repeated feature is integral to the claimed design, and any deviation from it, such as using six individual legs, fundamentally changes the design's overall aesthetic and would be noticed by an ordinary observer.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not contain a standalone count for willful infringement. However, in the request for relief, it seeks enhanced damages "due to Blanketown's willful conduct" (Compl. p. 11, ¶8). The factual basis for this appears to be allegations that the Defendant sells a "copy" of Sportspower's product and is "intentionally trading off the goodwill Sportspower has built" (Compl. ¶9, 11), which suggests an allegation of deliberate copying.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual similarity under the ordinary observer test: does the accused trampoline's design, particularly its differing leg assembly, create the same overall visual impression as the patented design, or is the modification significant enough to distinguish the two products in the mind of an ordinary observer?
- A related evidentiary question will concern the materiality of the design differences: the case may turn on evidence demonstrating how an ordinary consumer perceives trampolines and whether their focus is on the overall shape and safety cage, making the leg structure a minor detail, or whether the leg structure is a visually significant feature that alters the product's aesthetic.