DCT
6:25-cv-00335
Steel City Enterprises Inc v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Steel City Enterprisess, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A” (Foreign Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE BRICKELL IP GROUP, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00335, W.D. Tex., 08/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are aliens and because they are advertising, offering to sell, and shipping infringing products into the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online sellers are selling container plugs that infringe three of its U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental designs of container plugs, a common accessory for consumer products such as large-format water jugs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a large group of unidentified defendants, who are identified only by "Seller IDs" on a sealed "Schedule A." This litigation model is typically used in anti-counterfeiting efforts to simultaneously target numerous online merchants, often based in foreign jurisdictions, who operate through e-commerce platforms.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-02-08 | U.S. Patent No. D977,973 Priority Date |
| 2022-06-28 | U.S. Patent No. D979,404 Priority Date |
| 2023-02-14 | U.S. Patent No. D977,973 Issue Date |
| 2023-02-28 | U.S. Patent No. D979,404 Issue Date |
| 2023-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. D1,055,627 Priority Date |
| 2024-12-31 | U.S. Patent No. D1,055,627 Issue Date |
| 2025-08-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D977,973 - "Container plug," issued February 14, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect new, original, and ornamental designs for an article of manufacture. The filing addresses the need for a novel ornamental appearance for a container plug.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a container plug. The design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a generally circular, cap-like structure with a flat top surface, a slightly raised outer rim, and a depending cylindrical wall for insertion into a container opening ('973 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The complaint includes a perspective view of this design (Compl. ¶19).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented designs are vital to its business and brand reputation, symbolizing the goodwill associated with its "Jug Plug" product line (Compl. ¶¶27, 29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the design as shown in the drawings.
- The claim covers the overall ornamental visual appearance of the container plug, defined by the features depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, including:
- A generally circular cap with a flat top surface and raised outer lip.
- A recessed central portion on the top surface.
- A depending cylindrical wall.
- A flange extending from the bottom of the cap portion.
U.S. Design Patent No. D979,404 - "Container plug," issued February 28, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent protects a distinct ornamental design for a container plug.
- The Patented Solution: The '404 Patent claims the ornamental design for a container plug that features a main body and a smaller, tethered cap ('404 Patent, Description). The main body is characterized by a series of stacked, concentric ribs of decreasing diameter, while the top surface includes a brand logo shown in broken lines, which is not part of the claimed design. A perspective view of this design is included in the complaint (Compl. ¶20).
- Technical Importance: As with the '973 Patent, the complaint asserts this design is a key component of its intellectual property portfolio and brand identity (Compl. ¶29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim is for the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings.
- The key visual features of the claimed design include:
- A main plug body with multiple stacked, concentric, rounded ribs.
- A top flange.
- A smaller, tethered plug connected by a strap to the main body's flange.
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,055,627, "Container plug," issued December 31, 2024 (Compl. ¶21).
- Technology Synopsis: The '627 Patent protects the ornamental design for a container plug with an attached cap. The design features a main plug body with several thin, fin-like, stacked ribs and a tethered secondary plug, creating a distinct visual impression from the other asserted patents ('627 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The complaint provides a perspective view of this design taken from the patent (Compl. ¶21).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design for a container plug as shown and described ('627 Patent, col. 1:51-53).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Infringing Goods" sold by Defendant No. 35 embody the ornamental design protected by the '627 Patent (Compl. p. 11, Count III).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "container plugs" sold by the Defendants and referred to in the complaint as the "Infringing Goods" (Compl. ¶30).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants are promoting, advertising, and selling the Infringing Goods through online e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller IDs" (Compl. ¶1, ¶30). The complaint asserts that these goods are "exact copies and confusingly similar embodiments" of the designs protected by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶30). It is also alleged that the accused products are of a "substantially and materially different" quality compared to Plaintiff's genuine products (Compl. ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents, which asks whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design. The complaint asserts that the accused products are "exact copies and confusingly similar" to the patented designs (Compl. ¶30). This is supported by a reference to a side-by-side comparison in Exhibit 4, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶30).
'973 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Single Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a container plug, as shown and described. | The accused "Infringing Goods" are alleged to be "exact copies and confusingly similar embodiments" of the design claimed in the '973 Patent, creating the same overall visual impression to an ordinary observer. | ¶30, ¶45 | '973 Patent, col. 1:51-53 |
'404 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Single Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a container plug, as shown and described. | The accused "Infringing Goods" are alleged to embody a design that is an "exact copy" or "confusingly similar" to that claimed in the '404 Patent, thereby presenting the same overall visual appearance. | ¶30, ¶50 | '404 Patent, col. 1:57-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: A central challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the products actually sold by each of the numerous, unidentified defendants are, in fact, "substantially the same" as the patented designs. Securing and authenticating such evidence from a diffuse network of online sellers may be a significant factual hurdle.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on a visual comparison between the solid-line features of the patent drawings and the accused products. Any differences in the accused products' designs could raise the question of whether they are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is uncommon, as the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The analysis is primarily visual. However, the scope of the article of manufacture can sometimes be at issue.
- The Term: "container plug"
- Context and Importance: This term, from the patents' titles and claims, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. While a dispute over its meaning appears unlikely in this case, a defendant could theoretically argue its product is not a "container plug" to escape infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it sets the overall context for the visual comparison.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specifications do not provide a specific definition or limit the types of containers, which could support a broad interpretation covering plugs for various container types (e.g., '973 Patent, col. 1:51-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the '973 Patent show the plug in the context of a large water bottle (depicted in broken lines), which is environmental and not part of the claim ('973 Patent, Fig. 1). A party could argue this context suggests the intended scope is limited to plugs for such specific containers, though such arguments are often disfavored as the claim is limited to the article itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of contributory infringement and inducement for all three patents (Compl. ¶¶45, 50, 55). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as identifying the direct infringers being induced or the specific actions constituting inducement, beyond the general allegations of selling infringing products.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all counts, based on the assertion that Defendants had "notice of or knew of" the patents-in-suit and acted with "full knowledge" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶35, ¶47, ¶52, ¶57). The complaint alleges this conduct was knowing and intentional or, alternatively, constituted reckless disregard or willful blindness (Compl. ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Linkage: A primary issue will be an evidentiary one: can the Plaintiff successfully connect each anonymous "Seller ID" to the sale of specific accused products and prove that those products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs? The case's viability hinges on overcoming the logistical challenges of litigating against a diffuse network of online sellers.
- Visual Similarity: The core substantive question for the court will be the classic design patent infringement test. For each patent, does the accused product's design create the same overall visual impression as the claimed design in the mind of an ordinary observer, thereby rendering it "substantially the same"?
- Enforceability: A critical procedural question concerns the practical enforcement of any judgment. Given that the defendants are alleged to be numerous foreign entities, a central challenge will be the court's ability to exercise jurisdiction and the plaintiff's ability to enforce any resulting injunction or monetary award against them, which may depend on compelling cooperation from e-commerce platform operators as requested in the prayer for relief.