DCT
2:17-cv-00738
Fatboy Original BV v. Chapman
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fatboy the Original B.V. (Netherlands) and Fatboy USA, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Trevor Chapman d/b/a LDS Man (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Workman | Nydegger; Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00738, D. Utah, 07/03/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because the Defendant resides in the state, has allegedly committed acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "The Hangout Bag" inflatable lounger infringes two of Plaintiffs' design patents covering the ornamental design of their "LAMZAC Lounger" product.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of portable, self-inflatable loungers, a category of outdoor and lifestyle furniture.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents claim priority to a Registered European Community Design, establishing a priority date of January 28, 2015. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings, are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-01-28 | Priority date for '823 and '479 Patents |
| 2016-08-30 | U.S. Patent No. D764,823 Issued |
| 2017-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. D775,479 Issued |
| 2017-07-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D764,823 - Chaise Lounge
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D764,823, "Chaise Lounge," issued August 30, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '823 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a chaise lounge (Compl. ¶ 28).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a chaise lounge as depicted in its twelve figures ('823 Patent, "CLAIM," "DESCRIPTION"). The design features an elongated, bilaterally symmetrical inflatable body comprised of two parallel, adjoined tubes that create a central longitudinal depression. The overall shape is characterized by a gathered, sealed head end and a tapering foot end, presenting a distinct, rounded, and bifurcated appearance when inflated ('823 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 7).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the patented design, the "LAMZAC Lounger," is "wildly popular," suggesting the ornamental design achieved significant commercial recognition (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" ('823 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features depicted in the patent's figures, including:
- The overall elongated and tapering profile.
- The two-tube construction forming a central cleft.
- The specific shape of the head and foot ends in both inflated and deflated states.
U.S. Design Patent No. D775,479 - Chaise Lounge
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D775,479, "Chaise Lounge," issued January 3, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '479 Patent, like the '823 Patent, protects a new, original, and ornamental design for a chaise lounge (Compl. ¶ 37).
- The Patented Solution: The '479 Patent claims an ornamental design for a chaise lounge that is visually similar to the '823 Patent, presented through eight figures of line drawings ('479 Patent, "DESCRIPTION"). Key features include the same general two-tube, elongated, and tapering form factor ('479 Patent, FIG. 1). The line drawings emphasize the contours and silhouette of the design, including a distinct side profile with a scooped shape to accommodate a user ('479 Patent, FIG. 5). The broken lines in the figures denote unclaimed subject matter, such as crease lines and a buckle, thereby focusing the claimed design on the overall shape ('479 Patent, "DESCRIPTION").
- Technical Importance: This patent is part of the same "LAMZAC Lounger Patents" portfolio that Plaintiffs allege covers their "wildly popular" product (Compl. ¶ 1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a chaise lounge, as shown and described" ('479 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
- The essential visual elements defined by the drawings include:
- The overall shape and contours of the inflatable body.
- The bifurcated structure creating two parallel chambers.
- The specific profile view shown in the figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is an "inflatable lounger called the 'The Hangout Bag'" (Compl. ¶ 17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as an inflatable lounger that Defendant has manufactured, advertised, offered for sale, and sold (Compl. ¶ 17). The product is allegedly marketed and sold online via Defendant's website (Compl. ¶ 18). A photograph provided in the complaint depicts the accused "The Hangout Bag" as a portable, inflatable lounger with a bifurcated, two-chamber design, shown in use in an outdoor setting (Compl. p. 5, Image). Plaintiffs allege the design of this product is "substantially the same" as the designs protected by their patents (Compl. ¶ 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the design of the accused product is "substantially the same" as the patented designs and that an "ordinary observer familiar with the prior art designs... would be deceived into believing that the Infringing Product is the same as Fatboy's patented design" (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 37). This pleading language tracks the legal standard for design patent infringement established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the designs as they appear in the patents (Compl. p. 4, Images). This image shows the similar overall form of the two patented designs.
D764,823 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a chaise lounge, as shown and described. | The accused "The Hangout Bag" is an inflatable lounger alleged to have an ornamental design that "is substantially the same as the design set forth in U.S. Design Patent No. D764,823" and "appropriates the novel ornamental features" of the patent. | ¶17, ¶27, ¶28 | col. 1:57-59 |
D775,479 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a chaise lounge, as shown and described. | The accused "The Hangout Bag" is an inflatable lounger alleged to have an ornamental design that "is substantially the same as the design set forth in U.S. Design Patent No. D775,479" and "appropriates the novel ornamental features" of the patent. | ¶17, ¶36, ¶37 | col. 1:57-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be a factual comparison of the designs. The key question for the court will be whether the overall visual impression of "The Hangout Bag" is substantially the same as the overall visual impression of the designs claimed in the '823 and '479 Patents. The visual evidence provided in the complaint, particularly the photograph of the accused product, will be central to this analysis (Compl. p. 5, Image).
- Role of Prior Art: The infringement test requires the comparison to be made by an ordinary observer who is familiar with the prior art. While the complaint does not detail any specific prior art, the scope of prior art designs for inflatable furniture will be a critical factor in determining the novelty of the patented designs and the permissible scope of visual differences between the patented and accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent litigation, the claim is typically understood to be the design as depicted in the patent figures, and formal construction of verbal claim terms is uncommon. The dispute will likely focus on a direct visual comparison of the accused product to the patented designs rather than the definition of specific terms.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has induced and contributorily infringed the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 38). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing the required elements of knowledge and intent for these claims, such as alleging that Defendant provided instructions to users that would cause infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's conduct was undertaken "knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith, and with knowledge of Plaintiffs' rights" (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 39). The complaint does not specify the basis for this alleged knowledge, such as pre-suit notification or awareness of the patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual comparison: Does the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "The Hangout Bag" create a visual impression that is "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the '823 and '479 Patents in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art for inflatable loungers?
- A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness and intent: What evidence, if any, will emerge to support the allegations that the defendant acted with knowledge of the patents and with the intent to infringe, particularly as it relates to the claims for willful infringement and the parallel allegations of copyright infringement based on copied marketing materials (Compl. p. 6)?