Walker v. Amazon Advertising LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Andrew Walker Jr. (California)
  • Defendant: Amazon Advertising LLC (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00848, W.D. Wash., 06/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendant is a registered corporation that conducts business and sells the accused products via internet commerce in the Western District of Washington.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of "genie bottle" themed products, including a plastic stencil, infringes a design patent for a "Fragrant Oil Burning Lamp."
• Technical Context: The patent relates to ornamental designs for decorative home fragrance products, a consumer market segment where aesthetic appearance is a primary driver of purchasing decisions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the alleged infringement, but that the accused activity continued.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D593,191 - "Fragrant Oil Burning Lamp"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but instead protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a new and distinctive aesthetic design for a product category.
• The Patented Solution: The ’191 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a lamp resembling a "genie bottle" (Compl. ¶6). The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, is characterized by a three-part structure comprising a bulbous base with vertical fluting, a long, slender neck featuring a spiral wrap with inset dots, and a separate, decorative stopper. The patent’s exploded view illustrates that these components form a functional lamp, with the top portion being removable from the base ('191 Patent, FIG. 1; Description of FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The design’s importance lies in its aesthetic contribution, providing a unique visual appearance for a common consumer product in the home decor market (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim, which is pictorial rather than textual.
• The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a fragrant oil burning lamp, as shown and described" (’191 Patent, Claim).
• The essential elements of the claim are the visual features depicted in Figures 1 through 8 of the patent, which define the shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation of the lamp design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as a "product line that has a genie bottle structure," marketed under names including "Genie Bottle" and "Jeannie Bottle" (Compl. ¶8). One specifically identified product is the "I Dream of Jeannie Bottle Reusable Sturdy Stencil Clear Custom Cut Plastic Sheet Template..." (Compl. ¶10a).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint generally accuses "decorative genie bottle product[s]" sold in competition with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶8). The functionality of the specifically identified stencil is to allow a user to create a two-dimensional image of a "Jeannie Bottle" for "Airbrush Painting Drawing" and other "DIY Supplies" (Compl. ¶10a).
• Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells these products in the home, garden, and art markets via internet commerce (Compl. ¶¶6, 8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or attach the exhibits referenced. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's products, including the accused stencil, incorporate a "genie bottle structure" that is substantially the same as the ornamental design protected by the ’191 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that by selling products that have the "same protected elements," Defendant has directly infringed the patent (Compl. ¶10a).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary legal question may be whether the ’191 Patent, which claims a design for a three-dimensional "fragrant oil burning lamp," can be infringed by a two-dimensional "Stencil." The analysis will likely focus on whether a stencil is a legally equivalent "article of manufacture" and whether its design is "substantially the same" as the patented lamp in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused products' designs and the specific ornamental features shown in the ’191 Patent figures. This comparison would extend beyond the general "genie bottle" shape to include the specific proportions, the vertical fluting on the base, the spiral-and-dot motif on the neck, and the stopper's shape.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is typically focused on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete text. However, the title and claim language can limit the article of manufacture to which the design applies.

• The Term: "fragrant oil burning lamp"
• Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent's title and single claim defines the article of manufacture. Its interpretation will be critical to the infringement analysis, particularly because the one specifically identified accused product is a stencil, not a functional lamp. The dispute may turn on whether the patented design is inseparable from a three-dimensional lamp or if it can be infringed by a two-dimensional representation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the term "lamp" merely provides a commercial context for the design and that the patent's protection resides in the ornamental appearance itself, which can be misappropriated through other articles like stencils that embody the same design.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the claim is expressly limited to the article specified. The patent’s description of Figure 1 as showing a "top portion removable from a base portion and a fragrant oil reservoir tube" could be cited as evidence that the claimed design is inherently tied to the structure and function of a physical, three-dimensional lamp (’191 Patent, Description of FIG. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant "encourage[s] vendors to infringe" and promotes products that incorporate the patented design (Compl. ¶10a).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Plaintiff having "notified Amazon Advertising LLC that this activity infringes," after which Defendant allegedly failed to stop the infringing activity, thus demonstrating "willfull knowledge" (Compl. ¶11).

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

• A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the ’191 Patent, which claims an ornamental design "for a fragrant oil burning lamp," be construed to cover a two-dimensional plastic stencil used to create an image of a similar bottle? This question will test the legal boundaries of the "article of manufacture" to which a design patent's protection extends.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of visual similarity: assuming the first issue is resolved in Plaintiff's favor, does the design of the accused products—or the image created by the accused stencil—replicate the specific combination of ornamental features shown in the patent's figures to such a degree that it would deceive an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?