DCT
2:25-cv-01907
Miir Holdings LLC v. Everyday Drinkware Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: MiiR Holdings, LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Everyday Drinkware Inc, dba Created Co. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: K&L Gates LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01907, W.D. Wash., 10/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business and offers infringing products for sale within the district, which is also Plaintiff's principal place of business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s drinkware products infringe a design patent and associated trade dress, and that Defendant misappropriated trade secrets through a former employee of Plaintiff.
- Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the competitive consumer market for premium, aesthetically-driven reusable drinkware, where ornamental design is a key product differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative patent challenges; however, it details the timeline of a former Plaintiff's employee being hired by Defendant, which forms the basis for the trade secret misappropriation claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-00-00 | Plaintiff MiiR established |
| 2016-06-22 | Plaintiff begins use of Camp Cup Trade Dress |
| 2016-12-07 | Plaintiff begins use of Wide Mouth Bottle Trade Dress |
| 2017-00-00 | Plaintiff begins use of stylized MiiR mark |
| 2018-05-14 | ’536 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-10-00 | Plaintiff begins use of Flip Traveler Trade Dress |
| 2019-12-03 | ’536 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-10-26 | Plaintiff hires employee Madison Fender |
| 2023-06-13 | Plaintiff terminates employee Madison Fender |
| 2023-09-20 | Former employee allegedly emails Plaintiff's customer on behalf of Defendant |
| 2024-02-08 | Date by which Defendant was allegedly aware of Plaintiff's trade dress rights |
| 2025-10-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D868,536 S, issued December 3, 2019 (the “’536 Patent”).
U.S. Patent No. D868,536 S - "Tumbler"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’536 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a specific ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a tumbler (Compl. ¶16; ’536 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a tumbler characterized by a generally cylindrical body, a gently curved transition to a flat bottom, and a lid that slopes asymmetrically from back to front (’536 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 5). The description clarifies that elements shown in broken lines, such as details on the bottom of the tumbler and within the lid's drinking aperture, do not form part of the claimed design, focusing the claim on the overall shape and configuration of the visible surfaces (’536 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic in the highly competitive market for personal insulated drinkware, where visual appeal is a primary driver of consumer choice (Compl. ¶11, 28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The ’536 Patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a tumbler, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶102; ’536 Patent, Claim).
- The core ornamental features comprising the design are:
- A generally cylindrical body with a smooth surface profile.
- A continuous, curved edge at the base of the tumbler body.
- An asymmetrically sloped lid surface.
- A flip-top closure element integrated into the lid.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses Defendant's "Nomad Flip" tumbler of infringing the ’536 Patent (Compl. ¶58). The "Nomad Flip" is identified as part of a larger line of "Infringing Drinkware" that is also accused of trade dress infringement (Compl. ¶71).
Functionality and Market Context
The "Nomad Flip" is a personal beverage tumbler sold in the United States through Defendant's website and other channels (Compl. ¶59, 64). The complaint positions the product as a direct copy of Plaintiff's designs, intended to compete in the same consumer and business-to-business markets, including customized drinkware for cafes (Compl. ¶65, 70). A visual provided in the complaint shows a side-by-side comparison of the patented design from Figure 1 and a photograph of the accused "Nomad Flip" tumbler (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused product is "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶60, 103). The complaint presents several side-by-side photographic comparisons to support its allegations of similarity. A visual comparison shows the accused "Nomad Flip" tumbler alongside Plaintiff's "Flip Traveler," which embodies the patented design (Compl. p. 20).
’536 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall impression made by the design's shape and silhouette | The accused "Nomad Flip" tumbler allegedly has a substantially similar overall shape and silhouette to the patented design. | ¶61, 104 | Fig. 1-5 |
| A curved base | The accused product is alleged to feature a curved base that is visually similar to that shown in the patent's figures. | ¶61, 104 | Fig. 1-5 |
| Similar sloping lids | The accused product's lid is alleged to have a slope and overall appearance that is substantially similar to the patented lid design. | ¶61, 104 | Fig. 4, 5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question for infringement will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. A potential dispute may arise over whether the overall visual impression of the two designs is substantially the same, or if differences in the specific execution of the lid, such as the shape of the flip-tab and surface branding elements visible in complaint photos, are sufficient to differentiate them in the eyes of an ordinary observer (Compl. p. 16).
- Visual Evidence Questions: The complaint provides multiple side-by-side comparisons of the patent figures and the accused product (Compl. pp. 14-17). The analysis will question whether the similarities in the overall form (cylindrical body, sloped lid) outweigh the specific, observable differences in the lid's mechanical details and surface finish. Another visual presents a chart comparing the colorways and launch dates of Plaintiff's and Defendant's products, which may be used to argue a pattern of copying that extends beyond the patented design (Compl. p. 22).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction involves describing the claimed visual features in words rather than construing specific terms. The focus is on the overall visual impression of the design as shown in the patent figures.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a tumbler"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this "term"—which is the design itself—is the central issue. The infringement analysis depends entirely on how broadly or narrowly the court defines the protected visual elements and the overall aesthetic they create.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the design's core, protected features are the combination of a simple cylindrical body, a curved base, and an angled top, creating a specific minimalist silhouette. The patent's use of broken lines to disclaim the inner workings of the lid mechanism could support an argument that the claim is not limited to the precise flip-top shown, but covers other tumblers with the same overall form factor (’536 Patent, Description).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the specific proportions, curvature, and lid-slope angle depicted in the patent's drawings. Any deviation in the accused product's proportions or the specific shape of its solid-line features (such as the flip-tab) could be framed as a significant departure from the claimed design, creating a different overall visual impression.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’536 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶100). The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect patent infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful" in the patent infringement count itself. However, the prayer for relief requests a determination that the infringement was "willful, wanton and deliberate" to support an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. p. 35, ¶e). The complaint does not plead specific facts alleging Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the ’536 Patent, though it alleges a broad "campaign to systematically and unlawfully infringe" Plaintiff's intellectual property (Compl. ¶57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual scope under the ordinary observer test: Will a fact-finder determine that the overall visual impression of the accused "Nomad Flip" tumbler is substantially the same as the ’536 Patent's design, or will perceived differences in the lid's details and surface branding be sufficient to avoid infringement?
- A second key question will be one of contextual intent: How will the extensive allegations of trade dress copying, colorway imitation, and trade secret misappropriation via a former employee influence the court’s evaluation of the patent claim, particularly as it relates to the question of willful infringement and the potential for enhanced damages?