DCT
2:25-cv-01907
Miir Holdings LLC v. Everyday Drinkware Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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., 12/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant transacts business, offers infringing products for sale within the district, and the district is Plaintiff's principal place of business where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s drinkware products infringe three of its design patents, in addition to claims of trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, and trade secret misappropriation.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental designs of premium stainless-steel drinkware, a consumer goods category where distinctive product appearance is a significant market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that a former Plaintiff employee was hired by Defendant and subsequently misappropriated trade secrets, including customer lists and marketing campaigns, for Defendant’s benefit. These allegations, while separate from the patent claims, may be used to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-08-01 | U.S. Patent No. D814,243 Priority Date |
| 2018-04-03 | U.S. Patent No. D814,243 Issued |
| 2018-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. D868,536 Priority Date |
| 2019-12-03 | U.S. Patent No. D868,536 Issued |
| 2020-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. D1,019,281 Priority Date |
| 2024-03-26 | U.S. Patent No. D1,019,281 Issued |
| 2025-12-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D814,243 - "Travel Cup With Lid"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead seeks protection for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture—a travel cup with a lid (D’243 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a travel cup as depicted in its figures. The design features a generally cylindrical body, a smoothly curved transition to a flat base, a flat-topped lid, and a distinct, thin, trapezoidal handle that attaches at the top and bottom of the cup body ('243 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The design disclaims, through the use of broken lines, any text on the cup or lid and certain features on the bottom of the cup, focusing the claimed design on the product's overall shape and form ('243 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: In the competitive drinkware market, unique and aesthetically pleasing designs serve as a primary means of brand identification and consumer appeal (Compl. ¶11-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "the ornamental design for a travel cup with lid, as shown and described" ('243 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential elements of the design are the visual characteristics embodied in the drawings, including:
- The overall shape and proportions of the cup body and lid.
- The specific profile of the trapezoidal handle.
- The curvature of the base.
- The appearance of the lid from a top-down perspective.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,019,281 - "Mug"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent provides a new, original, and ornamental design for a mug (D’281 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The '281 patent claims the ornamental design for a mug characterized by a cylindrical body, a handle with a distinct D-shape profile, and a flat base. The patent shows two embodiments, with minor variations in the handle design ('281 Patent, FIG. 1, 8). The claimed design, depicted in solid lines, focuses on the mug's overall shape, while portions of the handle surface and bottom are disclaimed via broken lines ('281 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The design offers a variation on the classic mug form, intended to create a distinct visual impression in the consumer marketplace (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "the ornamental design for a mug, as shown and described" ('281 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential elements of the design are the visual features shown in the drawings, including:
- The proportions of the cylindrical mug body.
- The specific curvature and profile of the handle.
- The relationship between the handle and the body.
U.S. Design Patent No. D868,536 - "Tumbler"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental design for a handle-less, cylindrical tumbler. The design is characterized by a slightly tapered body and a lid with a distinctive, upward-sloping profile leading to a sip opening (’536 Patent, FIG. 1, 4).
- Asserted Claims: The patent asserts a single claim for "the ornamental design for a tumbler, as shown and described" ('536 Patent, CLAIM).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "Nomad Flip" tumbler of infringing the '536 Patent (Compl. ¶77, 143).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses Defendant’s "Camp Mug" of infringing the '243 and '281 Patents, and Defendant's "Nomad Flip" tumbler of infringing the '536 Patent (Compl. ¶69, 73, 77).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are stainless-steel beverage containers sold in the United States through Defendant's website and other channels (Compl. ¶70, 78). The complaint presents the accused products as direct competitors to Plaintiff's products, alleging that they copy Plaintiff's distinctive designs (Compl. ¶68). A side-by-side photographic comparison in the complaint shows Defendant's "Camp Mug" next to patent figures from the '243 Patent (Compl. p. 16, FIG. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges this standard is met for all asserted patents.
D814,243 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a travel cup with lid, as shown and described | The design of Defendant's Camp Mug is alleged to be substantially the same as the claimed design | ¶71 | '243 Patent, FIG. 1-6 |
| Impression made by the design's shape and silhouette | The shape and silhouette of the accused Camp Mug are alleged to create the same overall impression as the patented design | ¶72, 127 | '243 Patent, FIG. 1, 4 |
| Impression made by the curved base | The accused Camp Mug allegedly features a curved base that is substantially the same as the patented design | ¶72, 127 | '243 Patent, FIG. 1, 2, 3 |
| Impression made by the similar handle | The accused Camp Mug allegedly features a handle that is substantially similar to the patented trapezoidal handle | ¶72, 127 | '243 Patent, FIG. 1, 4 |
D1,019,281 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a mug, as shown and described | The design of Defendant's Camp Mug is alleged to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '281 Patent | ¶75, 137 | '281 Patent, FIG. 1-14 |
| Impression made by the designs' shape and silhouette | The shape and silhouette of the accused Camp Mug are alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design | ¶137 | '281 Patent, FIG. 4, 5 |
| Impression made by the curved base | The accused Camp Mug allegedly features a curved base that creates the same impression as the patented design's base | ¶137 | '281 Patent, FIG. 1, 10 |
| Impression made by the similar handle | The accused Camp Mug allegedly features a handle that is substantially similar to the handle in the patented design | ¶137 | '281 Patent, FIG. 1, 4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's side-by-side images show Defendant’s logo ("CREATED") is visible on the accused products (Compl. p. 17, FIG. 3; p. 19). The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the presence of a different brand name on an accused product is sufficient to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived as to the source of the design.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the handles are "similar" (Compl. ¶72, 127). A central question will be whether the specific geometry and proportions of the accused Camp Mug handle create an overall visual impression that is substantially the same as the distinct handles claimed in the '243 and '281 Patents, respectively, in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, there are no traditional claim terms to construe. Instead, the analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's drawings.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a travel cup with lid, as shown and described" ('243 Patent) and "The ornamental design for a mug, as shown and described" ('281 Patent).
- Context and Importance: The scope of these claimed designs will be the central issue. The court's interpretation of what visual features are included in the overall "ornamental design" will determine whether the accused products infringe. Practitioners may focus on identifying the novel ornamental features that distinguish the patented designs from the prior art to properly frame the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is to the "overall" design, suggesting that minor differences in individual features should not defeat a finding of infringement if the designs are substantially the same in their entirety. The solid lines in the figures define the scope of the claimed design ('243 Patent, FIG. 1-6; '281 Patent, FIG. 1-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precise proportions, curvatures, and specific shapes shown in the drawings define the limits of the design. Furthermore, the patents explicitly disclaim certain features by rendering them in broken lines, such as text and portions of the bottom surface, which narrows the scope of protection to only the elements shown in solid lines ('243 Patent, DESCRIPTION; '281 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory patent infringement. The patent claims are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶123, 133, 143).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint requests a determination that Defendant's infringement has been "willful, wanton and deliberate" and seeks enhanced damages (Compl. p. 48, ¶e). The factual basis for willfulness appears to be grounded in the broader allegations of a "campaign to systematically and unlawfully infringe" on Plaintiff's intellectual property, which includes alleged wholesale copying of product designs and trade dress (Compl. ¶68, 91).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: In the context of the "ordinary observer" test, are the similarities in the overall shape, silhouette, and handle design between the accused products and the patented designs strong enough to outweigh visual differences, such as the prominent branding on Defendant's products?
- A second key question relates to design scope and overlap: Plaintiff asserts two separate design patents against the same accused "Camp Mug." The case may require a detailed analysis of the specific ornamental features that define the scope of each patent and whether the accused product creates a visual impression that is substantially the same as both distinct, patented designs.