DCT

2:25-cv-01961

Laltitude LLC v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations Indentified In Schedule A

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Laltitude LLC (California)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule "A" (Foreign-based)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Practus LLP; Bochner PLLC
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01961, W.D. Wash., 10/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' transaction of business in Washington, sales to consumers in the district, and acceptance of Amazon.com's Conditions of Use, which specify King County, Washington as the venue for dispute adjudication.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ magnetic brick toys, sold through online marketplaces, infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a single magnetic brick.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the magnetic construction toy market, where distinct visual designs can be a significant driver of commercial success and brand identity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Design Patent No. D789,312, has been certified as patentable by the USPTO over newly discovered prior art on three separate occasions via supplemental examination. This procedural history may be raised by the Plaintiff to suggest the patent’s robustness against invalidity challenges.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-10-06 D'312 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2017-06-13 D'312 Patent Issue Date
2019-02-21 Date of alleged constructive notice via patent marking
2025-01-08 USPTO issues Supplemental Examination Certificate No. 96/050,061
2025-01-08 USPTO issues Supplemental Examination Certificate No. 96/050,062
2025-04-02 USPTO issues Supplemental Examination Certificate No. 96/050,079
2025-10-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D789,312 - "Single Magnetic Brick"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D789,312, "Single Magnetic Brick," issued June 13, 2017 (the "’312 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the field of articles of manufacture, a design patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design to distinguish a product's appearance.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’312 Patent claims a specific ornamental design for a magnetic toy brick. The design, depicted in seven figures, consists of a square-shaped body with a raised perimeter frame. The frame features beveled edges and circular indentations at each corner and at the midpoint of each side, presumably to house magnets. A recessed, transparent central square panel is shown with diagonal lines indicating transparency. The overall visual impression is one of a geometric, window-like tile (’312 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this design has achieved "overwhelming commercial success" and created a "new paradigm for the magnetic building brick toy industry," suggesting its aesthetic appeal is a key market differentiator (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is: "The ornamental design for a single magnetic brick, as shown and described." (’312 Patent, Claim).
  • As a design patent, the "elements" of the claim are the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings, including:
    • A square overall shape.
    • A raised peripheral frame with beveled edges.
    • A recessed central square panel.
    • Circular features located at each of the four corners and the midpoints of the four sides.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • "Infringing Products" described as magnetic bricks sold by the Defendants through online storefronts on platforms such as Amazon.com, AliExpress, and TikTok Shop (Compl. ¶¶23, 51, 58).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are components of magnetic construction toy sets (Compl. ¶59). The complaint alleges that Defendants sell these products as "inferior knock-offs" at lower prices to compete with Plaintiff's commercially successful "PicassoTiles" products, which embody the patented design (Compl. ¶¶2, 24). The complaint reproduces figures from the patent to illustrate the claimed design. (Compl. p. 7, Figs. 1-7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for infringement of a design patent is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products are "virtually identical" and "substantially the same" as the claimed design (Compl. ¶¶54, 59).

’312 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a single magnetic brick, as shown and described. Defendants' products are alleged to be "virtually identical copy and counterfeit of Plaintiff's D312 Patent practicing products and D312 Patent design claim" and "so substantially similar to those claimed that they would deceive an ordinary observer." ¶¶54, 60 Figs. 1-7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’312 Patent. The analysis will focus not on a side-by-side comparison of dissected features, but on the designs as a whole.
    • Technical Questions: The court will need to determine if any visual differences between the accused products and the patent drawings are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived. The complaint alleges the resemblance is deceptive, but the specific visual evidence of the accused products is contained in an unattached exhibit (Exhibit F), precluding a direct comparison in this analysis (Compl. ¶59).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically focused on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as a whole, rather than the construction of specific text-based terms. The claim is understood to be for the design shown in the application drawings.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a single magnetic brick"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the patent is defined by the drawings. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing ornamental features from purely functional ones. While the placement of magnets is functional, the specific shape of the tile's frame, its beveled edges, and the proportions of the central panel versus the frame are ornamental aspects that create the overall visual impression protected by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might contend that the core ornamental features are the combination of a raised square frame with a recessed inner panel and magnetic connection points at regular intervals, allowing for minor variations in beveling or corner design to still fall within the patent's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope would emphasize that the specific combination of all depicted features—including the precise shape of the beveled edges and the distinct circular features at the corners and midpoints—is what constitutes the patented design. Any deviation from this specific visual gestalt, they might argue, would place an accused product outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts for induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendants' acts of making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶¶58, First Cause of Action).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendants had actual knowledge of the ’312 Patent due to the fame and popularity of Plaintiff's PicassoTiles products, or were willfully blind to Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶¶53, 62). It further alleges constructive notice based on Plaintiff's patent marking since at least February 21, 2019 (Compl. ¶52).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: Will a fact-finder, applying the "ordinary observer" test, conclude that the accused magnetic bricks are "substantially the same" in overall ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the ’312 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them?
  2. A key defensive question will concern validity: Despite the patent surviving three supplemental examinations, Defendants will likely argue the design is obvious in light of prior art. The central question will be whether Defendants can present evidence that is materially different from what the USPTO has already considered and overcome the patent's presumption of validity.
  3. An important question for damages will be willfulness: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’312 Patent and intentionally copied the design, or acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights, thereby justifying an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?