DCT
2:24-cv-00692
FNA Group Inc v. JD North America Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FNA Group, Inc. (Illinois)
- Defendant: J. D. North America Corp. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Holland & Knight LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00692, E.D. Wis., 06/04/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district, including offices in Milwaukee and a corporate headquarters in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendant’s Husqvarna-branded gas pressure washers infringes a design patent covering the appearance of a pressure washer.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the non-functional, aesthetic appearance of pressure washers, a category of outdoor power equipment sold in consumer and commercial markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on April 11, 2024, providing notice of the patent and the alleged infringement prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-06-29 | '545 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-08-14 | '545 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-04-11 | Pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant |
| 2024-06-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D665,545 - "Pressure Washer"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D665,545, "Pressure Washer", issued August 14, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The complaint asserts the patent claims a "non-functional ornamental design" (Compl. ¶21). The '545 patent seeks to protect a specific aesthetic for a pressure washer, distinguishing it visually in the marketplace.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims "[t]he ornamental design for a pressure washer, as shown and described" (’545 Patent, CLAIM). The core of the design, as depicted in solid lines in the figures, is a two-wheeled cart with a distinctive, tall, continuous-loop handle rising from the frame that supports the functional components (’545 Patent, Fig. 1). The design also features a specific frame geometry, including a front member that curves forward and downward (’545 Patent, Fig. 2). The broken lines in the figures, representing the engine, pump, wheels, and other functional parts, are explicitly disclaimed and "form no part of the claimed design" (’545 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The value of the design is in its aesthetic differentiation within the competitive outdoor power equipment market, where Plaintiff identifies itself as an "innovator" (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in the drawings.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused "Infringing Products" are the Husqvarna® 3,000 Max PSI Gas Pressure Washer (model 22008), Husqvarna® 3,300 Max PSI Gas Pressure Washer (model 22009), and Husqvarna® 3,600 Max PSI Gas Pressure Washer (model 22010) (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are gas-powered pressure washers sold to consumers through retailers in the United States, including at least one Menards home improvement store within the judicial district (Compl. ¶11-12). A photograph in the complaint shows the accused Husqvarna PW 3000 product and its packaging on a retail store floor, indicating its availability in the consumer market (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges that Defendant partners with various dealers in Wisconsin to sell its products, substantiating this claim with a screenshot from Defendant's website showing a dealer locator map for the Milwaukee area (Compl. p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the '545 Patent because their overall visual appearance is substantially the same as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶27). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of an accused product and figures from the '545 Patent to support its infringement claim (Compl. p. 7).
D665,545 Infringement Allegations
| Overall Visual Feature (from '545 Patent Figs. 1-2) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Complaint p. 7) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall configuration of a pressure washer on a two-wheeled cart with a frame supporting an engine and a tall, continuous loop handle. | The accused products feature a two-wheeled base, a frame supporting an engine, and a tall, continuous loop handle in a substantially similar overall configuration. | ¶27, p. 7 | Fig. 1 |
| The specific shape and proportions of the upper handle, which consists of a continuous, rounded rectangular loop. | The handle of the accused product is a continuous, rounded rectangular loop of substantially the same shape and proportion as the claimed design. | ¶27, p. 7 | Fig. 1 |
| The arrangement of the main body on a lower frame platform situated between the wheels, with a front frame member that curves downward and forward. | The accused product places its functional components on a lower frame platform between the wheels, and its front frame member follows a substantially similar downward and forward curve. | ¶27, p. 7 | Fig. 2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. A court will assess 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 analysis will focus on the claimed design as a whole, as shown in solid lines in the '545 patent.
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the jury will be whether the visual similarities in the overall shape, frame configuration, and handle design between the accused products and the patented design outweigh any visual differences. The effect of the prominent "Husqvarna" branding on the accused product may be debated, though case law often holds that branding is irrelevant to the question of design patent infringement, which concerns the article's appearance itself.
V. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement; it asserts only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been "willful, deliberate, and objectively reckless" (Compl. ¶34). This allegation is supported by the assertion that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant on April 11, 2024, nearly two months before the complaint was filed, allegedly making Defendant aware of its infringing activities (Compl. ¶23). Willfulness is asserted to have begun, at the latest, upon service of the complaint (Compl. Prayer for Relief iii).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the legal standard for design patent infringement, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Husqvarna pressure washers "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '545 Patent, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on a holistic comparison of the designs, focusing on the claimed frame and handle elements.
- A second key question will relate to culpability and damages: Did Defendant's alleged continuation of manufacturing and selling the accused products after receiving a pre-suit notice letter in April 2024 constitute willful infringement? The answer will determine whether Plaintiff may be entitled to enhanced damages or the disgorgement of Defendant's total profits from the infringing products.