DCT
3:23-cv-00106
Millennium Outdoors LLC v. Leader Accessories LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Millennium Outdoors LLC (Mississippi)
- Defendant: Leader Accessories LLC (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Godfrey & Kahn; Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00106, W.D. Wis., 02/15/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Defendant is a Wisconsin LLC that resides in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable folding boat seat infringes two of its design patents and also constitutes trade dress infringement.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of folding, breathable mesh boat seats used in the recreational marine and outdoor products market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant’s agent on August 11, 2022, and October 28, 2022, notifying Defendant of the alleged infringement. Plaintiff alleges it received no response to either letter, which may form the basis for its willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-07-16 | Priority Date for D'046 and D'047 Patents |
| 2014 | Plaintiff alleges first use of trade dress |
| 2015-04-21 | D'046 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-04-21 | D'047 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017 | Plaintiff began marketing current version of boat seat |
| 2022-02 (or earlier) | Alleged first manufacture/sale of Accused Product |
| 2022-08-11 | Plaintiff sent first cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-10-28 | Plaintiff sent second cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2023-02-15 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D727,046 - "Boat Seat," Issued April 21, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'046 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects the "non-functional, ornamental design for a boat seat" (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a boat seat as depicted in its six figures (D’046 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The design is characterized by a minimalist tubular frame that supports a suspended fabric sling for the seat and backrest. Key visual features include the continuous curve of the upper backrest frame, the distinct shape of the side-frame members, and the overall clean profile without visible fasteners attaching the fabric to the side frames (D’046 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was "the first in the industry to design and offer a folding, breathable mesh boat seat," suggesting the design was introduced as a novel aesthetic in the market (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a boat seat, as shown and described" (D’046 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance of the boat seat as illustrated in Figures 1-6 of the patent.
U.S. Design Patent No. D727,047 - "Boat Seat," Issued April 21, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The D'047 Patent protects the "non-functional, ornamental design for a boat seat" (Compl. ¶20).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a boat seat as shown in its figures (D’047 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The overall form is very similar to that of the D’046 Patent, featuring a tubular frame and a suspended fabric sling. However, this design is distinguished by the inclusion of a series of visible, circular fasteners spaced along the side-frame members where the fabric is attached (D’047 Patent, Fig. 1, 2).
- Technical Importance: This design is presented as part of the same innovative product line as the design in the D'046 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a boat seat, as shown and described" (D’047 Patent, Claim).
- The claim's scope is defined by the drawings, which notably include the pattern of circular elements along the sides of the seat frame, a feature not present in the D'046 patent design.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Leader Accessories Portable Folding Marine Fishing Seat Boat Seat" (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Product is a "folding, breathable mesh boat seat" sold through Defendant's website and retail partners, including Amazon.com (Compl. ¶28, ¶29, ¶31). The complaint alleges that the Accused Product directly competes with Plaintiff's "Millennium Marine B-Series" boat seats and is sold through overlapping channels of trade (Compl. ¶12, ¶43). The complaint includes a photograph of Plaintiff’s Millennium B-100 Boat Seat, which it alleges embodies its trade dress and patented designs (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product supposing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges this standard is met for both asserted patents (Compl. ¶34, ¶38).
The complaint provides visual evidence in "Table 1" to support its infringement claim for the D'046 patent, comparing patent figures to photographs of the accused product (Compl. p. 8).
D'046 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Compared Design Feature (from D'046 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Appearance (from Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance from a front perspective view, showing the shape of the frame and suspended seat. | The Accused Product's front perspective view is alleged to be "substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶35, p. 8 | Fig. 1 |
| The ornamental appearance from a side view, showing the profile of the frame members and their connection points. | The Accused Product's side profile is alleged to be "substantially the same" as the patented design's profile. | ¶35, p. 8 | Fig. 2 |
| The ornamental appearance from a top-down view, showing the rectangular shape and corner details. | The Accused Product's top-down view is alleged to be "substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶35, p. 9 | Fig. 3 |
D'047 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a similar visual comparison in "Table 2" for the ’047 Patent (Compl. p. 11).
| Compared Design Feature (from D'047 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Appearance (from Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance from a front perspective view, including the visible circular fasteners along the side frames. | The Accused Product's front perspective view, which also appears to have visible fasteners, is alleged to be "substantially the same." | ¶39, p. 11 | Fig. 1 |
| The ornamental appearance from a top-down view, showing the frame shape and interior support structure. | The Accused Product's top-down view is alleged to be "substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶39, p. 12 | Fig. 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the scope of the patented designs in view of the prior art. The litigation will likely explore whether the overall visual impression of the Accused Product is substantially similar to the claimed designs when viewed in the context of other boat seats available before the patents' priority date.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on specific differences in appearance, such as the shape and branding of the logo on the backrest, the precise curvature of the frame tubing, or the design of the mounting hardware. The question for the fact-finder will be whether these differences are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression for the ordinary observer. The two patents themselves differ on the presence of visible side fasteners, raising the question of how the Accused Product's features map onto each distinct design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction is generally not a central issue in design patent litigation, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by words. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance as a whole. However, the litigation will necessarily involve determining the scope of the claimed designs, which is analogous to claim construction in a utility patent case. Practitioners may focus on the following aspects:
The Scope of "Boat Seat"
- Context and Importance: The scope of the design is limited to its application for a "boat seat." The key issue is not the construction of the term itself, but what features of the design are ornamental versus purely functional.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint asserts the overall design is "non-functional" (Compl. ¶17, ¶20), which would support a broad scope of protection for the entire visual appearance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely argue that elements like the folding mechanism, use of mesh fabric, and the general frame structure are functional. If successful, this would narrow the scope of the protected design to only the purely arbitrary and ornamental aspects, making it harder to prove infringement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of induced infringement (Compl. ¶56, ¶66), but the primary factual allegations support a claim of direct infringement through Defendant's alleged making, selling, offering for sale, and importing of the Accused Product (Compl. ¶55, ¶65).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful, intentional, and in bad faith (Compl. ¶58, ¶68). This allegation is supported by specific factual claims that Plaintiff sent two pre-suit notification letters to Defendant's agent, on August 11, 2022, and October 28, 2022, and that Defendant failed to respond and continued its allegedly infringing activity (Compl. ¶47-49). The complaint also alleges that Defendant "copied the design" (Compl. ¶30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of design scope in view of the prior art: will an ordinary observer, when viewing the patented designs in the context of prior art boat seats, consider the overall visual appearance of the Accused Product to be substantially the same, or will the designs be seen as covering only a narrow combination of features?
- A key evidentiary question will be the visual impact of differences: does the Accused Product possess differences in its frame shape, logo, or other details that create a distinct overall visual impression from the patented designs, or are these differences minor details that do not affect the perception of an ordinary observer?
- The case presents a question of infringement with respect to two similar patents: how will the court and jury analyze infringement of two distinct-but-similar designs by a single accused product, particularly where one patent ('047) claims visible side fasteners and the other ('046) does not? This may require a nuanced comparison of the Accused Product against each patented design individually.