simplehuman, LLC v. iTouchless Housewares and Products, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 13, 2019
• Docket: 4:19-cv-02701
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SIMPLEHUMAN, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-02701-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS DESIGN 9 v. PATENT CLAIMS

10 ITOUCHLESS HOUSEWARES AND Re: Dkt. No. 24 PRODUCTS, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 Pending before the Court is Defendant iTouchless Housewares and Products, Inc.’s motion 15 to dismiss Plaintiff simplehuman, LLC’s design patent infringement claims stated in the amended 16 complaint. Dkt No. 24 (“Mot.”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without 17 oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). After carefully 18 reviewing and considering the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to 19 dismiss. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 simplehuman, LLC (“simplehuman”) manufactures and sells “highly stylistic and 22 distinctive trash cans.” Dkt. No. 19 (“FAC”) ¶ 7. iTouchless Housewares and Products, Inc. 23 (“iTouchless”) sells trash cans, including the Dual-Deodorizer Oval Open-Top trash can and the 24 Dual-Compartment Open Top Trash and Recycle Can. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. simplehuman brings this 25 lawsuit alleging that iTouchless infringes its patents. Specifically, simplehuman alleges that 26 iTouchless infringes two design patents, U.S. Design Patent Nos. D644,807 C1 (“D807 Patent”) 27 and D729,485 S (“D485 Patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Design Patents”), as well as utility 1 The D807 Patent is titled “Slim Open Trash Can.” FAC, Ex. 1. simplehuman accuses the 2 || Dual-Deodorizer Oval Open-Top trash can of infringing this patent. FAC § 14. Shown below is 3 simplehuman’s comparison of the accused trash can to the D807 Patent design. /d. at 8.

Dual-Deodorizer Oval Open-Top U.S. Design Patent No. D644,807 C1 5 - Fe

8 9 je rit | be 10 fee i | | | | YY

5 14 15 The D485 Patent is titled “Dual Recycler.” FAC, Ex. 2. simplehuman accuses the Dual- 16 || Compartment Open Top Trash and Recycle Can of infringing this patent. FAC 4 16. Shown

= 17 || below is simplehuman’s comparison of the accused trash can to the D485 design. Jd. at 11. 1B Dual-Compartment Open Top Trash

ya

. —— 2 Pa v ff »— A KS fi f 24 |

25 26 FIG. 1 27 08 po

1 U.S. Patent No. 6,626,316 describes an improved trash can assembly. FAC ¶ 17. 2 simplehuman accuses the AirStep trash can of infringing this patent. Id. ¶ 18. iTouchless moves 3 to dismiss simplehuman’s claims for infringement of the D807 and D485 Patents only. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 6 To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a 7 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its 8 face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility “when the 9 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 10 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 11 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). To evaluate plausibility, a court must “accept factual allegations in 12 the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 13 party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). 14 However, a court “need not accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by 15 documents referred to in the complaint.”1 Id. 16 A court may consider documents outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss if they are 17 subject to judicial notice or if they are integral to the plaintiff’s claims and their authenticity is not 18 disputed. Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705-06 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on 19 other grounds as stated in Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 20 2006). Accordingly, a court may consider the patents attached to a complaint and the 21 undisputedly authentic photographs of the accused products. See Performance Designed Prods. V. 22 Mad Catz, Inc., No. 16-cv-629-GPC (RBB), 2016 WL 3552063, at *4 n.2 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 23 2016). A court may also take judicial notice of the prosecution history and prior art of a patent. 24 Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 954 n.27 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Colt Int’l Clothing Inc. 25 1 simplehuman argues that its complaint is governed by the pleading standard set out in Hall v. 26 Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 705 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Hall was decided prior to the abrogation of Form 18, which simplified the requirements for pleading a patent infringement 27 claim. See Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 15-cv-05469, 2016 WL 179545, at *5 1 v. Quasar Science, LLC, 304 F. Supp. 3d 891, 892 (C.D. Cal. 2018). 2 B. Design Patent Infringement 3 A design patent protects “any new, original and ornamental design for an article of 4 manufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171(a). Unlike a utility patent, a design patent is “directed to the 5 appearance of an article,” as opposed to its functionality. L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Show 6 Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A design patent is “typically claimed as shown in 7 drawings” and has “almost no scope beyond the precise images shown in the drawings.” MRC 8 Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 133 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l 9 Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 10 To evaluate infringement of a design patent, the court applies the “ordinary observer” test. 11 Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1303 (citing Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 681 (Fed. Cir. 12 2008) (en banc)). That test asks whether “an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, 13 would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design.” Id. 14 Specifically, infringement occurs if an ordinary observer, “giving such attention as a purchaser 15 usually gives,” would find that two designs are “substantially the same,” such that the resemblance 16 would induce the observer to purchase the accused product believing it to be the patented design. 17 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 18 Differences in design must be evaluated in the context of the design “as a whole,” rather 19 than in isolation. Id. “An element-by-element comparison, untethered from application of the 20 ordinary observer inquiry to the overall design, is procedural error.” Id. (citing Amini Innovation 21 Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Moreover, “minor differences 22 between a patented design and an accused article’s design, cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding 23 of infringement.” Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1303. However, “the attention of the hypothetical ordinary 24 observer may be drawn to those aspects of the claimed design that differ from the prior art.” Id. 25 Thus, “[i]f the claimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences between the 26 accused design and the claimed design assume more importance in the eye of the hypothetical 27 ordinary observer.” Id. 1 inappropriate unless “the claimed design and accused product are so plainly dissimilar that it is 2 implausible that an ordinary observer would confuse them.” Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. 3 Ready Pac Foods, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-2436 DDP (KKx), 2019 WL 1260634, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4 18, 2019); Enerlites, Inc. v.Century Produs. Inc., No. SACV 18-839 JVS (KESx), 2018 WL 5 4859947, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018) (citing Grand General Accessories Mfg. v. United Pac. 6 Indus. Inc., No. 08-07078 DDP (VBKx), 2009 WL 10672038, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2009)). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 iTouchless argues that simplehuman’s complaint should be dismissed because it failed to 9 include the left and rear views of the accused products. iTouchless also argues that the accused 10 products’ designs are plainly dissimilar from the designs in the D807 and D485 Patents. The 11 Court first addresses the failure to include all views and then considers the claims for each patent. 12 A. The Complaint Includes Sufficient Views 13 iTouchless argues, without legal citation, that simplehuman was required to show each 14 view of the accused products compared to the patented design: front, rear, left, right, top, and 15 bottom. simplehuman has shown side-by-side comparisons for each view found in the Asserted 16 Design Patents. See FAC ¶¶ 27-28. However, because certain views are mirror images of each 17 other, the Asserted Design Patents do not include the rear or left views and only state that they are 18 mirror images of the front and right views, respectively. See id., Exs. 1, 2. iTouchless argues that 19 those views are not mirror images in the accused products, which makes simplehuman’s 20 allegations insufficient. 21 A proper comparison for design patent infringement requires “a side-by-side view of the 22 drawings of the [asserted design patent] and the accused products.” Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1304. The 23 Court found no cases requiring a specific number of views, particularly where the plaintiff 24 compared every view found in the asserted patent. To the contrary: numerous cases have denied 25 motions to dismiss or granted summary judgment while citing only a few possible views. See, 26 e.g., id. (three view comparisons); Steven Madden, Ltd. v. Yves Saint Laurent, No. 18-CV-7592 27 (VEC), 2019 WL 2023766 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2019) (two view comparisons); NuVasive, Inc. v. 1 2018) (two view comparisons). Accordingly, simplehuman’s complaint includes enough views to 2 plausibly allege the overall similarity of the designs. 3 iTouchless argues that simplehuman’s omission of the rear and left views means that it 4 fails to allege the presence of every design patent claim limitation. The Court is not persuaded. 5 First, by including every view found in the Asserted Design Patents, simplehuman adequately 6 alleged the presence of every claim limitation. simplehuman was not required to show every 7 difference from the claimed designs, particularly where “minor differences . . . cannot . . . prevent 8 a finding of infringement.” Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1303. Second, iTouchless’s argument implies that 9 plausibility requires an element-by-element comparison. Such comparison, however, is not 10 required under the “ordinary observer” test, which looks at the similarity of the design “as a 11 whole.” Id. 12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES iTouchless’s motion on this ground. 13 B. The Complaint Adequately Alleges Infringement of the D807 Patent 14 Consistent with Federal Circuit guidance, the Court conducts a side-by-side comparison to 15 form an “overall impression” of the similarity between the D807 Patent and the accused products 16 under the infringement analysis. Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1304. If the differences between the designs, 17 in light of the prior art and the attention paid by the ordinary observer, render the overall designs 18 “plainly dissimilar,” dismissal is appropriate. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 796 F.3d at 1335. However, 19 if an ordinary observer could plausibly be deceived into believing that the accused product has the 20 patented design, a motion to dismiss will be denied. 21 iTouchless points to multiple differences between the D807 Patent figures and the accused 22 Dual-Deodorizer Oval Open-Top trash can. First among these, while the D807 Patent claims an 23 oval opening and body, iTouchless claims that the Dual-Deodorizer Oval Open-Top trash can is 24 “rectangular with rounded corners,” as shown below. Mot. at 14. 25 26 27 1 Claimed Design Accused Product

2 : Rectangular with 3 top a Oval _. Cover a 4 Sd : \, ' if / \ Aperture 5 f [straight “{—W}Oval Rectangulaem ‘ith iad | nearer | rounded corfiers emi- q | 1 6 circular NO straight portions portions 4 7 4 Four » | seam | Seamless | | lines |_ AN 8 \ 7. A Seams —_No semi-circular WX / □□ portions 9 OT Sf ' 10 11 Differences in shape are significant in light of the prosecution history. During «= 12 || reexamination, the applicant distinguished the prior art “Hero Bullet” that had round openings by

. . : . 13 stating that in the D807 Patent, “the body is oval, the aperture is oval, the flared bands are both

14 || oval, and the domes cover is oval.” Dkt. No. 24-2, Ex. 4 (“Request for Supplemental

15 || Examination”) at 4 (emphases in original). The applicant also distinguished the Yang ’817

16 || reference that lacked “upper curvature” and had a “prominent hinge.” Jd. at 10-11. Shown below

= 17 is the examiner’s comparison of the D807 Patent to the prior art “hero bullet.” Jd. at 3.

Z 18 19 Hero Bullet FIG. 4 erent

22 oT a

TO pn cece ee □□□ GPSSG 2 A a4

7 Front, Right, and Top Perspective view Image 28

1 iTouchless points to several other differences between the D807 Patent and the Dual- 2 || Deodorizer Oval Open-Top trash can. These differences include (1) the D807 Patent has “seam 3 lines” (7.e., lines, grooves, or ridges formed by abutment of edges’), while the accused trash cans 4 || are “seamless,” (2) the accused products have slightly thinner and not flared upper and lower 5 bands, (3) the D807 Patent includes cutouts for optional handles, (4) the D807 Patent bands are 6 “flush” with the body, while those in the accused products are not, and (5) the sides of the accused 7 || trash cans are not symmetrical because they have a handle on one side. iTouchless’s comparison 8 || highlighting these differences is shown below. Mot. at 15. 9 Right / Left — Fig. 3 10 Sides are mirrar images □□ Right Left Ol en 1 | :

12 Flared \ yz Not es Nat yl

6 14 ond Tait = "ines i □□ Just one seam & —— © handle on just 3 15 one side Band asymmetrical Flush Band a 16 foe oT ] Flared \pody a 2 See mee S 7 and Lower Not Flared hod Not Flared | 5 Thick pang and thin and thin =" Z 18 19 20 simplehuman responds that these differences are too minor to render the designs as a 21 whole “plainly dissimilar” as a matter of law. The Court agrees with simplehuman. First, the 22 || Court is not convinced that the opening of the Dual-Deodorizer Oval Open-Top trash can is not 23 “oval.” Although the accused products have slightly squared elongated openings, an ordinary 24 || observer may not pay close attention to the difference. simplehuman alleges that iTouchless itself 25 advertises these products as having an “oval open-top” and a “flat oval and lid-free design.” FAC 26 || {| 15. At the motion to dismiss stage, the factual allegations in the complaint are assumed to be 27 28 > Seam, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seam (last visited Oct. 23, 2019).

1 true, and iTouchless’s representations suggest a reasonable observer could find the openings to be 2 oval and mistake them for those in the D807 Patent. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 3 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 The prosecution history does not change the conclusion. The prior art “hero bullet” shows 5 that an ordinary observer may pay more attention to differences between circular and elongated 6 openings. It does not, however, suggest that differences between different types of oval would 7 assume importance. The Yang ’817 design also does not suggest that an ordinary observer would 8 attach undue importance to the squared elements of the accused products’ openings. The “upper 9 curvature” in Yang ’817 refers to the slight elevation of the apertures when viewed from the side, 10 not from the top, as shown in iTouchless’s comparison. See Request for Supplemental 11 Examination at 10. Thus, the prosecution history does not suggest that an ordinary observer 12 would find the differences in the shape of the openings inordinately significant. 13 Second, several of iTouchless’s alleged differences are disputed. simplehuman argues that 14 the handle “cutout” falls outside the claimed design because it is marked off with dash lines. See 15 FAC, Ex. 1 at cover page (“All features illustrated in phantom line are expressly disclaimed at 16 form no part of the claimed design.”). simplehuman also argues that the alleged “seam lines” are 17 actually contour lines that show the contour of the surface. These questions are properly 18 considered at claim construction, and the Court declines to do so at this preliminary stage. See 19 Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding claim construction 20 dispute “not suitable for resolution on motion to dismiss”). simplehuman is entitled to have all 21 inferences drawn in its favor, so the Court does not consider these disputed differences. 22 Third, the remaining differences fail to render the overall designs of the D807 Patent and 23 the accused trash cans “plainly dissimilar.” The differences in the flaring, width, and “flushness” 24 of the bands appear to be minor and are barely perceptible in the figures. Although the handle in 25 the accused products renders it asymmetrical, the D807 Patent includes similar handles as an 26 optional feature on the right and left sides. FAC, Ex. 1 at Figs. 2, 5. Since each handle is 27 optional, the claimed design could conceivably include only one handle, which would render the 1 Overall, iTouchless fails to show that the overall designs for the accused products and the 2 || D807 Patent are “plainly dissimilar.” Accordingly, the Court DENIES iTouchless’s motion to 3 dismiss on this ground. 4 C. The Complaint Adequately Alleges Infringement of the D485 Patent 5 iTouchless similarly fails to show that the Dual-Compartment Open Top Trash and 6 || Recycle Can and the D485 Patent designs are “plainly dissimilar” to warrant dismissal. 7 iTouchless points to several differences between the Dual-Compartment Open Top Trash and 8 Recycle Can and the D485 Patent design. These differences include: (1) the accused products 9 || have asymmetrical and sloped down openings, while the D485 Patent shows beveled, 10 symmetrically square openings that “step” down from the ridges; (2) the center divider in the 11 accused products forms a straight line level with the edges, while the divider in the D485 Patent 12 || has an hourglass shape sunk down from the edges; and (3) the accused products allegedly have

13 “seams,” a lower band, and sloped sides. Shown below are several of iTouchless’s comparisons

14 || of the D485 Patent to the accused products. Mot. at 22.

15 a 16 Openings - Top — Fig. 4 genonetitied and Piciiaa Sitesi square and two curved 17 caved Salicn “Maenena at want of each corners oneach slopes upward Flat eer Z 18 cdl teps Slope = asymmetrical 19 = Down 20 21 Meee x i | 22 a A A if 33 Xe ail if

24 Hourgl a" Center Divider? *!* 25 26 || // 27 / 28 || //

1 |} / 2 // Claimed Design Accused Product 3 Center Perspective Fig. 1 Center Divider Cantu divider si wisi Ze divider 4 oe : Mp Surfaces surface 5 than top Yl Sine 4 AA ei as fe Bounatd 1 f| slope x Se 6 Ls YS Sf | Trapezoid” oss K rh 9 | | i | 10 | | | } 11 | | \ sas = 4 Seamless 2 2 PSS ~ Seams

v 14 The Court agrees with simplehuman that the designs of the Dual-Compartment Open Top

15 || Trash and Recycle Can and the D485 Patent are not “plainly dissimilar” because of these Q 16 || differences. Several alleged differences, including the flatness of the top edge, the flatness of the

= 17 side panels, and the proportionality of the top caps, are disputed. Compare Dkt. No. 31 (“Opp.”)

18 || at 12: 10-14, with Dkt. No. 32 (“Reply”) at 10:10-15. The Court draws all inferences in favor of 19 the plaintiff and assumes that those differences are not present. The remaining differences do not 20 || render simplehuman’s claims that the designs are substantially similar implausible. 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES iTouchless’s motion to dismiss on this ground.? 22 23 24 | 3 iTouchless cites several cases where courts appeared to dismiss infringement claims for similar- 25 looking products. None of them alter the Court’s judgment. In OurPet’s Company v. IRIS USA, Inc., No. 1:14 CV 1642, 2015 WL 12780599, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2015), the accused 26 || products formed perfect circles for openings, while the patent claimed perfect squares. In MSA Products v. Nifty Home Products, 883 F. Supp. 2d 535, 541 (D.N.J. 2012), the accused coffee pod 07 shelves were stacked and each held only three pods, while the patent claimed a single, six-pod shelf. In Legler vy. Exxel Outdoors, No. 13-cv-668, 2014 WL 3727566, at *4 (E.D. Wis. July 29, 2g || 2014), the court expressly noted that plaintiff's images were manipulated to look more similar to the patented design, which did not inherently have the claimed features.

1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 The Court DENIES iTouchless’s motion to dismiss the design patent claims from the first 3 amended complaint. The Court further SETS an initial case management conference for 4 || December 3, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. The parties should be prepared to discuss the next steps in this 5 case, including an anticipated schedule. The parties need not submit a further joint case 6 || management statement. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: 11/13/2019 10 7 Hauparred Lh I. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. I United States District Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28