Zuru Inc v. Salus Brands LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zuru Inc. (British Virgin Islands / Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: Salus Brands, LLC (Massachusetts)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Sriplaw, PLLC.
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-04732, D. Ariz., 04/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's engagement in infringing activities within the district, including advertising, offering to sell, and selling products to consumers, as well as Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's reusable water balloon products infringe three of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a toy water ball.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer toy market, specifically concerning the aesthetic design of reusable, self-sealing water balloons.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Zuru Inc. asserts its rights as the "exclusive licensee of all substantial rights" to the patents-in-suit. The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges compliance with virtual patent marking statutes, which may be relevant to willfulness and damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-12-25	Priority Date for '139 and '929 Patents
2023-11-21	Priority Date for '861 Patent
2024-05-07	U.S. Design Patent D1,026,139 Issues
2024-06-11	U.S. Design Patent D1,030,929 Issues
2024-07-09	U.S. Design Patent D1,034,861 Issues
c. 2025-10	Plaintiff alleges discovery of Defendant's unauthorized use
2026-04-30	First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,026,139 - "WATER BALL"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,026,139, "WATER BALL," issued May 7, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The implicit problem addressed by any design patent is the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture to distinguish it aesthetically in the marketplace.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a water ball. The design consists of a spherical object with an exterior surface characterized by a series of undulating, wavy raised lines or ribs that encircle the sphere. The figures show the ball in both a closed state, where it forms a complete sphere, and an open state, revealing it is composed of two separable hemispherical halves that can hold water D1,026,139 Patent, FIG. 1 D1,026,139 Patent, FIG. 9 D1,026,139 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: In the competitive toy market, a distinctive and appealing visual design can be a significant factor in consumer choice and brand recognition.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim to the ornamental design as shown and described in the drawings. The complaint asserts the patent generally, thereby asserting this single claim Compl. ¶¶16-19

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,030,929 - "SPHERICAL TOY WATER BALL"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,030,929, "SPHERICAL TOY WATER BALL," issued June 11, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a spherical toy water ball.
• The Patented Solution: The '929 Patent claims an ornamental design for a spherical toy water ball. The claimed design features a spherical body with a wavy, patterned surface. Figures illustrate the article in a closed, spherical state and in an open state, showing two connected halves with internal concentric circular features D1,030,929 Patent, FIG. 1 D1,030,929 Patent, FIG. 2 D1,030,929 Patent, description The visual emphasis is on the overall appearance created by the surface texture and the form of the opened halves.
• Technical Importance: This design provides another distinct aesthetic for a water toy, intended to differentiate the product in a crowded market.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in its figures. The complaint's general assertion of the patent encompasses this claim (Compl. ¶17; Compl. ¶18; Compl. ¶19; Compl. ¶20; Compl. ¶21; Compl. ¶22; Compl. ¶23; Compl. ¶24; Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,861 - "TOY WATER BALL"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,861, "TOY WATER BALL," issued July 9, 2024 Compl. ¶18
• Technology Synopsis: The '861 Patent claims an ornamental design for a toy water ball. The design is depicted as a sphere with a wavy surface pattern, shown in both closed and open configurations, similar in concept to the other asserted patents but representing a distinct visual embodiment D1,034,861 Patent, FIG. 1 D1,034,861 Patent, FIG. 2
• Asserted Claims: The single ornamental design claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of Defendant's reusable water balloons infringes the design claimed in the '861 Patent Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶32

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are reusable water balloons sold by Defendant Salus Brands, LLC, under brands including "SplatterBallz Reusable Water Balloons" Compl. ¶26

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are reusable toy water balloons that are "identical or near identical" in appearance to the designs claimed in the patents-in-suit Compl. ¶32 The complaint includes a photograph in Exhibit 5, described as a test purchase of the accused product, which shows a spherical, two-part water toy with a scalloped or wavy seam Compl. ¶33
• Defendant is alleged to sell the infringing goods directly to consumers through its websites and wholesale to major third-party retailers such as Target, QVC, and Nordstrom, indicating broad commercial distribution Compl. ¶27 The complaint alleges these sales are in direct competition with Plaintiff's genuine products Compl. ¶35

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "Composite Exhibit 6" as containing claim charts that illustrate infringement Compl. ¶37 As this exhibit was not provided, a table cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement. The complaint alleges that Defendant's "SplatterBallz Reusable Water Balloons" Compl. ¶26 are "identical or near identical" to the ornamental designs claimed in the '139, '929, and '861 patents Compl. ¶32 The core of the allegation is that the visual appearance of the accused products is so similar to the patented designs that it would deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented one. To support this, the complaint includes a photograph of an accused product, which shows a spherical object comprised of two halves that meet at a wavy seam Compl. ¶33, Exhibit 5

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central factual dispute will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused "SplatterBallz" products and the specific designs claimed in each of the three asserted patents. The analysis will involve a side-by-side comparison.
  • Scope of the Designs: A key legal question will be the scope of protection afforded to each patented design. The court will need to determine whether the designs are limited to the exact patterns and proportions shown in the drawings or if they cover the broader concept of a wavy-surfaced spherical water toy.
  • Impact of Prior Art: The scope of the patents and the application of the ordinary observer test will be informed by the prior art. The existence of other similar designs in the market could narrow the scope of the patents, making it more difficult to prove infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are no "claim terms" to construe in the manner of utility patents. The claim is the design itself, as depicted in the drawings. The key analysis, therefore, centers on the visual scope of the claimed design.

• The "Term": The overall "ornamental design for a [spherical toy] water ball" as shown in the solid lines of the patent figures.
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused product. The perceived scope of the claimed designs-whether it is broad enough to encompass the accused product's specific appearance-will be dispositive.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope would emphasize the overall visual impression and "gestalt" of the designs. They might argue that the core, protectable ornamentality lies in the general concept of a spherical water toy with an undulating, wavy surface pattern, and that minor differences in the number, depth, or specific shape of the waves do not avoid infringement in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope would focus on the precise details depicted in the patent drawings. They could argue that the design is limited to the exact number of waves, their specific curvature and spacing, and the particular proportions shown in Figures 1-9 of the '139 Patent, for example. Any deviation in the accused product from these specific details would be argued as evidence of non-infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and indirect infringement Compl. ¶41 However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendant instructed retailers or end-users on how to perform an infringing act.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been "willful and deliberate" Compl. ¶45 The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendant had "notice of or knew of the WATER BALL Patents" Compl. ¶45 This notice is supported by Plaintiff's allegation that it complied with the virtual marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), by listing the patents-in-suit on the website "patents.zuru.com" Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶22 This alleges constructive notice as the basis for willfulness.

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

• Visual Identity: The central issue is one of visual comparison: are the accused "SplatterBallz" products substantially the same in ornamental appearance as the designs claimed in the '139, '929, and '861 patents, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The case will likely depend on a side-by-side visual analysis of the products and the patent drawings.
• Scope in a Crowded Field: A related question concerns the scope of the claimed designs. The court's determination of how novel and non-obvious the patented designs are, in light of the prior art of other toy water balls, will dictate how closely an accused product must copy the design to be found infringing. A finding of a crowded field could limit the patents to their specific details, making infringement harder to prove.
• Viability of Willfulness: A key legal question will be whether the complaint's allegations of constructive notice via a virtual marking website (patents.zuru.com) are sufficient to support a claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages, particularly concerning Defendant's conduct before receiving the complaint.