DCT

0:26-cv-60509

Zev Supplies Corp v. Anker Innovations Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:26-cv-60509, S.D. Fla., 06/08/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants' business activities within the Southern District of Florida, including selling products to Florida customers, targeting Florida residents through an interactive website, selling through physical retail stores in Florida, and utilizing a warehouse within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its wearable breast pump product does not infringe Defendant's design patent, and further that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following infringement notices sent by Defendants to Plaintiff's retail partners.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of wearable breast pumps, a product category within the consumer baby care market emphasizing discreet, hands-free functionality.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by infringement notices that Defendants allegedly sent to Plaintiff's retail customers, which did not initially specify a patent but resulted in canceled orders. After Plaintiff's counsel sent cease-and-desist letters, Defendants allegedly identified the D'325 patent as the basis for their claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-01-01 Plaintiff began selling breast pump products (approximate date).
2023-08-04 D'325 Patent Priority Date (based on Chinese application).
2024-02-02 D'325 Patent application filed with USPTO.
2025-08-05 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,087,325 issues.
2025-12-24 Defendants filed a separate lawsuit against a third party.
2026-01-28 Plaintiff's retailer received infringement notice from Defendants.
2026-02-03 Defendants identified the D'325 Patent as basis for allegations.
2026-06-08 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed.

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,087,325 - "Breast Pump"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,087,325, "Breast Pump", issued August 5, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'325 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Its purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for a breast pump, distinguishing it aesthetically in the marketplace D'325 Patent, Claim
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a breast pump as depicted in solid lines in its eight figures D'325 Patent, Claim D'325 Patent, Description The design is characterized by an overall ovoid or egg-like shape, a transparent lower collection container, a rounded triangular control panel on the top surface, and two distinct, separated leg-like supports on the bottom D'325 Patent, Fig. 1 D'325 Patent, Fig. 3 D'325 Patent, Fig. 7 Broken lines in the drawings indicate that certain elements, such as internal components, are not part of the claimed design Compl. ¶46
  • Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific aesthetic for a wearable breast pump, which may contribute to its commercial appeal in a competitive consumer product category Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶38

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a breast pump as shown and described" D'325 Patent, Claim
  • The essential visual elements of this claim, shown in solid lines, include:
    • An overall ovoid body shape.
    • A rounded triangular control panel on the top face.
    • A lower transparent section for milk collection.
    • Two distinct, separated legs forming the base of the device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is the "Zomee Mother's Nature W1 Warming Wearable Breast Pump" (the "Zomee Product") Compl. ¶35

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Zomee Product is a wearable breast pump designed, manufactured, and sold by the Plaintiff, Zev Supplies Corp. Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶35 An image of the product is included in the complaint Compl. p. 6
  • The complaint positions the Zomee Product as a direct competitor to Defendants' "Eufy" brand wearable breast pumps Compl. ¶38 It is sold through multiple channels, including direct-to-consumer via Plaintiff's website and through third-party online retailers Compl. ¶33

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, the analysis focuses on the differences between the patented design and the accused product as alleged by the Plaintiff. The complaint presents a side-by-side comparison to highlight these alleged differences. One such comparison shows the Zomee Product's base alongside the patented design's base Compl. p. 13 Another compares the devices' control panels Compl. p. 14

D'325 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claimed Ornamental Feature (from D'325 Patent) Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of Zomee Product Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The design features two distinct, separated legs on the bottom of the collection container. The Zomee Product has a "single, continuous crescent-shaped base" on the bottom of the collection container. ¶66 Fig. 2; Fig. 3
The design includes a control panel with a "rounded triangular shape." The Zomee Product features an "oval-shaped control panel, which further incorporates a distinct kidney-shape within." ¶67 Fig. 1; Fig. 7
The overall ornamental appearance as shown and described in the patent figures. The complaint alleges that the "clear and obvious differences" between the designs would lead an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, to conclude they are not substantially similar. ¶65; ¶87 Fig. 1; Fig. 3; Fig. 5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central issue is whether the Zomee Product's design is "substantially the same" as the D'325 patent's design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. A key question is how the cited prior art Compl. ¶¶69-72 will narrow the perceived scope of the D'325 patent's novel features.
    • Technical Questions: The dispute will likely focus on the visual significance of the differences alleged by Plaintiff. The court will need to determine if the Zomee Product's "crescent-shaped base" creates a different overall visual impression than the patented design's "two distinct, separated legs" Compl. ¶66 Similarly, the court will assess whether the difference between the "oval-shaped" control panel of the Zomee Product and the "rounded triangular" panel of the patent is a minor variation or a substantial design change Compl. ¶67

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the visual design itself, and its scope is determined by the drawings. Construction focuses on the overall visual impression rather than the definition of textual terms.

  • The "Term": The ornamental design for a breast pump as shown and described.
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the claimed design is the central issue of the infringement analysis. The infringement test requires a comparison of the accused product to the patented design from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Practitioners may focus on how the alleged distinctions-the base structure and the control panel shape-impact the overall visual impression, especially when viewed in the context of a crowded prior art field.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the overall ovoid shape and general configuration of the pump and collection bottle are the dominant visual elements of the design, suggesting the specific differences in the base and control panel are minor details that do not alter the substantially similar overall appearance D'325 Patent, Fig. 1 D'325 Patent, Fig. 3 D'325 Patent, Fig. 5
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff argues for a narrower scope by pointing to specific features depicted in solid lines. The "two distinct, separated legs" D'325 Patent, Fig. 2 D'325 Patent, Fig. 3 and the "rounded triangular" control panel D'325 Patent, Fig. 1 D'325 Patent, Fig. 7 are explicitly claimed ornamental features. The complaint further suggests that the existence of prior art with similar overall forms Compl. ¶¶69-72 limits the patent's protectable scope to its more specific, novel details.

VI. Invalidity and Unenforceability Allegations

  • Invalidity: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the D'325 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness) Compl. ¶95 The complaint alleges the patented design is rendered invalid by prior art, and it identifies several U.S. and Chinese design patents as examples of such prior art Compl. ¶¶69-72 Compl. ¶75
  • Unenforceability (Inequitable Conduct): Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the D'325 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during its prosecution Compl. ¶103 The complaint alleges that the named inventors were not the true and original inventors of the claimed design and that Defendants and the named inventors knew this, constituting a failure to disclose material information to the USPTO with an intent to deceive Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶102

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

This case presents a classic design patent dispute centered on the "ordinary observer" test, amplified by allegations of invalidity and inequitable conduct. The key questions for the court appear to be:

  1. A Question of Infringement and Visual Impression: Will an ordinary observer, when considering the prior art, find the overall appearance of Plaintiff's Zomee Product to be substantially the same as the D'325 patented design? The resolution will depend on whether the alleged differences in the base and control panel are deemed significant enough to create a distinct visual impression.

  2. A Question of Validity in a Crowded Field: Does the cited prior art, which includes other wearable breast pumps with similar form factors, render the specific combination of ornamental features in the D'325 patent obvious to a designer of ordinary skill, thus invalidating the patent?

  3. An Evidentiary Question of Deceptive Intent: Can the Plaintiff meet the high evidentiary burden of proving inequitable conduct? This will require showing by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants knowingly and with intent to deceive the USPTO named incorrect inventors on the patent application.

Loading Amended Complaint