Netvue Tech Co Ltd v. Evergreen Enterprises Of Virginia LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Netvue Technologies Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Evergreen Enterprises of Virginia, LLC (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Al Myers Law, LLC; Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00373, N.D. Ga., 01/21/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business—a permanent showroom—within the Northern District of Georgia, from which it markets and sells the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Solar Smart Bird Feeder" products infringe three U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a bird feeder.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics market for "smart" home and garden devices, specifically bird feeders that integrate cameras and AI to allow users to remotely observe and identify birds.
• Key Procedural History: All three patents-in-suit claim priority to the same parent application filed on August 10, 2023. U.S. Patent No. D1,085,564 was issued with a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its term to that of its parent patent, U.S. Patent No. D1,060,865.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,059,694 - "Bird Feeder"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,059,694, titled "Bird Feeder," issued January 28, 2025.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not a technical problem. The implicit goal is to create a novel, non-obvious, and aesthetically distinct appearance for a smart bird feeder to distinguish it in the marketplace Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a bird feeder, characterized by a generally rectangular housing, a forward-sloping roof, a perch extending from the front base, and a central, vertically-oriented module on the back wall, presumably for a camera and sensors. The claimed design is depicted through multiple views, with broken lines indicating that certain portions of the article are not part of the claimed design (’694 Patent, FIG. 1; Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's innovative product designs have garnered awards and a "prestigious reputation," suggesting the aesthetic appearance is a significant aspect of the product's market identity Compl. ¶¶ 7, 24

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a bird feeder as shown and described" ’694 Patent, Claim The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent’s eight figures.

U.S. Patent No. D1,060,865 - "Bird Feeder"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,060,865, titled "Bird Feeder," issued February 4, 2025.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’694 Patent, the goal is to protect a specific ornamental design for a bird feeder Compl. ¶1
• The Patented Solution: The design shown in the figures of the ’865 Patent appears to be identical to the design shown in the ’694 Patent. It claims the same overall configuration of a housing, sloped roof, perch, and central module ’865 Patent, FIG. 1 The complaint itself uses identical representative figures for both patents Compl. pp. 9-10 The existence of two patents for what appears to be the same design may raise questions for the court regarding double patenting, although they stem from the same parent application.
• Technical Importance: The alleged importance is the same as for the ’694 Patent, relating to the market identity and reputation of the product line Compl. ¶¶ 7, 24

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a bird feeder as shown and described" ’865 Patent, Claim

U.S. Patent No. D1,085,564 - "Bird Feeder"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,085,564, titled "Bird Feeder," issued July 22, 2025.

Technology Synopsis

• This patent protects an ornamental design for a bird feeder that is substantially similar in its core features to the ’694 and ’865 patents. A key difference is the use of symbolic break lines in the side views, which explicitly indicates that the design covers articles of indeterminate length, a feature not specified in the other two patents (’564 Patent, Description; FIGs. 5-6).

Asserted Claims

• The single claim for "The ornamental design for a bird feeder as shown and described" ’564 Patent, Claim

Accused Features

• The overall ornamental design of Defendant's smart bird feeder products Compl. ¶¶ 29, 43

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's "Solar Smart Bird Feeder" products, referred to in the complaint as the "Infringing Products" Compl. ¶1; p. 10

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are "smart bird feeder products" sold by Defendant through online stores and offline retailers such as Costco Compl. ¶29 A photograph of the accused product's retail packaging shows a device with an integrated camera and a solar panel on its roof Compl. p. 10 The complaint positions these products as direct competitors that infringe on Plaintiff's designs, causing irreparable harm through loss of goodwill and price erosion Compl. ¶¶ 1, 34

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement analysis for a design patent turns on the "ordinary observer" test: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the product embodying the patented design. The complaint supports its allegations with side-by-side visual comparisons.

’694 Patent Infringement Allegations

Note: The infringement analysis for the ’865 Patent is substantively identical to that of the ’694 Patent, as the drawings in both patents appear to be the same and the complaint applies the same infringement theory and visual evidence to both.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary dispute will be whether the accused design is "substantially the same" as the claimed designs. The analysis will focus on the overall visual effect, not on a direct comparison of discrete features. The use of symbolic break lines in the ’564 Patent raises a specific scope question of whether it covers the specific length of the accused product differently than the ’694 and ’865 patents.
• Design Questions: The court will have to weigh the similarities in overall form and proportion against notable differences. For example, the accused product appears to feature a textured solar panel on its roof and wood-grain-style side panels, whereas the patented designs depict these surfaces as solid and unadorned. The question for the court will be whether these differences are significant enough to create a distinct visual impression for an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are typically no "terms" to construe in the way one construes terms in a utility patent claim. The claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The central issue is not the definition of a word, but the scope of the claimed design.

• The "Term": The scope of the claimed ornamental design as defined by solid and broken lines.
• Context and Importance: The distinction between what is claimed (solid lines) and what is disclaimed as environmental context (broken lines) is dispositive. The infringement analysis will compare the accused product only to the features shown in solid lines. Practitioners may focus on this because any dissimilarities in the accused product that correspond to disclaimed portions of the patent are legally irrelevant to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring Plaintiff): Plaintiff may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination and arrangement of the solid-line features (housing shape, roof slope, perch, camera module placement). From this perspective, minor differences in surface ornamentation or texture on the accused product, like the solar panel grid or wood grain, do not alter the "substantially similar" overall appearance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring Defendant): Defendant may argue that the plain, unadorned surfaces shown in the solid-line drawings are themselves a feature of the claimed design. The patent states, "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the bird feeder that form no part of the claimed design" ’694 Patent, Description Defendant could argue that the addition of distinct visual features like a solar panel grid and wood-grain texture on the accused product create a different overall visual impression that an ordinary observer would not confuse with the unadorned design shown in the patent figures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of indirect infringement and requests relief for "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement Compl. ¶33; ¶1(b) at p. 14 However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendant instructed retailers or customers on how to infringe.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "knowing[] and willful[]" Compl. ¶29 It further specifies that willfulness exists "at least as of the filing of this complaint, if not earlier," establishing a basis for post-suit willfulness Compl. ¶30 The complaint does not allege specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge, such as prior correspondence or knowledge of the patents.

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

1. A core issue will be one of substantial similarity: Will an ordinary observer, when considering the designs as a whole, find the overall visual appearance of Evergreen's "Solar Smart Bird Feeder" to be substantially the same as the ornamental designs claimed in Netvue's patents, or are the differences sufficient to create a distinct visual impression?
2. A key evidentiary question will be the impact of design differences: How will the court weigh the visual effect of features present on the accused product but not explicitly claimed in the patents—such as the solar panel on the roof and the wood-grain texture on the side panels—against the similarities in overall shape, proportions, and arrangement of components?
3. A legal question may arise regarding patent scope and redundancy: Given that the drawings in the ’694 and ’865 patents appear identical, and the ’564 patent differs primarily by indicating an indeterminate length, the court may need to consider how these slight variations affect the scope and validity of each patent and whether they collectively protect a single design concept or distinct, patentable inventions.