DCT

2:26-cv-13166

Lerman Container Corp v. Aro Connection Inc

Key Events

Complaint

complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: LERMAN CONTAINER CORP. d/b/a eBottles (Florida)
- Defendant: Aro Connection, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Brooks Kushman P.C.
Case Identification: LERMAN CONTAINER CORP. v. Aro Connection, Inc., 2:26-cv-13166, E.D. Mich., 09/02/2026
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because the defendant, ARO Connection, Inc., maintains its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's 5 ml and 9 ml glass jars infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental design of "concentrate jars."
Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of packaging solutions, specifically small glass containers marketed for use in the cannabis, medical, and cosmetics industries.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted U.S. Design Patent No. D781,151 S has survived post-grant validity challenges. Its patentability was confirmed in an ex parte reexamination proceeding that concluded in 2021. More recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent in 2025. These prior confirmations of validity may be raised by the plaintiff to counter potential invalidity defenses.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-06-08	Priority Date for D'151 and D'559 Patents
2017-03-14	U.S. Design Patent No. D781,151 S Issued
2017-09-19	U.S. Design Patent No. D797,559 S Issued
2019-02-11	Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of '151 Patent Filed
2021-11-30	Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for '151 Patent Issued, Confirming Patentability
2024-07-01	Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of '151 Patent Filed
2025-01-22	PTAB Denies IPR Petition for '151 Patent
2026-04-30	Plaintiff Expressly Notifies Defendant of Alleged Infringement
2026-06-29	Plaintiff's Counsel Reiterates Notice of Infringement to Defendant
2026-09-02	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D781,151 S - "JAR"

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D781,151 S, "JAR," issued March 14, 2017.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but rather protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The complaint states Plaintiff developed an "elegant, symmetrical jar" for use with concentrates and other materials Compl. ¶9
The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a jar D'151 Patent, claim 1 The design, depicted in the patent's figures, features a short, wide-mouthed glass jar with a distinctive profile: a wider, circular base section that transitions to a narrower, shorter upper section D'151 Patent, FIG. 1-2 The complaint states this patent covers the design of Plaintiff's "9 ml jar" Compl. ¶12
Technical Importance: The design is positioned as an "innovative packaging product" for which Plaintiff has invested substantial resources, targeting industries such as cannabis and cosmetics Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a jar, as shown and described" D'151 Patent, claim 1
The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-7 of the patent.

U.S. Design Patent No. D797,559 S - "JAR"

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D797,559 S, "JAR," issued September 19, 2017.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: As with the '151 Patent, this patent protects an ornamental design for a jar, not a functional solution.
The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a jar D'559 Patent, claim 1 The visual appearance is very similar to the '151 Patent design, featuring the same two-tiered structure with a wide base and narrower top D'559 Patent, FIG. 1-2 The complaint identifies this design with Plaintiff's "eBottles 5 ml jar" Compl. ¶18
Technical Importance: This design is part of Plaintiff's "Concentrate Jars" product line, offered as a packaging solution for various industries Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶19

Key Claims at a Glance

The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a jar, as shown and described" D'559 Patent, claim 1
The claim's scope is defined by the solid-line drawings in Figures 1-7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant's "9 ml and 5 ml glass jars," collectively referred to as the "Infringing Jars" Compl. ¶21

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant markets, offers for sale, and sells these jars through its website, "aroconnection.com", and other channels throughout the United States Compl. ¶20 The complaint provides visual evidence to support its allegations, including a side-by-side comparison of the patent drawings and photographs of the accused 9 ml jar Compl. p. 6 A similar visual comparison is provided for the accused 5 ml jar Compl. p. 7 Plaintiff characterizes the accused jars as "virtually identical" to its patented designs Compl. ¶1

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused jars are "nearly identical" to the patented designs, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived, invoking the standard test for design patent infringement Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶44

D'151 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a jar, as shown and described.	The overall ornamental appearance of the "Infringing 9 ml Jar," which the complaint alleges is "nearly identical" to the design claimed in the '151 Patent. A visual comparison is presented to show this similarity.	¶22; ¶33	col. 1:11-25

D'559 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a jar, as shown and described.	The overall ornamental appearance of the "Infringing 5 ml Jar," which the complaint alleges is "nearly identical" to the design claimed in the '559 Patent. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison.	¶24; ¶44	col. 1:44-55

Identified Points of Contention

Visual Similarity: The central question in a design patent case is whether "an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, ... would be deceived by the similarity of the designs, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other." The complaint's side-by-side photographic comparisons are presented as direct evidence to meet this standard Compl. p. 6 Compl. p. 7 The dispute will hinge on whether any differences between the products are sufficient to avoid such deception in the eye of an ordinary observer.
Scope of the Design: A potential issue could be the distinction between ornamental and functional features of the jar design. The court's analysis will focus only on the ornamental aspects claimed in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not performed with the same verbal detail as in utility patent cases; the claim is understood to be defined by the drawings. However, certain aspects of the drawings' interpretation may become important.

The Term: "The ornamental design for a jar, as shown..." and the associated depiction of threading in broken lines.
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on the patent drawings' use of broken lines to depict the jar's threading D'151 Patent, FIG. 1 D'559 Patent, FIG. 1 The patent text explicitly states, "The broken lines shown in the drawings are included for the purpose of illustrating portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design" D'151 Patent, description D'559 Patent, description This clarification is critical because it means the specific threading pattern is not part of the protected design, potentially broadening the claim's scope to cover accused jars that share the patented shape but may have different threading.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The express disclaimer of the threading via broken lines suggests the protected design is the jar's overall shape and proportions, independent of the specific means of closure. This allows the claim to read on jars with various threading styles or even different closure mechanisms, as long as the core ornamental shape is the same.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that while the specific threads are disclaimed, the presence of a threaded region is an integral part of the overall design that an ordinary observer would notice. However, the explicit language of the patent disclaiming matter shown in broken lines provides a strong basis for the broader interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of contributory and induced infringement, stating Defendant actively induces "others to sell, offer to sell, make or use such jars" Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶43 The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing the acts of inducement, such as referencing specific instructions or marketing materials provided by the Defendant to third parties.
Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported knowledge of the patents. The complaint asserts that Defendant was put on express notice through letters dated April 30, 2026, and June 29, 2026, and continued its alleged infringing activities thereafter Compl. ¶¶26-27 Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶47

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

This case presents a focused design patent dispute. The litigation will likely center on the following questions:

A question of visual deception: Will a side-by-side comparison of the accused jars and the patented designs lead a trier of fact to conclude that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The complaint's strategy of presenting direct photographic comparisons puts this issue at the forefront from the outset.
A question of defense viability: How will the defendant challenge the validity of the '151 patent, which has already been confirmed by the USPTO through both ex parte reexamination and the denial of an IPR petition? Any invalidity defense for that patent may face a high bar.
A question of damages: Should infringement be found, a key issue will be the calculation of damages. For design patents, a plaintiff can seek the infringer's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which the complaint requests Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶50 This may lead to significant discovery regarding the defendant's sales and profit margins for the accused jars.