Laltitude LLC v. Code Red Novelties LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Name: Laltitude LLC v. Code Red Novelties LLC
  • Plaintiff: Laltitude LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Code Red Novelties LLC (New York)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Bochner PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-05764, S.D.N.Y., 07/08/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the Defendant is a New York limited liability company that resides within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Magnetic Tiles Primary Color Set" infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a magnetic building toy tile.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the magnetic construction toy market, where distinct visual designs can be a significant aspect of brand identity and commercial success.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint emphasizes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Design Patent No. D789,312, has been reviewed by the USPTO in multiple supplemental examination proceedings. According to the complaint, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of the design over newly discovered prior art on at least three separate occasions in 2025. This history may be leveraged by the Plaintiff to argue for the patent's robust validity against potential challenges.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-10-06	'D312 Patent Priority Date
2017-06-13	'D312 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-08	USPTO issues Supplemental Examination Certificate No. 96/050,061
2025-01-08	USPTO issues Supplemental Examination Certificate No. 96/050,062
2025-04-02	USPTO issues Supplemental Examination Certificate No. 96/050,079
2026-07-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D789,312 - "Single Magnetic Brick"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D789,312, "Single Magnetic Brick," issued June 13, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems in the manner of utility patents. Rather, they protect a product's unique, ornamental appearance. The complaint asserts that the 'D312 Patent is directed to a "clearly unique ornamental design for a single magnetic brick" Compl. ¶13
• The Patented Solution: The 'D312 Patent claims the specific ornamental design of a magnetic building tile as depicted in its seven figures 'D312 Patent, FIGS. 1-7 Key visual features include a square tile with a raised perimeter frame, an inset transparent central panel, and visible internal support structures forming a distinctive crisscross or "X" pattern 'D312 Patent, FIG. 1 'D312 Patent, FIG. 2 The broken lines in the figures indicate that the specific internal mechanisms (e.g., magnets) are not part of the claimed design, focusing protection on the overall visual appearance 'D312 Patent, description The complaint alleges this design was commercially successful Compl. ¶18
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this patented design "created a new paradigm for the magnetic building brick toy industry" and led to "overwhelming commercial success" for the Plaintiff's "PicassoTiles" brand Compl. ¶18

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a single magnetic brick, as shown and described" 'D312 Patent, claim
• The essential visual elements comprising the claimed design include:
  • A square overall shape with beveled or rounded edges.
  • A raised outer border or frame.
  • A recessed, transparent central surface area.
  • Visible internal reinforcing ribs arranged in a crisscross pattern within the recessed central area.
  • Visible circular features located at the corners and midpoints of the outer frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Defendant's "Magnetic Tiles Primary Color Set" Compl. ¶3, sold under the "Bright Builds" brand name Compl. p. 2

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are magnetic building tiles used for construction play Compl. p. 2 The complaint alleges that these products are "virtual identical copies" of the Plaintiff's products that embody the 'D312 Patent design Compl. ¶22 The complaint further alleges that Defendant sells these products through distributors such as TJ-Maxx Compl. ¶3 and that they are intended to directly compete with Plaintiff's commercially successful products Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶25 The packaging of the accused product is shown in a photograph included in the complaint Compl. p. 2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product supposing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused design is "substantially the same" as the claimed design under this standard Compl. ¶26

The complaint includes a visual chart comparing figures from the 'D312 patent to photographs of an accused product Compl. ¶22 This chart highlights the alleged visual similarities between the patent drawings and the accused tile.

Claim Element (from the sole design claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design of the single magnetic brick, including its square shape, raised border, and recessed center.	The accused "Bright Builds" tile is alleged to have the same overall square shape, raised border, and recessed center, creating a virtually identical visual impression.	¶22	FIG. 1
The ornamental appearance of the front face, including the visible internal crisscross support structure.	The accused tile's front face allegedly features a visible internal crisscross support structure that is substantially the same as the one shown in the patent's figures.	¶22	FIG. 2
The ornamental appearance of the side profile.	The complaint's visual comparison shows an accused tile with a side profile that allegedly mirrors the proportions and features shown in the patent's side view drawing.	¶22	FIG. 4

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the Defendant's tile is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the 'D312 Patent. A key issue for the court will be to apply the ordinary observer test, considering the claimed design as a whole.
  • Technical Questions: A potential point of contention may revolve around whether any minor differences between the claimed design and the accused product are sufficient to avoid a finding of substantial similarity. The defense may argue that features such as the specific shape of the corner rivets or the precise angle of the internal bracing differ from the patented design, while the plaintiff will likely argue these are trivial differences that do not change the overall visual impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings, rather than on discrete text-based terms.

• The "Term": The ornamental design for a "single magnetic brick" as shown in Figures 1-7.
• Context and Importance: The determination of infringement will hinge entirely on the court's interpretation of the scope of the claimed design and its comparison to the accused product. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual features are ornamental and which, if any, are purely functional, as functional aspects of a design are not protected by a design patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description notes that "The broken lines shown represent unclaimed subject matter and form no part of the claimed design" 'D312 Patent, description This explicitly disclaims the internal magnets themselves, suggesting the claim's scope is focused on the external visual appearance and could cover tiles with different internal magnet arrangements so long as the exterior visual effect, including the visible support structures, is the same.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The solid lines in the patent drawings define the precise scope of the claimed ornamental design 'D312 Patent, FIGS. 1-7 A party could argue that the specific combination of all depicted solid-line features-including the raised border, the beveled edges, the specific "X" pattern of the internal supports, and the circular features at the corners and mid-points-are required elements. Any accused product that deviates from this precise combination could be argued to fall outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that the Defendant had "actual knowledge" of the 'D312 Patent and the "fame, popularity and success of the PicassoTiles products" Compl. ¶21 The basis for willfulness includes allegations that the Defendant intentionally copied the design with knowledge of the Plaintiff's rights, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to those rights Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶29

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

1. The Ordinary Observer Test: The central issue is one of visual comparison. Will an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art in magnetic tiles, be deceived into purchasing Defendant's "Bright Builds" product believing it to be the design protected by the 'D312 Patent? The case will likely depend on a side-by-side analysis of the products' overall appearance.

2. Ornamental vs. Functional Features: A key question for the court may be to distinguish between the ornamental and potentially functional aspects of the tile's design. A defense could arise arguing that features such as the internal crisscross bracing are dictated purely by the functional need for structural support, which would place those features outside the scope of design patent protection.

3. Impact of Post-Grant History: How will the court consider the patent's extensive post-grant history? The complaint's emphasis on multiple successful supplemental examinations Compl. ¶¶10-13 suggests the patent's validity is presumed to be strong, potentially limiting the effectiveness of an invalidity defense and focusing the case squarely on the question of infringement.