DCT

2:25-cv-02008

Patent One LLC v. Schedule A

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Patent One LLC (Delaware)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
    • Plaintiff's Counsel: Whitewood Law PLLC
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02008, W.D. Pa., 04/07/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the forum by offering for sale, selling, and shipping infringing products to consumers within the district. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities who do not reside in any U.S. judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' online sales of adjustable organizing cubes on platforms such as Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and Temu.com infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a single panel used in such organizers.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer home goods sector, specifically concerning adjustable drawer organizers, a market where the ornamental design and aesthetic appearance of a product can be a significant driver of consumer choice.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products are marked with the asserted patent number, which may be relevant to questions of notice and willful infringement. The case targets a large number of online sellers, identified only in a "Schedule A," who are alleged to be part of a coordinated infringement scheme.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-04-07 D949,612 S Patent Application Date
2022-04-26 D949,612 S Patent Issue Date
2026-04-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D949,612 S - "Single panel of an adjustable organizing cube"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D949,612 S, issued on April 26, 2022 (the "''612 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that prior designs for adjustable organizing cubes for cabinet drawers lacked certain innovative features and "enhanced aesthetic appeal" Compl. ¶2
  • The Patented Solution: The '612 Patent claims the ornamental design for a single component panel of an organizer system Compl. ¶2 '612 Patent, claim The claimed design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of an elongated, rectangular panel with a perpendicular end piece on one end and a series of evenly spaced, rectangular notches along one of its long edges, creating a distinct visual pattern '612 Patent, FIG. 1 '612 Patent, FIG. 2 The patent protects the overall visual appearance of this specific panel, not its mechanical function '612 Patent, claim
  • Technical Importance: In the market for consumer organization products, the visual design of components can be a key differentiator that contributes to a product's commercial success and brand identity Compl. ¶14

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a single panel of an adjustable organizing cube, as shown" '612 Patent, claim
  • The ornamental design is defined by the patent's drawings and includes the following visual elements:
    • An elongated, flat, rectangular main body.
    • A perpendicular end piece affixed to one end of the main body.
    • A series of repeating, uniformly shaped and spaced rectangular notches cut into one of the long edges of the main body.
    • The overall proportions and visual impression created by the combination of these features.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "Organizing Cubes" sold by the Defendants through online commerce platforms including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and Temu.com Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as adjustable drawer dividers that "closely mimic" the Plaintiff's patented invention Compl. ¶22 The complaint alleges that the infringing products possess the "same elongated panel shape, with evenly spaced notches for varying configuration" and copy other design elements from the Plaintiff's patent Compl. ¶23

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are part of a coordinated scheme to sell "inferior infringing imitations" of Plaintiff's products to U.S. consumers, thereby harming Plaintiff's reputation and market share Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶6 The complaint includes an image from Plaintiff's own Amazon storefront for its "SpaceAid Bamboo Drawer Dividers," which it claims embodies the patented design and is the product Defendants are copying Compl. p. 9

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products "directly copy the design described in the patent drawings" Compl. ¶25 A table in the complaint displays figures from the asserted patent, which are central to its infringement theory Compl. p. 10

The complaint does not provide a formal claim chart. The analysis below summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be a visual comparison. The key question is whether the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' organizer panels is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '612 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The complaint alleges a "verbatim reproduction" of the design elements Compl. ¶27
  • Scope and Functionality: A potential issue for the court may be to distinguish between the ornamental aspects of the design and any purely functional elements. While the notches serve a functional purpose of adjustability, their specific shape, spacing, and integration into the panel contribute to the overall ornamental design that is protected. The extent to which these features are considered ornamental versus functional may influence the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings rather than words. However, the interpretation of the article of manufacture can be relevant.

  • The Term: "single panel of an adjustable organizing cube"
  • Context and Importance: The claim is for the design of a "single panel," not the entire assembled "organizing cube" system '612 Patent, claim '612 Patent, title Practitioners may focus on this distinction because the infringement analysis must compare the accused panel to the claimed design of the panel, not the accused assembled product to a hypothetical assembly of the patented panel.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint frequently refers to the accused products as "Organizing Cubes" Compl. ¶22, which could suggest an attempt to frame the dispute around the overall product system.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, claim, and figures consistently and exclusively show a "single panel" '612 Patent, title '612 Patent, claim '612 Patent, FIGS. 1-4 This intrinsic evidence strongly suggests the scope of the patent is limited to the ornamental design of the individual component part as depicted.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing others to do the same" in reference to direct infringement Compl. p. 21 The core allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, and selling the products Compl. ¶49

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate Compl. ¶55 The basis for this allegation is Defendants' "continued sale of infringing products despite actual knowledge of Plaintiff's patent rights" Compl. ¶55 This knowledge is allegedly derived from Plaintiff's practice of marking its genuine products and packaging with the '612 Patent number, in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287 Compl. ¶54 A screenshot from Plaintiff's website is provided as evidence of this marking practice Compl. p. 19

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

  1. Visual Deception: The central issue will be one of visual comparison: is the overall ornamental design of the accused panels substantially the same as the design shown in the '612 Patent? The outcome will depend on whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be induced to purchase an accused product supposing it to be the patented one.

  2. Defendant Identification and Liability: A significant procedural question is whether Plaintiff can successfully identify, serve, and establish jurisdiction over the numerous, allegedly foreign-based online sellers listed on Schedule A. A related question is whether Plaintiff can prove its allegation that these disparate sellers are operating as a single, "interrelated group of infringers" in a coordinated scheme Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶20

  3. Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A potential legal question is the extent to which the claimed design's features-particularly the shape and spacing of the notches-are dictated by their function. While design patents can protect designs for functional items, the scope of protection does not extend to features that are "essential to the use of the article." The court may need to determine the boundary between the protected ornamental appearance and purely functional aspects of the panel.

Loading Amended Complaint