2:26-cv-00931
Parting Stone Inc v. Remember Me Pebbles LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Parting Stone, Inc. (New Mexico)
- Defendant: Remember Me Pebbles LLC (Washington)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Loza & Loza, LLP; Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00931, W.D. Wash., 03/18/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant resides and conducts business in the Western District of Washington, and the acts giving rise to the asserted claims are alleged to have occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's service for creating pebbles from cremated remains infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for solidified cremated remains, and also asserts claims for trade dress infringement and unfair competition.
- Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the post-cremation memorialization industry, which involves processes and products for creating tangible memorials from cremated remains as an alternative to traditional urns.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a letter dated November 18, 2024, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-04-27 | U.S. Design Patent No. D921,325 Application (Priority) Date |
| 2021-06-01 | U.S. Design Patent No. D921,325 Issues |
| 2023-04-14 | Plaintiff's patented design allegedly showcased on Shark Tank |
| 2024-11-18 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant |
| 2026-03-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D921,325 - Solidified Cremation Remains
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D921,325, issued June 1, 2021 (the "'325 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes a market need to "redefine the post-cremation industry" by providing an alternative way for loved ones to hold, share, and display remains beyond keeping them as ashes Compl. ¶7 The '325 Patent addresses the aesthetic or ornamental aspect of this need.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for solidified cremation remains as depicted in its single drawing figure D'325 Patent, claim D'325 Patent, The FIGURE The design consists of a collection of multiple, smooth-surfaced, irregularly shaped, stone-like objects of varying sizes, presented as a group. The patent explicitly states that the broken lines showing hands in the figure are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design D'325 Patent, DESCRIPTION
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design has achieved "considerable commercial success and received national recognition and awards," suggesting its visual presentation provided a novel and valued aesthetic in the memorial products market Compl. ¶15
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for solidified cremation remains, as shown and described" D'325 Patent, claim
- The visual elements defining the claimed design, as illustrated in The FIGURE, include:
- A plurality of individual, solid objects.
- Objects with generally smooth, rounded, non-uniform, and pebble-like shapes.
- A variation in the size and specific shape among the objects in the collection.
- The overall visual impression of the objects as a cohesive, naturalistic grouping.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "solidified cremation remains" created and sold by Defendant through a service that creates "pebbles out of cremated remains" Compl. ¶23 Compl. ¶32
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Defendant markets and sells products that "adopt the same overall visual appearance" as Plaintiff's patented design Compl. ¶25 This appearance is characterized as a "collection of smooth, stone-like forms, creating a substantially similar overall aesthetic impression" Compl. ¶25
The complaint further alleges that Defendant markets its service directly to consumers making "end-of-life and memorialization decisions," a context where visual appearance is a key factor in source identification Compl. ¶28 The complaint includes a visual aid comparing the patented design to an image of the Defendant's product. Compl. ¶24, p. 6 This image shows Defendant's accused product, a collection of smooth, grey, rounded stones of various sizes displayed in a small bowl.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which the complaint directly invokes Compl. ¶¶33-34 The central allegation is that the Defendant's "Accused Products" are "substantially the same in overall appearance as the claimed design of the '325 Patent" Compl. ¶33
Plaintiff alleges that an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into purchasing Defendant's product believing it to be Plaintiff's patented design Compl. ¶34 To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side comparison image, placing a drawing from the '325 Patent next to a photograph of what it identifies as "Defendant's infringing design" Compl. ¶24, p. 6 The comparison aims to show that both designs feature a collection of smooth, naturally-shaped, pebble-like objects, creating a similar overall visual effect.
Identified Points of Contention
- Application of the "Ordinary Observer" Test: A primary issue will be whether an ordinary observer would find the total ornamental appearance of the Defendant's physical product to be substantially the same as the design conveyed by the '325 Patent's two-dimensional line drawing. The translation from a conceptual line drawing to a physical object with specific colors, textures, and lighting will be a central point of analysis.
- Scope of Protection and Prior Art: The infringement analysis for a design patent is conducted in light of the prior art. A court will need to consider the landscape of prior designs for memorial stones or similar objects. The existence of prior art similar to the patented design could narrow the patent's scope, requiring a closer identity between the accused product and the claimed design for a finding of infringement. The complaint does not discuss specific prior art.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
This section is not applicable. Design patent claims consist of a reference to drawings rather than text with construable terms. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance of the design as a whole.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the '325 Patent and its coverage since "at least November 18, 2024, when Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter" Compl. ¶35 Based on this alleged knowledge, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's continued infringement is willful and seeks enhanced damages Compl. ¶38
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of Defendant's physical, multi-colored stone products "substantially the same" as the aesthetic conveyed by the patent's abstract, two-dimensional line drawing, especially when viewed in the context of any relevant prior art?
- A second key question will be the impact of prior art on patent scope: How does the prior art in the field of memorial objects and solidified remains affect the scope of the '325 Patent? The degree of novelty and ornamentality of the patented design over what came before will determine whether small differences in the accused product are sufficient to avoid infringement.
- A final question will be one of intent: If infringement is found, did Defendant's conduct after receiving the alleged notice letter on November 18, 2024, rise to the level of egregious behavior necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and justify an award of enhanced damages?