Kohler Co. v. Signature Plumbing Specialties LLC

Background

The parties disputed the sufficiency and timing of Kohler’s design-patent infringement contentions. Kohler said it had identified, by SKU and on a patent-by-patent basis, the Signature products it accused of literal infringement. It also provided side-by-side comparisons of the patent figures and available images of the accused products.

Kohler stated that it had agreed to provide additional patent figures and corresponding product images after Signature produced requested product specifications and sales materials or after Kohler inspected or received samples of the accused products. Kohler said that Signature had not yet provided an estimated date for producing overdue documents and that responses to Kohler’s inspection and sample requests were due June 20, 2024.

Parties’ Positions

Signature’s May 28, 2024 letter challenged the sufficiency of Kohler’s contentions and apparently sought additional relief, although Kohler said it was not clear precisely what relief Signature requested. Kohler argued that it did not need to provide mappings to Signature’s design schematics, a narrative explaining its infringement theories, annotations, or an element-by-element comparison.

Kohler relied on the ordinary-observer test for design-patent infringement. That test asks whether an ordinary observer, paying the attention normally given by a purchaser, would find the accused design substantially similar to the claimed design and be deceived into buying the accused design believing it was the patented design. Kohler argued that the comparison should be between the asserted patent and the accused products, not between the patent and Signature’s schematics.

Court’s Action

The court stated that Kohler should supplement its contentions by Friday, June 21, 2024, with an explanation of why the identified designs were substantially the same and by pointing to the similar aspects of the designs. The text also states that Kohler had agreed to supplement its contentions concerning “other products” after receiving necessary discovery.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 52. The opinion text does not expressly state that the motion was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Judge Arun Subramanian did not decide whether any accused product infringed a design patent; the ruling addressed the parties’ infringement-contention dispute.