Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01395/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01395-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

17-CV-1395-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISION QUEST INDUSTRIES, INC. 

d/b/a OrthoCare,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORTHO SYSTEMS d/b/a Ovation 

Medical,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1395-CAB-NLS

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 10]

Defendant Ortho Systems d/b/a Ovation Medical (“OM”) has filed a motion to 

dismiss the second through fourth claims in the complaint for failure to state a claim under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Vision Quest Industries (“VQ”) does

not oppose the motion with respect to claim 3 for federal unfair competition and false 

designation of origin and claim 4 for dilution. Accordingly the motion is granted with 

respect to claims 3 and 4 and those claims are dismissed without prejudice. VQ opposes 

the motion with respect to claim 2 for trade dress infringement. The motion as been fully 

briefed and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. For the 

following reasons, the motion is denied with respect to claim 2.

Case 3:17-cv-01395-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17-CV-1395-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. Allegations in the FAC

VQ is the owner of United States Patent No. D787,076 S (the “’D076 Patent”) for 

an ornamental design entitled “Orthotic Device,” and sells a low profile knee brace related 

to that patent called the OActive 2. [Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 8, 12.] The OActive 2 “has a 

distinctive shape and design such that it is recognized in the orthotics industry by 

prescribers and consumers of osteoarthritis braces.” [Id. at ¶ 9.] According to the 

complaint, “[t]he shape and/or ornamental design of [VQ’s] OActive 2 product is 

nonfunctional.” [Id. at ¶ 11.] The complaint also alleges that “the shape and/or ornamental 

design of the OActive 2 product . . . is distinctive in that it has come to be associated with 

Vision Quest in the minds of consumers.” [Id. at ¶ 28.] 

On June 15, 2017, OM began marketing and selling a product called “The Game 

Changer, Premium Universal Osteoarthritic Knee Brace” (the “Game Changer”). [Id. at ¶ 

13.] The Game Changer is a “low profile knee brace with a shape, design and look that is 

virtually identical to [the OActive 2] and the embodied ornamental design covered by the 

‘D076 Patent.” [Id. at ¶ 13.] The complaint alleges that the “shape, design and look of 

Defendant’s The Game Changer product is the same or similar to [VQ’s] OActive 2 

product, and incorporates distinctive features of the OActive 2 product,” and that the 

“Game Changer product has an overall appearance that is confusingly similar and 

substantially the same as Vision Quest’s OActive 2 product.” [Id. at ¶¶ 16, 31.] The 

complaint also includes the following side-by-side comparison of the Game Changer to the 

OActive 2:

Case 3:17-cv-01395-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17-CV-1395-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

OActive 2 Game Changer1

Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts a claim for infringement of the 

‘D787 Patent that is not at issue in the instant motion. In addition, the complaint asserts 

claims for trade dress infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation, and 

dilution. As discussed above, VQ contests dismissal of the trade dress infringement claim 

but does not oppose dismissal of the unfair competition and dilution claims. 

II. Legal Standards

The familiar standards apply here. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, the Court 

“accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. 

Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). On the other hand, the Court is “not bound to 

accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Nor is the Court “required to accept as true allegations 

 

1 The photo of the Game Changer did not have a black background in the complaint. The background 

appeared when the Court pasted the photo into this opinion.

Case 3:17-cv-01395-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17-CV-1395-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that contradict exhibits attached to the Complaint or . . . allegations that are merely 

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Daniels-Hall v. 

Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). “In sum, for a complaint to survive 

a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from 

that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted).

III. Discussion

“Trade dress refers to the overall appearance of the product design, rather than its 

mechanics or a specific logo.” Glob. Mfg. Grp., LLC v. Gadget Universe.Com, 417 F. Supp. 

2d 1161, 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 

529 U.S. 205, 209–10 (2000)). To state a claim for trade dress infringement under section 

43(a) of the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) that its claimed trade dress is 

nonfunctional; (2) that its claimed trade dress serves a source-identifying role either 

because it is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning; and (3) that the 

defendant’s product or service creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.” Clicks 

Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Disc Golf 

Ass'n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Here, the complaint alleges that OActive 2’s design is nonfunctional and “distinctive 

in that it has come to be associated with Vision Quest in the minds of consumers.” The 

complaint also alleges that the Game Changer is confusingly similar to OActive 2, and 

includes photographs comparing OActive 2 with the Game Changer. OM takes issue with 

these allegations, but its motion reads more like a motion for summary judgment than a 

motion to dismiss, arguing essentially that VQ cannot prove that the Game Changer 

infringes VQ’s trade dress because OActive 2’s design is functional and has not acquired 

secondary meaning. OM may very well be correct, but these arguments are more 

appropriate for summary judgment or a jury. At this stage, although the complaint is 

austere and somewhat conclusory, upon consideration of the allegations along with the 

photographs, the Court is satisfied that it gives OM “fair notice of what the [trade dress 

Case 3:17-cv-01395-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17-CV-1395-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

infringement] claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

(internal ellipses and citation omitted); see generally Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. v. CIA Wheel 

Grp., No. SACV150246DOCDFMX, 2016 WL 6138416, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2016) 

(“An image of the trade dress and of the allegedly infringing marks greatly assists courts 

in clarifying what design or mark a plaintiff seeks to protect.”); Dynamic Fluid Control 

(PTY) Ltd. v. Int'l Valve Mfg., LLC, 790 F. Supp. 2d 732, 737 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (noting that 

although the allegations in the complaint were “somewhat conclusory,” they were 

“sufficient to put Defendants on notice as to what [the plaintiff believes is protected]” when 

viewed in connection with “attached photographs of products allegedly exhibiting its 

protectable trade dress”). OM will be able to obtain more information about the specifics 

of VQ’s trade dress infringement claim through discovery.

IV. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that OM’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted with respect to 

claim 3 for unfair competition and false designation of origin and claim 4 for dilution. 

Claims 3 and 4 are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motion is 

denied with respect to claim 2 for trade dress infringement.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01395-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 09/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5