Dynamite Marketing v. WowLine & Sherman Specialty — $3.54M Jury Win on Design Patent
Dynamite Marketing, Inc. secured a $3,535,317.33 total award after a jury found Sherman Specialty willfully infringed US Design Patent D751,877, covering the iconic Wallet Ninja 18-in-1 credit card multi-tool. The verdict, reached in September 2023, was followed by a permanent injunction barring the Sherman Defendants from making, selling, or importing the infringing products.
Jury verdict and permanent injunction in credit card multi-tool design patent dispute
Dynamite Marketing, Inc. filed suit on May 22, 2019 in the Eastern District of New York against The WowLine, Inc., Sherman Specialty Inc., and a range of related entities and individuals — including named websites and John Does — alleging infringement of US Design Patent D751,877, which protects the ornamental design of the Wallet Ninja 18-in-1 Credit Card Size Pocket Tool. The complaint targeted knock-off 18-in-1 credit card-sized tools sold under part numbers TOL4, TOL8, and S11171.
After approximately four and a half years of litigation, a jury returned a verdict on September 14, 2023, finding that the Sherman Defendants willfully infringed D751,877 and awarding Dynamite Marketing $1,850,000 in damages. Judge Gary R. Brown subsequently denied all post-trial relief motions by defendants, granted attorneys’ fees of $1,536,644.27, and added $148,673.06 in prejudgment interest — bringing the total judgment to $3,535,317.33. A permanent injunction was entered on December 19, 2023, and the case was formally closed on January 22, 2024.
The willfulness finding is commercially significant: it exposes defendants to the full weight of enhanced-damages doctrine and supported the court’s fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The relatively lean plaintiff team — a single-attorney firm — prevailing against a multi-firm defendant side suggests the strength of the underlying design patent claims. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any settlement negotiations occurred before trial, and whether any of the unnamed John Doe defendants or websites were ever separately pursued.
Filing to filing in 1706 days
Duration: May 2019 to January 2024 — nearly 5 years from filing to closed judgment
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dynamite Marketing, Inc. | Company | Promotional products company — holder of US Design Patent D751,877 (Wallet Ninja tool)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The WowLine, Inc. | Company | Promotional goods distributor Sherman Specialty Inc., operating also as The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sergei Orel | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamite Marketing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew P. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ashley N. Moore | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Dehoney | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey L. Snow | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Donohue , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Vincent Micali | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth Sean Kast | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Todd Evan Soloway | Attorney | Counsel for The WowLine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | New York Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The judgment reflects a complete plaintiff victory at every post-trial stage. The jury’s willfulness finding — and the court’s subsequent denial of all defendants’ post-trial motions — effectively affirmed both the infringement determination and the damages quantum without reduction. The permanent injunction extending to ‘colorably different’ products is notably broad, suggesting Judge Brown accepted plaintiff’s framing that the infringing design was not merely coincidental. The total $3,535,317.33 award, combining damages, fees, and prejudgment interest, sets a material damages benchmark for design patent enforcement in the promotional products category.
US Design Patent D751,877 — Wallet Ninja 18-in-1 Credit Card Multi-Tool
US Design Patent D751,877 protects the ornamental appearance of the Wallet Ninja — an 18-in-1 multi-function tool sized to fit in a standard wallet or cardholder. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the way a product looks, not how it works. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary purchaser be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design? The jury’s verdict confirms that the accused knock-off products — sold under part numbers TOL4, TOL8, and S11171 — satisfied that threshold.
In the promotional products and novelty gadget category, design patents on compact multi-tools represent meaningful competitive moats. The Wallet Ninja became a widely recognised gift and promotional item, and the existence of D751,877 means that visually similar competing products face real litigation risk. This case demonstrates that even offshore-sourced knock-offs distributed through promotional goods channels are vulnerable to design patent enforcement, particularly when sold through identifiable online storefronts and distributor networks.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US Design Patent D751,877?
If your company sources, distributes, or sells credit card-sized multi-tools — whether as promotional merchandise, retail products, or corporate gifts — D751,877 is a direct clearance concern. This case confirms the patent is enforceable and that willful infringement findings are plausible even for downstream distributors. Procurement teams sourcing from overseas suppliers should verify their product’s visual design does not fall within the ‘ordinary observer’ test scope of D751,877.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map D751,877’s design claim against your product’s visual profile and flag design-adjacent patents in the multi-tool and compact gadget category. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert you if Dynamite Marketing or related assignees file continuation design patents or new enforcement actions — giving your legal and product teams early warning before litigation exposure materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US751877DA to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in promotional products and compact tools
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the promotional products IP landscape
A $3.54M judgment on a single design patent in the promotional goods sector is an unusually high-stakes outcome. Here is what it means.
Design patents are enforceable — and willfulness exposure is real in promotional goods
This case demonstrates that design patents covering consumer novelty products can generate multi-million dollar jury awards. Companies sourcing promotional products — especially credit card tools, multi-tools, or similar compact gadgets — should conduct design patent clearance before procurement. The willfulness finding signals courts will examine whether defendants investigated IP risk.
Permanent injunctions on ‘colorably different’ products create lasting competitive constraints
The injunction’s ‘colorably different’ language binds not just the specific part numbers at trial but any future redesign that does not meaningfully depart from the infringing appearance. Competitors and distributors in the multi-tool and promotional gadget category should treat this injunction as a signal to audit their supply chains for design proximity to D751,877.
Dynamite v The — key questions answered
Dynamite Marketing won a jury verdict of willful infringement of US Design Patent D751,877 on September 14, 2023. The court awarded $1,850,000 in damages, $1,536,644.27 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and $148,673.06 in prejudgment interest — totalling $3,535,317.33. A permanent injunction was entered against the Sherman Defendants on December 19, 2023.
US Design Patent D751,877 protects the ornamental design of the Wallet Ninja 18-in-1 Credit Card Size Pocket Tool. Design patents cover how a product looks, not how it functions. The jury found that the defendants’ knock-off products — specifically those with part numbers TOL4, TOL8, and S11171 — infringed this design under the ordinary observer test.
Attorneys’ fees were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which allows fee-shifting in ‘exceptional’ patent cases. The jury’s willfulness finding — that defendants knowingly infringed D751,877 — supported the court’s designation of the case as exceptional. Judge Brown granted $1,536,644.27 in fees, expert costs, and costs while denying all of defendants’ post-trial relief motions.
The permanent injunction bars Sherman Specialty Inc. and its affiliates operating as The WowLine from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing products covered by D751,877 — specifically those with part numbers TOL4, TOL8, or S11171 — and any product ‘not more than colorably different’ from the infringing products. The injunction binds the company’s officers, agents, employees, and any person acting in concert with them.
Prejudgment interest of $148,673.06 was calculated on the jury’s $1,850,000 damages award using simple interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The interest period ran from May 22, 2019 — the date the complaint was filed — to the date of judgment. The Clerk of Court determined the average applicable interest rate over that period to be 2.07%.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.