Indiana Court Awards $40,755 to Screenco in Design Patent Win
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Screenco Systems, LLC v. Scott Septic & Portables, Inc. |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-00305 (S.D. Ind.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Duration | February 2023 – March 2024 1 year 1 month |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — $40,755 Damages & Injunction |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Defendants’ septic receiving stations |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Design patent holder marketing proprietary septic receiving station products including SC-Maxi-A-400 and SC-Mega-A-600.
🛡️ Defendant
Operator in the wastewater and environmental services industry, accused of infringing Screenco’s design patent with its competing septic receiving stations.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved one design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a septic receiving station, rather than its functional mechanism. Design patents confer rights over a product’s visual characteristics, making claim scope analysis highly dependent on the “ordinary observer” test established in *Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.*
- • US D757,889 — Ornamental design of a septic receiving station
Designing a similar product?
Check if your industrial equipment design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court entered **final judgment for Screenco Systems, LLC**, awarding **$36,438.00 in damages**, plus **$4,316.99 in prejudgment interest**, for a **total monetary award of $40,754.99**. Critically, a **permanent injunction** was issued against both Scott Septic & Portables, Inc. and James Scott, Jr., prohibiting future infringing conduct.
Key Legal Issues
The claim was an **infringement action** under U.S. design patent law (35 U.S.C. § 271). Infringement was assessed using the **ordinary observer test**, where an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The court’s decision to grant both monetary damages and a permanent injunction indicates a finding of clear and ongoing infringement. This was based on the four-factor *eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.*, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) framework, demonstrating irreparable harm, inadequacy of monetary remedies, balance of hardships favoring the patentee, and public interest alignment.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in industrial equipment design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the asserted patent’s legal status and citations
- See which companies are most active in design patents in this sector
- Understand claim construction patterns for similar designs
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Septic receiving station designs
Related Patents
In industrial equipment design space
Design-Around Options
Available for many designs
✅ Key Takeaways
Design patent infringement actions can yield both compensatory damages and permanent injunctions in the same judgment.
Search related case law →Naming individual principals as co-defendants in infringement actions expands liability exposure and strengthens settlement leverage.
Explore precedents →Defendants without outside IP counsel are significantly disadvantaged — monitor opposing representation status early in litigation strategy.
Get litigation intelligence →No IPR challenge was mounted, leaving patent validity uncontested — a major missed opportunity for the defense.
Analyze patent validity →Design patents covering industrial product appearances are commercially valuable and judicially enforceable assets.
Explore design patent analytics →Comprehensive IP audits should include design patent portfolios, not just utility patents, especially for companies with distinctive product lines.
Conduct IP audit →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Design Patent USD757,889 (Application No. US29/518,390), covering the ornamental design of a septic receiving station, was the sole patent asserted in Case No. 1:23-cv-00305.
The court found sufficient grounds under the *eBay* four-factor test to issue a permanent injunction against both Scott Septic & Portables, Inc. and James Scott, Jr., in addition to awarding $36,438 in damages and $4,316.99 in prejudgment interest.
This ruling reinforces that design patents are actively enforced in niche industrial markets. Companies should conduct design-focused FTO analyses and consider registering ornamental designs as part of their core IP strategy.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 1:23-cv-00305 (Indiana Southern District Court)
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — U.S. Design Patent USD757,889
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 271
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.