Miller Manufacturing v. Zhejiang Focus-On: Consent Judgment in Poultry Device IP Dispute
Miller Manufacturing Co. sued Chinese importer Zhejiang Focus-On and individual defendant Tom Lai in the District of Minnesota over design patent USD693,067 and a portfolio of registered IP covering poultry watering devices and related farm products. The case closed in 243 days via a court-approved consent judgment — enforcing a prior 2023 agreement that required Focus-On to permanently cease use of Miller’s entire IP portfolio.
Design patent and trade dress enforcement resolved by binding consent judgment
Miller Manufacturing Co., a Minnesota-based agricultural and farm supply products company and holder of design patent USD693,067, filed suit on May 31, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co., a Chinese importer, and individual defendant Tom Lai. The complaint alleged infringement of Miller’s registered and issued intellectual property across a broad product portfolio, including its API®, Double-Tuf®, Little Giant®, Pet Lodge®, HotShot®, and Springer Magrath® brands, as well as specific poultry kits with watering devices.
The case closed on January 29, 2025, via a court-approved consent judgment — a negotiated, court-enforceable order rather than a litigated verdict. Critically, the consent judgment incorporated and enforced a July 2023 Agreement that Miller had previously reached with Zhejiang Focus-On following an earlier lawsuit. That agreement required Focus-On to immediately and permanently cease all use of Miller’s intellectual property, including any confusingly similar, colorable imitation, or dilutive use of any element of Miller’s IP portfolio.
The 243-day resolution suggests the parties moved relatively efficiently toward a negotiated outcome, consistent with an earlier settlement framework already in place. The existence of the July 2023 Agreement indicates this was at least the second formal enforcement action Miller brought against Focus-On, implying the 2024 filing was triggered by alleged non-compliance with the prior resolution. Public records do not disclose specific damages, royalty terms, or fee allocations agreed between the parties.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 243 days
243 days — resolved faster than median patent district court timelines, consistent with consent judgment mechanics
Consent judgment approved: what the court order means for both parties
Consent judgment: an enforceable court order by agreement
A consent judgment is not a voluntary dismissal — it is a court-approved, binding order carrying the full force of a judicial ruling. Unlike a private settlement, it can be enforced through contempt proceedings if violated. Here, the court granted the parties’ joint motion and formally approved the consent judgment, making its IP restrictions directly enforceable by the District of Minnesota without the need to re-litigate the underlying claims.
Court-enforceable injunctionMiller secures court-backed permanent IP cessation order
Miller Manufacturing obtained a consent judgment requiring Zhejiang Focus-On to permanently cease all use of Miller’s IP — covering design patent USD693,067, trade dress, brand names, product configurations, packaging, and any confusingly similar derivatives. This outcome is notably broader than a single patent injunction: it enforces Miller’s entire registered IP schedule. Having court approval means any future breach could be addressed through contempt motions rather than new litigation.
Broad IP cessation securedFocus-On bound by permanent IP restrictions under court order
Zhejiang Focus-On and Tom Lai are now subject to a permanent, court-enforceable obligation to cease use of Miller’s full IP portfolio. The consent judgment also references and incorporates the July 2023 Agreement, suggesting this is the second time Focus-On has accepted these restrictions — raising the enforcement stakes significantly. Any future non-compliance would likely be treated as contempt of court rather than a fresh infringement dispute.
Repeat enforcement exposurePrior agreement plus consent judgment raises bar for future importers
This case illustrates a two-stage enforcement pattern: first a private settlement, then a court-backed consent judgment when that settlement is allegedly breached. For other importers of competing poultry watering or farm supply products, the record signals that Miller actively monitors and re-enforces its IP portfolio. The design patent USD693,067 and associated trade dress now carry a judicially recorded enforcement history that strengthens future infringement arguments.
Escalating enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Miller Manufacturing Co. | Company | Farm and agricultural products company — holder of design patent USD693,067 and broader IP portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co. | Company | Chinese import/export company accused of infringing Miller’s poultry device and farm product IPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Tom Lai | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alex Matthews | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Manufacturing Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristine M. Boylan | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Manufacturing Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mike Etienne | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Manufacturing Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for Miller Manufacturing Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP | Law Firm | Representing Miller Manufacturing Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryant D Tchida | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Glen E Schumann | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joey Martin Baertschi | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul D. Vink | Attorney | Counsel for Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bose McKinney & Evans LLP | Law Firm | Representing Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Moss & Barnett PA | Law Firm | Representing Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Minnesota District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment is framed as a joint motion approved by the court — meaning both parties stipulated to its terms rather than contesting liability. The court’s order explicitly incorporates the July 2023 Agreement, giving that private contract the force of a judicial ruling. The scope of the IP cessation obligation is unusually broad: it extends to any word, name, symbol, device, product configuration, packaging, technical manual, user guide, textual content, or image that is identical to, confusingly similar to, a colorable imitation of, or dilutive of Miller’s IP — covering virtually every commercial touchpoint for the affected products.
USD693,067 — ornamental design for poultry watering device
USD693,067 (application number US29/440579) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a poultry watering device. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product — meaning the scope of protection centres on the overall visual impression rather than mechanical function. The ‘USD’ prefix and ‘D’ series designation confirm this is a design patent, not a utility patent. Design patents in the agricultural and farm supply category are often asserted alongside trade dress claims to provide overlapping layers of IP protection for product appearance.
For the poultry and farm supply sector, USD693,067 is commercially significant because watering devices are high-volume, commodity-adjacent products where product appearance and brand recognition drive purchasing decisions at retail. The patent’s inclusion in a broader IP schedule alongside registered trademarks such as Little Giant® and Pet Lodge® suggests Miller treats its design IP as part of an integrated brand protection strategy rather than a standalone asset. Competitors and importers in this category should note that the consent judgment record strengthens Miller’s position in any future infringement proceeding involving similar ornamental designs.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD693,067?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing poultry watering devices, farm animal drinkers, or related agricultural water supply accessories for sale in the U.S. market should assess freedom-to-operate against USD693,067. The design patent’s enforcement history — now including a court-approved consent judgment — signals active monitoring by Miller Manufacturing. The risk is compounded by Miller’s broader IP schedule covering product configurations, packaging, and trade dress, meaning FTO analysis should extend beyond the design patent itself to the full visual identity of competing products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to run comprehensive freedom-to-operate assessments against design patent families, including USD693,067 and related U.S. design filings. Eureka identifies visual similarity risk across ornamental design registrations, maps the relevant claim scope, and surfaces related trade dress enforcement history — giving product teams the intelligence needed to make informed commercialisation decisions before bringing competing poultry or farm supply products to the U.S. market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0693067S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in agricultural and farm supply products
Explore related design patent and trade dress infringement actions in the agricultural products and farm supply sector litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the farm and agricultural products IP landscape
Miller’s two-stage enforcement strategy — private settlement followed by consent judgment — offers a replicable model for agricultural product IP holders facing repeat infringers.
Consent judgments convert private settlements into court-enforceable orders
When a prior settlement agreement is breached, re-litigating on the merits is costly and slow. Miller’s approach — filing a new action and promptly seeking a consent judgment that incorporates the original agreement — converts private terms into judicially enforceable obligations. IP teams managing cross-border enforcement should consider whether existing settlement agreements include consent judgment provisions for streamlined re-enforcement.
Design patent portfolios gain durability through documented enforcement history
USD693,067 now carries a court-approved enforcement record alongside Miller’s broader brand and trade dress portfolio. For competitors evaluating design-arounds or import strategies in the poultry and farm supply category, this dual layer — registered design patent plus adjudicated trade dress — substantially raises the risk of inadvertent infringement and willful infringement findings in any future dispute.
Miller v Zhejiang — key questions answered
The case was resolved by a court-approved consent judgment on January 29, 2025, 243 days after filing. The District of Minnesota granted the parties’ joint motion and approved a consent judgment permanently prohibiting Zhejiang Focus-On and Tom Lai from using any element of Miller Manufacturing’s intellectual property portfolio, including design patent USD693,067 and associated trade dress.
USD693,067 (application number US29/440579) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a poultry watering device. It was asserted by Miller Manufacturing alongside a broader portfolio of registered IP including brand trademarks such as Little Giant® and Pet Lodge®. Design patents protect visual appearance rather than functional features.
The July 2023 Agreement was a prior settlement reached between Miller Manufacturing and Zhejiang Focus-On following an earlier lawsuit. It required Focus-On to cease use of Miller’s IP. The 2024 filing suggests Miller alleged that Focus-On failed to comply with that agreement. The 2024 consent judgment formally incorporated and judicially enforced the 2023 Agreement’s terms.
Tom Lai is listed as an ‘Other Defendant’ alongside the corporate entity Zhejiang Focus-On Imp. & Exp. Co. Naming individual defendants alongside corporate entities is a strategy often used to pursue personal liability, particularly in import and distribution operations where corporate structures may otherwise limit the plaintiff’s enforcement options or recovery prospects.
The case involves Miller’s branded product lines including API®, Double-Tuf®, HotShot®, Little Giant®, Pet Lodge®, Springer Magrath®, and Traps, as well as Miller Poultry Kit with Watering Device and the FOT Poultry Kit with Watering Device. Design patent USD693,067 specifically covers the ornamental design of a poultry watering device.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.