When Travel Assets Inc. and co-plaintiff Gregg Gorski filed their design patent infringement action against ST & Company, LLC and Raheel Lakhany in July 2022, the dispute placed a commercially marketed consumer product — the FLTR exhale smoke filter — squarely at the center of California’s Central District Court docket. After 641 days of litigation, the parties reached a confidential settlement, with a Notice of Settlement filed on April 19, 2024.

The case, docketed as 2:22-cv-05068, involves U.S. Design Patent USD685131S (Application No. 29/429020), a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of an exhale smoke filtration device. While the settlement prevents a definitive judicial ruling on infringement or validity, the case offers meaningful insights into design patent assertion strategy, the commercial significance of consumer product aesthetics, and the litigation dynamics that drive parties toward resolution in design patent disputes.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the consumer goods or filtration technology space, this case underscores the enforceability leverage that design patents carry — even at the district court level.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

The asserted patent, U.S. Design Patent USD685131S (corrected application number 29/429020), covers the ornamental design of an exhale smoke filter. Design patents, governed under 35 U.S.C. § 171, protect the unique visual characteristics of a product rather than its functional attributes. Unlike utility patents, infringement analysis under design patents applies the “ordinary observer” test articulated in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008) — asking whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.

• • US D685,131S — Ornamental design for an exhale smoke filter

The Accused Product

The accused product is identified as the FLTR exhale smoke filter — a consumer device designed to filter exhaled smoke, likely positioned in the personal wellness or smoking accessory market. The commercial availability and market overlap of the accused product with the patented design formed the commercial foundation of the infringement claim.

Legal Representation

Plaintiffs were represented by Trojan Law Offices, with attorneys Edwin P. Tarver, Lan C. Dang, and R. Joseph Trojan. Defendants retained two firms: Hawkinson Yang LLP (David C. Yang, Matthew J. Hawkinson) and Kutak Rock LLP (Diane L. Peterson, Edwin J. Richards, Kevin Andrew Goldman). The defendants’ larger legal team signals a well-resourced defense posture.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The action was filed on July 21, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — a jurisdiction frequently selected by IP plaintiffs due to its experienced patent bench, established local patent rules, and proximity to technology and consumer goods industries headquartered in Southern California.

The case ran for 641 days before settlement — a duration consistent with contested district court patent litigation that clears early dispositive motions but resolves prior to trial. The Central District’s active docket management and the Court’s retention of jurisdiction through the May 19, 2024 dismissal deadline reflect standard settlement administration procedures under local rules.

No specific claim construction order, summary judgment ruling, or trial record is publicly identified in the provided case data, suggesting the parties reached resolution during the pretrial or discovery phase.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On April 19, 2024, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement (Doc. 71), confirming full resolution of all claims. The Court issued an order staying all proceedings, removing the matter from its active caseload, and setting a May 19, 2024 deadline for filing a Stipulation of Dismissal. The Court expressly retained jurisdiction through that date, with a provision deeming the matter dismissed if no stipulation was filed.

Specific financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed publicly, which is standard in design patent settlements where parties negotiate licensing arrangements, royalty payments, or product design changes confidentially.

No injunctive relief ruling was issued by the Court, as settlement preceded any judicial determination on the merits.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was premised on a straightforward infringement action under design patent law. The central legal question would have been whether the FLTR exhale smoke filter’s appearance was substantially similar to the ornamental design claimed in USD685131S under the Egyptian Goddess ordinary observer standard. Design patent defendants typically pursue several defense strategies: (1) challenging the scope of the design claim as limited by functional elements; (2) introducing prior art to narrow the claimed design’s protected scope; and (3) arguing the accused product’s design is sufficiently distinct under close examination. The defendants’ five-attorney team across two firms suggests a robust defense preparation, potentially including prior art searches and expert analysis — factors that may have influenced the settlement calculus on both sides.

Legal Significance

This case, resolving by settlement rather than a merits ruling, does not establish binding precedent. However, it reinforces several notable patterns in design patent litigation:

• • Design patents are actively litigated in consumer product spaces, not merely in high-profile technology disputes.
• • Settlement is the predominant outcome in design patent cases, reflecting the uncertainty of the ordinary observer test and the business costs of prolonged litigation.
• • The Central District of California remains a favorable venue for design patent plaintiffs given its IP-experienced judiciary and procedural infrastructure.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The FLTR exhale smoke filter litigation reflects a broader trend of design patent enforcement in the consumer wellness and smoking accessories sector. As this market has expanded — driven by increased consumer interest in harm reduction and filtration products — IP portfolios in the space have grown more contested.

Design patents, which are relatively inexpensive to prosecute and carry a statutory term of 15 years from grant (post-2015 PATENT Act), are increasingly valued as enforcement tools for companies seeking to protect product aesthetics without the higher prosecution burden of utility patents. A single design patent, as demonstrated here, can sustain federal litigation for nearly two years.

For companies competing in the filtration accessories or personal consumption device space, this case signals that product appearance is protectable IP and that competitors entering with visually similar products face real litigation exposure. Licensing discussions — proactively initiated before litigation — may represent a more cost-efficient path than contested district court proceedings.

The settlement also reflects a licensing-favorable resolution trend in design patent disputes, where defendants often find it more economical to enter licensing arrangements than to litigate invalidity defenses to conclusion.