On September 8, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a significant decision in E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Caraway Home, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-8929 (JPO). The Court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (“Mishan”), declaring that Mishan’s cookware lids do not infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D921,421, owned by Caraway Home, Inc. (“Caraway”).
Background of the Dispute
Caraway, a cookware company, obtained a design patent in 2021 covering the ornamental design of a cookware lid. Mishan, a New York-based seller of consumer cookware, marketed its “Gotham Steel” ceramic cookware sets on Amazon, which included a lid that Caraway alleged was indistinguishable from its patented design. After Caraway filed a complaint with Amazon seeking removal of Mishan’s listing, Mishan initiated a declaratory judgment action to clear its products of infringement claims.
Caraway counterclaimed for infringement, asserting that Mishan’s sales constituted willful violation of its patent rights. Mishan responded by moving for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
Court’s Analysis
The Court applied the “ordinary observer” test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with prior designs, would find the accused and patented designs “substantially the same.”
At the threshold step, the Court determined that the accused lid and patented lid were “plainly dissimilar.” Two key differences stood out:
– Top Surface Design: The patented lid has a completely flat top surface, while Mishan’s accused lid features a beveled edge and convex center.
– Bottom Structure: The patented lid includes two semi-circular flanges, whereas Mishan’s lid has a continuous circular wall.
Because these differences were obvious and substantial, the Court concluded that no ordinary observer could mistake the two designs for one another. The only similarity—that both lids are round—was insufficient to support infringement. As the Court noted, Caraway’s pleadings did not identify meaningful similarities and instead relied on conclusory assertions.
Having found the designs plainly dissimilar, the Court did not need to reach the second step of the analysis, which compares the accused design to prior art.
Outcome
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Mishan’s motion in full, entering judgment:
– For Mishan on its declaratory judgment claim of non-infringement.
– Against Caraway on its counterclaim for infringement.
The case was dismissed and closed, marking a clear victory for Mishan.
Key Takeaways
– Early Dismissal Possible in Design Cases: Although design patent infringement is typically a fact question for juries, courts may resolve cases at the pleadings stage where the accused and patented designs are “plainly dissimilar.”
– Conclusive Allegations Insufficient: Caraway’s failure to identify substantive similarities between the designs proved fatal to its infringement claim.
– Limits of Design Patent Protection: The Court emphasized that a design patent does not cover all products sharing basic functional shapes (such as circular lids), but only the specific ornamental features claimed.
This decision reinforces the importance of carefully evaluating both similarities and differences in design cases and highlights that defendants have strong procedural tools to resolve weak claims early in litigation.
E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. was represented by John Zaccaria and Alan Federbush of Notaro, Michalos & Zaccaria P.C.