2:22-cv-08192
Ep Family Corp v. Yiwu Xiangyu Trading Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ep Family Corp. (California)
- Defendant: The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A (Jurisdiction(s) not specified, alleged to be foreign)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WANG IP LAW GROUP, Group
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08192, C.D. Cal., 11/09/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged operation of online storefronts that specifically target and ship products to residents within the Central District of California. For defendants alleged to be foreign entities, venue is asserted as proper in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of hanging storage bags infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer household good—a hanging storage organizer—a product category characterized by high-volume sales on e-commerce platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. It alleges that the popularity of Plaintiff's own product has led to "widespread infringement."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-01-22 | '889 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2020-04-14 | '889 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-11-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D880,889 - "Hanging Storage Bag"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions to technical problems. The subject matter is a hanging bag for general storage and organization (Compl. ¶7).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hanging storage bag as depicted in the patent's figures (’889 Patent, Claim). The core visual elements shown in solid lines, and thus claimed as part of the design, consist of a series of stacked pockets on a rectangular back panel, culminating in a distinct bottom pocket featuring a transparent window with surrounding trim (’889 Patent, Figs. 1-2, 7). The patent explicitly disclaims features shown in broken lines, such as the hanging hooks and the upper pockets, stating they "form no part thereof" (’889 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the commercial importance of the design, stating that its popularity and recognition among consumers have made it a target for infringement (Compl. ¶¶9-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hanging storage bag, as shown and described." (’889 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claim, depicted in solid lines in the drawings, are:
- The overall configuration of a multi-pocket hanging organizer.
- The specific visual appearance of the bottom-most pocket, including its proportions, trim, and a transparent window feature.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses "hanging storage bags" sold by the various Defendants through online storefronts on platforms including Amazon (Compl. ¶¶2, 4, 11). The specific product models and sellers are listed in an Annex A, which was not publicly filed with the complaint.
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as consumer goods sold through online marketplaces (Compl. ¶¶2, 11). The complaint alleges that Defendants operate under various names and storefronts to "overwhelm the marketplace with a multitude of infringing products in order to evade detection by patent owners" (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products are so similar to the patented design that they would deceive an ordinary observer, which is the legal standard for design patent infringement (Compl. ¶21). Figure 1 of the '889 patent, attached as part of Exhibit 1 to the complaint, provides a perspective view of the claimed ornamental design for the hanging storage bag (Compl. ¶7; ’889 Patent, Fig. 1). Because the complaint makes general allegations against a class of products rather than a single, pictured instrumentality, the following chart maps the claimed visual features to the complaint's narrative infringement theory.
’889 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Feature from Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a hanging storage bag, as shown and described. | Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import products that incorporate the design protected by the patent. | ¶20 | ’889 Patent, Figs. 1-7 |
| The overall visual impression created by the claimed design. | The "resemblance between the design of the accused products and the ’889 Patent" is sufficient to induce a typical purchaser to buy the accused product believing it embodies the patented design. | ¶21 | ’889 Patent, Figs. 1-2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the scope of the design claim, particularly the weight given to the features shown in solid lines (the bottom pocket) versus those in broken lines (the upper pockets and hooks). The defense may argue that any similarities reside only in the unclaimed, functional aspects of a generic hanging organizer.
- Technical Questions: The dispositive issue is not technical functionality but visual appearance. The key question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, after comparing the accused products to the patented design and being aware of the prior art, would find the designs to be substantially the same.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings, rather than on construing specific text-based terms. The central "term" is the claimed design itself.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a hanging storage bag, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The scope of patent protection is dictated by the solid lines in the patent's figures. The distinction between the claimed solid-line features and the disclaimed broken-line features will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it determines which visual aspects of the accused products are relevant to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression of the design. A party could argue that the design is not limited to its individual components but protects the specific aesthetic combination of a multi-pocket organizer with the distinctive bottom pocket, regardless of minor variations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patentability and scope of the design are driven almost entirely by the most prominent feature shown in solid lines: the specific appearance of the bottom pocket with its defined trim and window (’889 Patent, Figs. 1, 2, 7). The patent’s description explicitly states that "The broken line portions...form no part thereof," which confines the protected design to only those elements drawn in solid lines (’889 Patent, Description).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement (Compl. ¶20).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is deliberate and willful (Compl. ¶23). The factual basis provided for knowledge is constructive notice, alleging that Defendants have had "actual knowledge of their infringement...since no later than the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation appears to be aimed at establishing willfulness for any infringement that continues post-filing.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Threshold Evidentiary Question: A primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to identify the specific accused products sold by the numerous, and allegedly pseudonymous, online storefronts and present evidence demonstrating that their designs are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
- A Core Question of Design Scope: The case will turn on the application of the ordinary observer test to the specific visual features of the accused products. The key issue will be whether the accused products appropriate the novel ornamental features of the ’889 patent as depicted in the solid-line drawings, or whether any resemblance is confined to the unclaimed functional elements shown in broken lines.