Jiaren Zhu v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jiaren Zhu (People's Republic of China), Pro Se
  • Defendant: The Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (allegedly People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-03128, N.D. Cal., 05/29/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in the United States and California through interactive e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ magnetic keyholders infringe a U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The asserted design patent claims the ornamental appearance of a flexible tape with studs for toy building blocks, while the accused products are described as magnetic keyholders.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint contains significant factual discrepancies regarding the asserted patent. It alleges the patent application was filed on September 29, 2023, and issued on April 2, 2024, for a design created in July 2023. However, the asserted patent document shows a filing date of March 30, 2017, and an issue date of March 20, 2018. The subject matter of the patent (toy building block tape) also appears facially different from the accused product (magnetic keyholder) as described in the complaint. The complaint's signature block is dated May 20, 2021, over three years prior to the filing date.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D813,317 S - “Tape forming a toy building block base”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional utility. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (’317 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a flexible tape that serves as a base for toy building blocks (’317 Patent, Title). The design features two parallel rows of repeating cylindrical studs on the top surface of an elongated, flat tape body (’317 Patent, FIG. 1). The figures illustrate the design in various configurations, including flat, cylindrically rolled, oblong rolled, and curved, demonstrating its flexibility as a key visual characteristic (’317 Patent, FIGS. 1, 15, 22, 29).
• Technical Importance: The design merges the concept of a flexible, adhesive tape with the well-known stud-based surface of a toy building block base, creating a visually distinct product that allows building block creations on non-traditional surfaces.

Key Claims at a Glance

• A design patent consists of a single claim, which is directed to the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's figures.
• The claim of the ’317 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a tape forming a toy building block base, as shown and described" (’317 Patent, col. 3:57-59).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the drawings, which depict features including:
  • An elongated, tape-like body.
  • Two parallel rows of uniformly spaced, cylindrical studs protruding from the top surface.
  • The overall proportions and visual relationship between the studs and the tape body.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "magnetic keyholder[s]" (Compl. ¶4, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants sell these "Infringing Products" through e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, using various seller aliases (Compl. ¶¶4, 10). The complaint asserts these magnetic keyholders are "almost identical to Plaintiff's Patented Design" and that it would be "impossible [for consumers] to differentiate" them from Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint states that Exhibit 1 shows the Patented Design and Exhibit 2 contains photos of the accused products (Compl. ¶¶4, 11). However, the complaint provides no specific technical description of how the accused magnetic keyholders function or what their ornamental design features are, beyond the conclusory allegation of similarity.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient detail to map specific features of the accused "magnetic keyholder" to the ornamental design of the ’317 patent. The core of the infringement allegation rests on the conclusory statement that the accused products are "almost identical to Plaintiff's Patented Design" (Compl. ¶11) and that Defendants have infringed by "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" these products (Compl. ¶19).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Subject Matter Mismatch: A primary issue for the court will be the apparent mismatch between the subject matter of the asserted patent and the accused products. The infringement analysis will question whether the ornamental design for a "tape forming a toy building block base," as depicted in the ’317 Patent, can be read onto a product described as a "magnetic keyholder."
  • Pleading Sufficiency: The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. A question arises as to whether the complaint's bare allegation of similarity, which appears to be contradicted by the patent's explicit title and drawings, provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under federal pleading standards.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is typically not subject to traditional claim construction involving the definition of specific terms. The scope of the claim is understood to be the ornamental design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's figures. Courts generally disfavor attempts to translate the visual design into a detailed verbal description. The controlling "construction" is the visual impression conveyed by the drawings themselves. Therefore, analysis of specific claim terms is not applicable.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation that Defendants' conduct constitutes direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶15). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶16). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in concert to manufacture and sell the accused products (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not allege any facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the ’317 Patent.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to present fundamental threshold issues that may be addressed early in the proceedings. The central questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of subject matter scope: can a design patent for a "tape forming a toy building block base," with a distinct appearance of studs and a flexible body, be plausibly asserted against a product described as a "magnetic keyholder"?
2. A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s conclusory allegation of infringement, which is facially contradicted by the subject matter described in the asserted patent document, satisfy the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?
3. A further procedural question concerns factual integrity: how will the court address the numerous and significant factual errors in the pro se complaint, including incorrect dates for the patent's filing and issuance and a creation date for the design that post-dates the patent's issuance by more than five years?