Luo v. Partnership Unincorp Organizations In Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yu Luo (Ya An, People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (People's Republic of China and other foreign/domestic jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty and Associates
• Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00615, M.D. Fla., 03/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate commercial internet stores that directly target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of shelf brackets infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a shelf bracket.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of shelf brackets, a common hardware component used in consumer and industrial shelving systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is brought against a group of unnamed defendants, identified on a sealed "Schedule A," who are alleged to be an interrelated group of online infringers. Plaintiff alleges these entities use tactics to conceal their identities, such as using the same product images across different storefronts. Plaintiff also states that it grants licenses to third parties for its patented design.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-01-11	’683 Patent Priority Date (Int. Filing Date)
2024-01-30	’683 Patent Issue Date
2024-03-11	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,012,683, titled "SHELF BRACKET", issued on January 30, 2024 (the "'683 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but rather protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to provide a unique aesthetic for a functional item.
• The Patented Solution: The ’683 Patent claims a specific ornamental design for an L-shaped shelf bracket. The design features a flat, rectangular base with four countersunk holes, one near each corner, and a vertical arm extending perpendicularly from the base. The vertical arm features two countersunk holes aligned vertically. The patent figures illustrate the specific proportions and appearance of these features (’683 Patent, Figs. 1.1-1.8). A key aspect of the claimed design is the disclaimer of the middle portion of the vertical arm, indicated by symbolic break lines, meaning the overall length of the arm is not part of the protected design (’683 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The patent protects a specific aesthetic in the crowded market for commodity hardware, which Plaintiff alleges it established as "first to market" and for which it has an "established reputation" (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim of the ’683 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a shelf bracket, as shown and described" (’683 Patent, Claim).
• The essential ornamental elements comprising the design include:
  • The overall L-shaped configuration.
  • A rectangular base plate with four countersunk screw holes in a specific four-corner arrangement.
  • A flat vertical arm with two vertically aligned countersunk screw holes.
  • The specific visual proportions and contours of the base and arm sections as depicted in the patent's figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically shelf brackets sold by Defendants through various online storefronts (Compl. ¶8, ¶20). The complaint references an "Exhibit B" containing images of the infringing products, though this exhibit was not included with the provided complaint document (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants market, sell, and import shelf brackets that incorporate Plaintiff's patented design without a license (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly sold through a network of "Defendant Internet Stores" that are designed to appear as if they are selling licensed products (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges that these stores share common identifiers, such as using the "same product image," and are operated by an "interrelated group of infringers" who act in concert (Compl. ¶9, ¶12). A visual provided in the complaint as "Image 1" is stated to show the "Plaintiff's inventive design" (Compl. ¶5, p. 4, Image 1). This image corresponds to Figure 1.1 of the ’683 Patent.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D1,012,683 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a shelf bracket, as shown and described.	Defendants are alleged to offer for sale, sell, and/or import shelf brackets that are a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation" of the patented design. The complaint alleges Defendants use the "same product image" as Plaintiff, which is depicted as Image 1 in the complaint and corresponds to the patented design.	¶3, ¶12, ¶20	Claim; Figs. 1.1-1.8

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The complaint's infringement theory rests on the allegation that Defendants sell products that are copies of the patented design, often using Plaintiff's own product imagery (Compl. ¶3, ¶12). A central question for the court will be whether the products actually sold by the Defendants are visually the same as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
• Scope Question: The ’683 Patent explicitly disclaims "the area between the symbolic break lines" on the vertical arm, meaning the length of that arm is not a protected feature (’683 Patent, Description). This raises the question of whether any differences between the accused products and the patent drawings, particularly regarding the arm's length, would be material to the infringement analysis or if such differences fall within the unclaimed scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific terms is uncommon, as the drawings themselves define the claim. Analysis instead focuses on the scope of the design as a whole.

• The "Term": The overall scope of the claimed design as defined by the solid-line drawings and the explicit disclaimer.
• Context and Importance: The disclaimer stating that "the area between the symbolic break lines form no part of the claimed design" is critical to the infringement analysis (’683 Patent, Description). The court's interpretation of the design's scope will determine whether infringement is assessed based on the entire bracket or only on the specific ornamental features of the base and the ends of the vertical arm.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the overall visual impression of the bracket is dictated by the claimed portions—the unique base plate configuration, the hole pattern, and the arm's shape—and that an ordinary observer would not be swayed by variations in the unclaimed length of the arm.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the disclaimer expressly limits the protected design to only the specific portions shown in solid lines. Therefore, the infringement analysis must disregard the arm's length entirely, and any alleged similarity must be based only on the claimed end portions and base of the bracket.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and asks the court to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" the patented design (Compl. ¶20; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis for this appears to be the allegation that Defendants operate as an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" (Compl. ¶9).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly pleaded, with the complaint alleging that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale infringing products without authorization from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). The allegations of Defendants' use of fictitious names and other tactics to conceal their operation may be used to support a finding of egregious conduct (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).

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

• An Evidentiary Question of Identity: The central issue will be evidentiary. Can the Plaintiff prove that the anonymous entities operating the "Defendant Internet Stores" are in fact selling shelf brackets that are visually indistinguishable from the ’683 Patent's claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The case may depend on evidence linking the products advertised using copied images to the products actually delivered to consumers.
• A Procedural Question of Enforcement: A significant practical challenge will be the procedural aspects of litigating against and enforcing a judgment upon a network of allegedly foreign-based, anonymous online sellers. The complaint details tactics allegedly used by Defendants to evade identification and legal consequences, making discovery and enforcement a potentially pivotal aspect of the case (Compl. ¶9, ¶11, ¶13).
• A Legal Question of Scope: Should the case proceed to a comparison of the products, a key legal question will be the effect of the patent's disclaimer. The court will need to determine how the unclaimed length of the bracket's vertical arm affects the overall visual impression when applying the "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement.