Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co Ltd v. T Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jared W. Gasman Attorney, P.A.
• Case Identification: 0:23-cv-60032, S.D. Fla., 01/10/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants operating interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in Florida, offer shipping to the state, and accept payment in U.S. dollars.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell pet houses that infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a pet house.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of pet products, specifically pet furniture, where distinctive ornamental designs can be a significant market differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. However, it is brought against a "Schedule A" list of anonymous defendants, a procedural posture often used to combat networks of online sellers whose identities are concealed.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D955,550 - "PET HOUSE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D955,550, "PET HOUSE," issued June 21, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent does not articulate a problem-solution narrative in the manner of a utility patent; rather, it seeks to protect what the Plaintiff asserts is a "distinctive patented Pet House" design used in connection with its products (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "pet house" as depicted in its seven figures ('550 Patent, Claim). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, features a multi-component structure with a primary rectangular housing on legs, a sloped roof, a side-mounted assembly with two container holders, and a lower platform that appears to function as a step or porch ('550 Patent, FIG. 1). The design is characterized by its overall configuration and the specific arrangement of its surfaces and openings. The patent uses broken lines to show features, such as internal structures, that "form no part of the claimed design" ('550 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a unique visual appearance for a pet house, which can serve to distinguish Plaintiff’s product from others in the marketplace and build brand recognition (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a pet house, as shown and described" ('550 Patent, Claim).
• The "elements" of a design claim are the visual features shown in the drawings. Key features of the '550 Patent design include:
  • The overall configuration combining an elevated primary enclosure with an attached side station and a lower platform.
  • The specific sloped, overhanging roof design.
  • The arrangement of openings on the front and side faces of the main enclosure.
  • The appearance of the side-mounted station with two circular cutouts.
  • The distinct shape of the lower platform.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products, namely the Pet House bearing counterfeit versions of the ornamental design of '550 Patent," referred to as "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are sold through numerous e-commerce storefronts operated by the anonymous Defendants (Compl. ¶¶2, 10). These storefronts are alleged to target consumers in the United States, including Florida, and are designed to appear as authorized retailers (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). The complaint focuses heavily on the Defendants' alleged business practices—such as operating multiple fictitious storefronts, using common templates, and concealing their identities—which it claims indicates the Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" sourcing products from a common origin (Compl. ¶¶15, 17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or side-by-side visual comparisons of the patented design and the accused products. It asserts infringement by alleging that Defendants sell "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design for an organizer, namely the Pet House, claimed in the Plaintiff's Patent" (Compl. ¶21). The core of the infringement theory is that the accused products are "counterfeit versions" (Compl. ¶1) or "colorable imitation[s]" (Compl. p. 8, ¶1(a)) of the patented design. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Comparison: The central issue will be a visual comparison of the accused products against the claimed design in the '550 Patent. The outcome will depend on whether the accused products are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance to an ordinary observer. This analysis cannot be performed without images of the accused products.
  • Scope of the Claimed Design: The patent drawings use both solid and broken lines. A key question will be the proper application of this distinction. The infringement analysis must focus only on the ornamental features shown in solid lines, as the broken-line portions are explicitly disclaimed ('550 Patent, Description). Any differences in the unclaimed (broken line) portions of the accused products would be irrelevant to the infringement analysis.
  • Impact of Prior Art: The infringement test is performed in the context of the prior art. The scope of protection afforded to the '550 Patent design may be influenced by how similar it is to pre-existing pet house designs. The more novel the design, the broader its scope of protection against imitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the drawings themselves typically define the claim. The primary task is often to identify the scope of the claimed design.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a pet house, as shown and described"
• Context and Importance: While not a "term" in the traditional sense, the construction of this claim as a whole is critical. Practitioners may focus on two aspects: (1) properly identifying the article of manufacture as a "pet house," which defines the relevant field of prior art for the infringement analysis, and (2) delineating the precise scope of the claimed "design" by separating the protected solid-line features from the disclaimed broken-line features shown in the patent's figures.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for Scope: The scope is defined entirely by the solid lines in Figures 1-7 of the '550 Patent. The title ("PET HOUSE") and the visual representation in the figures unambiguously identify the article of manufacture ('550 Patent, Title, FIG. 1).
  • Evidence for Limitation: The "DESCRIPTION" section of the patent explicitly states: "The broken line depict portions of the pet house that form no part of the claimed design" ('550 Patent, Description). This language acts as a clear disclaimer, limiting the protected design strictly to the features depicted in solid lines.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges "contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe" (Compl. ¶23). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. p. 8, ¶1(b)). The factual basis for these claims appears to overlap entirely with the allegations of direct infringement through the sale of the accused products.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "notice of or knew of Plaintiff's patent" and their "deliberate" conduct (Compl. ¶24). The complaint further argues that the "deliberateness of Seller Storefronts' tortious acts and other manifestations of unethical and injurious commercial conduct provide the grounds for a finding of willful infringement" (Compl. ¶22).

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

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case will ultimately turn on a visual comparison that is not yet possible from the complaint alone. A dispositive question will be: viewing the '550 Patent design and an accused product side-by-side, would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art pet houses, be deceived into thinking the accused product has the same design as the patented one?

2. Defendant Identification and Liability: A significant procedural hurdle will be identifying the anonymous operators of the accused e-commerce storefronts listed on "Schedule A." A key question is whether Plaintiff can successfully pierce the anonymity of these sellers and establish that they are an "interrelated group" (Compl. ¶17) that can be treated as a single enterprise for liability and injunctive purposes.

3. Proper Application of Design Scope: A central legal and factual question will be whether the infringement analysis correctly isolates the claimed ornamental features (solid lines) from the disclaimed functional or structural elements (broken lines). The comparison must be between the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product and only the protected solid-line aspects of the '550 Patent design.