Gold Wing Trading Inc v. T Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Gold Wing Trading Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule “A” (Jurisdictions Unknown, Alleged to be in China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Jared W. Gasman, P.A.
• Case Identification: 0:23-cv-60849, S.D. Fla., 05/07/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Florida, through interactive e-commerce storefronts, offering shipping to Florida, and allegedly having sold infringing products to residents of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unnamed e-commerce operators are selling corner desks that infringe its design patent.
• Technical Context: The case involves the ornamental design of furniture, specifically a corner desk with integrated shelving, sold through online retail channels.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a “Schedule A” action, a common procedural vehicle for targeting numerous, often anonymous, online sellers of allegedly infringing goods. Plaintiff alleges Defendants operate under fictitious names to conceal their identities and source products from common or related upstream manufacturers.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D936,393 - "Corner Desk"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D936393, issued November 23, 2021.

The Invention Explained

This is a design patent, so the "invention" is the ornamental appearance of the article, not its function.

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific problem addressed by the design. Design patents protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶51; ’393 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a corner desk. The design features an L-shaped desktop supported by two multi-tiered shelving units of differing heights, constructed with a visible frame-and-panel aesthetic (’393 Patent, FIG. 1). The overall impression is created by the specific proportions, the arrangement of shelves, and the configuration of the support structure as depicted in the patent's figures (’393 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is "distinctive" and used in connection with Plaintiff's products, suggesting its commercial importance lies in creating a recognizable product identity in the online furniture market (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents typically have only one claim. The single claim of the ’393 Patent is for "the ornamental design for a corner desk, as shown and described" (’393 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's seven drawing figures. The broken lines in the figures illustrate portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design (’393 Patent, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• "unauthorized and unlicensed products, namely the Corner Desk bearing counterfeit versions of the ornamental design of Plaintiff’s Patent ('Infringing Products')" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants operate numerous e-commerce storefronts to sell the accused corner desks to consumers in the U.S., including Florida (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5, 40).
• These storefronts are alleged to be "fully interactive" and accept payment in U.S. dollars via credit cards and Amazon Pay (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 42). Plaintiff alleges the stores are designed to appear as if they are authorized retailers, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate sellers (Compl. ¶42).
• The complaint alleges all Defendants are engaged in a "systematic approach" of selling illegal products from "the same or similar sources" (Compl. ¶23), and are part of an "interrelated group of infringers" (Compl. ¶47).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused products infringe the design patent, without breaking down the comparison feature-by-feature. The table below summarizes the allegation based on the legal standard for design patent infringement, which compares the patented design and the accused product from the perspective of an "ordinary observer."

D936,393 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused desks are the same as the patented design. This involves a side-by-side comparison of the accused products (once identified) and the design shown in the ’393 Patent's figures.
• Scope Questions: The analysis will depend on the overall visual impression, not minor differences. A key question is whether any differences between the accused desks and the patent figures are significant enough to alter the overall appearance in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The scope of protection is limited to the elements shown in solid lines in the patent's figures (’393 Patent, Description).
• Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint does not include images of the accused products, a primary challenge will be for the Plaintiff to produce evidence (e.g., product photographs, purchase records) demonstrating that the specific products sold by each named defendant are, in fact, substantially the same as the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is construed by reference to the figures. There are no traditional terms to construe, but the interpretation of the visual elements shown in the drawings is paramount.

• The Term: The Claimed Ornamental Design
• Context and Importance: The entire case rests on the scope of the claimed design and whether the accused products are substantially similar in appearance. The legal test is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be induced to purchase an accused product supposing it to be the patented design. Practitioners will focus on the overall visual effect created by the combination of features shown in the patent's drawings.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A court may find the scope covers designs with minor variations if the overall visual impression is the same. The interpretation focuses on the design as a whole, rather than on a list of specific features, which could support finding infringement even if some minor details differ.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is strictly limited by the visuals in the patent. Any significant deviation in proportion, configuration, or surface ornamentation in an accused product could support a finding of non-infringement. The patent explicitly disclaims matter shown in broken lines, meaning those elements cannot be part of the infringement analysis (’393 Patent, Description). The specific arrangement of the two distinct shelving units and the L-shaped top are core to the design's appearance (’393 Patent, FIG. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" to "manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products," which could support claims for contributory or induced infringement (Compl. ¶47). It also prays for an injunction against those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that "Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights" (Compl. ¶39). The complaint further states the infringement was "willful and deliberate" because Defendants have notice or knew of the patent (Compl. ¶54).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Identity: Can the Plaintiff connect the anonymous online storefronts listed in Schedule A to specific entities and, more importantly, produce evidence that the specific products sold by those entities are in fact visually "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’393 patent?
2. A Question of Scope and Similarity: Assuming the accused products are identified, the core legal question will be one of visual comparison: are the accused desks close enough in overall ornamental appearance to the patented design that they would deceive an ordinary observer, or are the differences sufficient to avoid infringement?
3. A Procedural Question of Joinder: The case joins numerous, unrelated defendants in a single action. A likely procedural hurdle will be whether the court allows the case to proceed against a diverse group of sellers whose only alleged connection is selling similar-looking products from potentially related sources (Compl. ¶¶ 14-17, 26).