Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co Ltd v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

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"
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jared W. Gasman Attorney, P.A.
• Case Identification: 0:23-cv-61347, S.D. Fla., 12/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that the defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target consumers throughout the United States, including Florida, offer shipping to Florida, and have sold the accused products to residents of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are infringing its design patent for an outdoor pet house by selling counterfeit or colorably similar products.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer pet products sector, specifically concerning the ornamental appearance of an outdoor cat shelter sold through online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. A notable procedural aspect is the joinder of numerous unidentified defendants, who are alleged to be part of a single, interrelated counterfeiting operation that uses tactics to conceal identities and sources.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D958,465 - "PET HOUSE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D958,465, "PET HOUSE," issued July 19, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but instead protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The '465 Patent protects a specific aesthetic design for a pet house.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet house as depicted in its seven figures ('465 Patent, Claim). The design consists of the overall visual appearance of a two-story, wood-paneled structure with a gabled roof, as shown in the perspective view of Figure 1 ('465 Patent, FIG. 1). Key ornamental features include the vertical paneling on the walls, the overhanging eaves of the roof, a rectangular upper opening with a small ledge below it, a lower opening, and a small perch extending from one side ('465 Patent, Figs. 1-5). The broken lines in the drawings indicate elements that are not part of the claimed design ('465 Patent, Description).
• Design Importance: The unique ornamental design provides a distinctive appearance for the product, which can serve as a source of goodwill and brand recognition for the plaintiff in the consumer market (Compl. ¶2, ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for a pet house, as shown and described" ('465 Patent, Claim).
• Unlike a utility patent, a design patent's claim is not defined by a list of elements but by the collective visual appearance of the drawings as a whole. The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in Figures 1-7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Outdoor Cat House" products that allegedly bear "counterfeit versions of the ornamental design" of the '465 Patent (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the defendants are numerous, unidentified e-commerce operators who sell the "Infringing Products" through various online storefronts (Compl. ¶10). These storefronts are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers and use common templates, images, and marketing strategies, suggesting they are part of an interrelated group sourcing products from a common origin (Compl. ¶42, ¶45, ¶47). The defendants are accused of operating a "systematic approach of establishing online storefronts to redistribute illegal products" (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the defendants' products are "counterfeit versions" and "colorable imitation[s]" of the patented design. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'465 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The primary point of contention will be factual: what is the actual ornamental appearance of the defendants' "Outdoor Cat House" products? As the complaint does not include images of the accused products, a direct visual comparison—the core of design patent infringement analysis—is not possible from the pleadings alone.
  • Scope Question: The legal question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The analysis will depend on comparing the overall visual impression of the accused products to the specific combination of features shown in the '465 Patent, including its two-story structure, roof style, paneling, and opening configurations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is typically not construed in the same manner as a utility patent. The focus is on the overall visual appearance depicted in the drawings.

• The Term: "the ornamental design for a pet house, as shown and described"
• Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the entire claim. Its interpretation defines the scope of the intellectual property right. The court's analysis will focus on the visual impression created by the design as a whole, rather than on deconstructing it into a list of features. Practitioners may focus on this because the ultimate infringement decision will depend on a comparison between the accused product and this claimed design.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim protects the overall visual impression of the design, not merely a slavish copy. An interpretation that focuses on the design as a whole, as depicted across all seven figures, may support a finding of infringement even if minor differences exist between the patented design and an accused product.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states that "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the pet house that forms no part of the claimed design" ('465 Patent, Description). This language serves as a disclaimer, narrowing the scope of protection to only the features shown in solid lines and preventing the patentee from claiming features that are disclaimed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of "contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe" (Compl. ¶53). The prayer for relief also requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)). The factual basis for these claims centers on the allegation that the defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" (Compl. ¶47).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the infringement was willful, asserting that "Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights" and have "notice of or knew of Plaintiff's patent" (Compl. ¶39, ¶54). The complaint does not plead specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, such as the sending of a notice letter.

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

1. A central evidentiary question will be the presentation of the accused products. The entire case hinges on a visual comparison that is impossible based on the complaint alone. The outcome will depend on the degree of similarity revealed when the defendants' products are compared side-by-side with the figures of the '465 Patent.
2. The case presents a key procedural question regarding joinder. The plaintiff's ability to proceed against numerous, unidentified online sellers as a single "interrelated group" (Compl. ¶47) will be a critical threshold issue, as courts vary in their willingness to permit such joinder in e-commerce enforcement actions.
3. A core issue will be one of infringement scope: assuming the accused products are not identical, the court will need to determine whether their designs are "substantially the same" as the patented design. This will require an analysis of whether the accused products appropriate the novel ornamental features of the '465 Patent, as viewed by an ordinary observer.