Zemiao Chen v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zemiao Chen (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Palmer Law Group
• Case Identification: 0:24-cv-60863, S.D. Fla., 05/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities who have targeted business activities toward consumers in Florida by operating commercial online storefronts accessible to and shipping to Florida residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' bags, sold through various Amazon storefronts, infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a bag.
• Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of a consumer accessory product within the competitive e-commerce market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a common procedural tool used against numerous, often anonymous, online sellers who allegedly operate in concert or sell identical infringing products through shifting storefronts to evade enforcement. No prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-07-07	U.S. Patent No. D1,019,124 Application Filing Date
2024-03-26	U.S. Patent No. D1,019,124 Issue Date
2024-05-21	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,019,124, "Bag," issued March 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; rather, they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The implicit goal is to create a distinct and new aesthetic design for a bag.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a bag as depicted in its figures ('124 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design is characterized by the visual combination of its overall shape (a generally rectangular body with rounded bottom corners), a perforated or mesh-like surface ornamentation on the front and back panels, a top zipper closure, and the specific configuration of the hardware where the strap attaches to the bag body (’124 Patent, Fig. 8). The patent explicitly disclaims the strap and its adjustment buckle by rendering them in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the protected design ('124 Patent, p. 3, "DESCRIPTION").
• Technical Importance: In the context of consumer goods like handbags, a unique ornamental design can serve as a key market differentiator and source identifier.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the patent's single claim ('124 Patent, p. 3; Compl. ¶23).
• The claim protects "The ornamental design for a bag, as shown and described" ('124 Patent, p. 3). The essential visual elements comprising this design include:
  • The overall configuration and proportion of the bag body.
  • The repeating perforated surface pattern.
  • The top zipper assembly.
  • The hardware connecting the bag body to the (unclaimed) strap.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are identified as "Bag" or "Infringing Products" sold by Defendants on Amazon storefronts (Compl. ¶¶2, 9).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants sell bags that share "identical shapes and features" with the patented design, including a "mesh surface," a "rectangular shape," and a "wide opening at the top that closes with a zipper" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint asserts that Defendants operate multiple, interrelated "Seller Aliases" on Amazon to sell these products, often using similar product images and descriptions (Compl. ¶¶2, 10, 16). A side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint shows a photograph of a pink, mesh-surfaced bag as an example of an "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Accordingly, the analysis focuses on a comparison of the key visual features that define the patented design against those of the accused product.

'124 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (Visual Features of the Design)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation
The overall ornamental design for a bag, as shown and described in the patent figures.	The complaint alleges the accused bags "embody or practice any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the ornamental design" and provides a visual comparison.	¶23; Prayer ¶1(a)
A generally rectangular bag body with rounded lower corners and a perforated/mesh surface pattern.	The accused products are alleged to have a "rectangular shape" and a "mesh surface." The provided image depicts a bag with these visual characteristics.	¶9, ¶23
A top zipper closure and specific strap attachment hardware.	The accused products are alleged to possess a "wide opening at the top that closes with a zipper." The provided image shows a top zipper and strap attachments.	¶9, ¶23

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal question will be whether the accused bags are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will require filtering out the visual effect of the unclaimed strap, which is shown in broken lines in the patent drawings ('124 Patent, p. 3, "DESCRIPTION"). The scope of protection may hinge on how much weight is given to the overall impression versus small differences in proportions, the exact mesh pattern, or the zipper pull design.
• Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be a direct visual comparison of the products. The complaint's visual evidence, showing the patent's line drawing next to a photo of the accused product, frames this core dispute (Compl. ¶23). The court will assess whether differences between the designs are significant enough to avoid infringement or if they are merely minor variations that do not change the overall visual impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal claim construction of written terms is generally not the central analysis for design patents. The "claim" is the design itself, as depicted in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a bag"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis turns on the scope of this claimed design and its comparison to the accused product. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual features are core to the design's overall impression and which are merely functional or trivial. The outcome of the case depends on whether the accused product's design is close enough to be considered a "colorable imitation."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope may argue that the key inventive concept is the overall visual impression created by the combination of a simple rectangular pouch, a full-body mesh texture, and a top zipper, and that minor differences in hardware or proportion do not alter this impression.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope may argue that the design is defined by the precise details shown in the solid lines of the drawings. This includes the exact proportions of the bag, the specific circular pattern of the mesh, the roundedness of the corners, and the particular shape of the hardware connecting the bag to the strap tabs, as detailed in Figure 8 ('124 Patent, Fig. 8). The express disclaimer of the strap via broken lines strongly supports the view that the claim is limited to the bag body and its immediate hardware ('124 Patent, p. 3, "DESCRIPTION").

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for induced or contributory infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin aiding and abetting, but the factual predicate for such a claim is not developed in the body of the complaint (Prayer ¶1.b).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement is "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶19, 20). The complaint does not allege any facts indicating Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '124 patent, which issued approximately two months prior to the filing of the suit. The willfulness allegation appears to be based on the alleged copying of the design and may rely on establishing knowledge after the complaint was filed.

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into purchasing the accused bag believing it to be the patented design? The outcome will depend on a holistic comparison of the designs, properly discounting the visual impact of the unclaimed strap.
• A critical procedural question will be one of enforcement: can the plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and obtain a meaningful remedy against the "Schedule A" defendants, who are alleged to be foreign entities operating through a network of concealable online storefronts?