Liangliang Su v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Liangliang Su (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Palmer Law Group
• Case Identification: 0:24-cv-60936, S.D. Fla., 06/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are foreign individuals or entities. The complaint also alleges personal jurisdiction based on Defendants targeting business activities and sales toward consumers in Florida through interactive e-commerce storefronts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Bluetooth headset charging cases sold by Defendants on Amazon infringe a U.S. design patent for the ornamental appearance of such a case.
• Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of accessories for consumer electronics, a market where visual appearance and product differentiation are significant commercial factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references "previous similar Headset Cases" and an analysis of transaction logs from those matters, but does not provide specific case numbers, parties, or outcomes.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-02-11	'588 Patent Priority Date
2020-11-24	'588 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-01	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D902,588 - "BLUETOETOOTH HEADSET CHARGING CASE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D902,588, "BLUETOETOOTH HEADSET CHARGING CASE", issued November 24, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamentality rather than utility. The '588 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead provides a novel aesthetic appearance for a common consumer product, a Bluetooth headset charging case (Compl. ¶7; '588 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a headset case as depicted in its figures ('588 Patent, CLAIM). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, consists of a case with a generally rectangular shape, continuously rounded corners and edges, a horizontal parting line between the main body and a hinged lid, and a shallow, elongated horizontal indentation on the front surface ('588 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). The patent explicitly disclaims the interior portions of the case and certain features on the back and bottom by rendering them in broken lines ('588 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The granting of a design patent for this specific configuration suggests its perceived novelty and ornamentality in the field of consumer electronic accessories at the time of filing ('588 Patent, p. 1).

Key Claims at a Glance

• A design patent contains a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a bluetooth headset charging case, as shown and described" ('588 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings. The core ornamental features include:
  • The overall form factor: a smooth, rounded rectangular body.
  • The horizontal parting line separating the lid from the base.
  • The shallow, elongated horizontal indentation on the front face.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Bluetooth Headset Charge Case" products sold by Defendants through various Amazon storefronts (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products have "identical shapes and features, including a smooth, rectangular shape with rounded edges" to one another (Compl. ¶9). The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who operate multiple storefronts to sell these products, often using similar images and descriptions (Compl. ¶14, ¶16). The complaint includes a photograph of an accused product, depicting a white, rounded rectangular charging case. (Compl. p. 6). This photograph shows an accused product that is white with a small, circular indicator light on the front surface (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer," comparing the patented design as a whole to the accused product's design. The complaint's infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison.

The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of a figure from the patent and a photograph of an accused product (Compl. p. 6).

Key Ornamental Feature of '588 Patent Design	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a headset case as depicted in the patent figures.	The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Infringing Products" sold on Amazon infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '588 Patent.	¶23	'588 Patent, CLAIM; FIG. 1-9
The overall visual impression, including the smooth, rounded rectangular shape and horizontal parting line.	The accused products are alleged to have an "identical" smooth, rectangular shape with rounded edges, and the provided image shows a similar overall form and parting line.	¶9, ¶23	'588 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3
A shallow, elongated horizontal indentation on the front surface of the case.	The complaint's own visual evidence depicts an accused product with a small, circular indicator light on the front, not an indentation.	p. 6	'588 Patent, FIG. 3

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely center on the "ordinary observer" test. A court will have to determine whether an ordinary observer, comparing the patented design and the accused product, would be deceived into believing the two are substantially the same.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the different features on the front of the case—an elongated indentation in the patented design versus a circular indicator light on the accused product—are significant enough to create different overall visual impressions. The complaint's allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶23) is accompanied by photographic evidence that on its face shows a clear difference in this specific feature.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, there are no "terms" to construe in the manner of a utility patent. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings.

• The "Term": The "ornamental design... as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the visual scope of the design claimed in the '588 Patent. Practitioners may focus on whether the "design as a whole" is dominated by the overall shape or if specific features, like the front indentation, are critical to that overall appearance.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the overall impression is defined by the general rounded rectangular shape, size, and clamshell configuration, and that minor surface details do not alter the "substantially similar" analysis for an ordinary observer.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the specific, solid-line features are what define the patented design, distinguishing it from the prior art. This interpretation would emphasize the importance of the elongated front indentation ('588 Patent, FIG. 3) as a key element of the claimed design, the absence of which in an accused product would create a different visual impression. The patent's use of broken lines to disclaim other features further suggests that what is shown in solid lines is critical to the claim's scope ('588 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendants are an "interrelated group" working "in active concert" to sell infringing products, which may support a claim for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶14). The prayer for relief requests an injunction against aiding and abetting infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶20). The complaint asserts Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered the infringing products for sale and employed tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, such as operating multiple storefronts (Compl. ¶15, ¶19).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Is the accused product design, which features a circular indicator light on its front, "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer as the patented design, which expressly depicts a shallow, elongated indentation in the same location?
• The case will also turn on the scope of the claimed design: Will the court's infringement analysis focus primarily on the general shape and configuration of the case, or will it treat the specific front indentation shown in the patent's solid-line drawings as a dispositive feature of the claimed ornamental design?