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-61036, S.D. Fla., 06/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target and conduct business with consumers in Florida through interactive e-commerce storefronts, and on the status of Defendants as foreign entities.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unnamed e-commerce sellers on Amazon are infringing a U.S. design patent by offering for sale and selling bags that are colorable imitations of the patented design.
• Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of consumer goods—specifically, shoulder bags—in the highly competitive online retail market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The action is filed against a group of unnamed defendants, a common strategy for enforcing intellectual property against transient online sellers.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-07-07	’124 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2024-03-26	’124 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-15	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,019,124 (the "’124 Patent"), titled "Bag", issued on March 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utility. The patent secures rights to a new, original, and ornamental design for a bag, distinguishing it aesthetically from other products in the marketplace.
• The Patented Solution: The ’124 Patent claims the specific visual appearance of a bag as depicted in its eight figures (’124 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a generally rectangular body with rounded bottom corners, a top zipper closure, a shoulder strap, and a distinctive, uniform perforated or mesh-like pattern across its main surfaces (’124 Patent, FIG. 1, 2). The claim is for the design "as shown and described," with broken lines in the drawings indicating that certain elements, such as the strap adjustment buckle, are not part of the claimed design (’124 Patent, Description, FIG. 1).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a bag, as shown and described" (’124 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of this design, shown in solid lines in the patent figures, include:
  • The overall proportion and shape of the bag: a generally rectangular profile with rounded bottom corners.
  • The surface ornamentation: a uniform, repeating pattern of perforations covering the front and back faces.
  • The closure mechanism: a horizontal zipper along the top edge.
  • The carrying mechanism: a shoulder strap attached to the upper side edges of the bag body.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Bags" ("Infringing Products") offered for sale and sold by the Defendants through various Amazon storefronts, referred to as "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are 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 includes a photograph of a representative infringing product, which appears to be a pink mesh shoulder bag (Compl. ¶23). The Defendants are alleged to operate multiple online storefronts to sell these products to consumers in the United States, including Florida (Compl. ¶2, ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison between the patented design and the accused products. The central allegation is that the accused bags are substantially similar in appearance to the design claimed in the ’124 Patent. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison to support this allegation (Compl. ¶23).

’124 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature (from ’124 Patent)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a bag, as a whole.	The complaint alleges that the accused products embody a "colorable imitation of the ornamental design claimed in the Patent."	¶23	’124 Patent, Claim
A generally rectangular body with rounded bottom corners.	The provided photograph of an accused product depicts a bag with a substantially similar rectangular shape and rounded lower corners.	¶9, ¶23	’124 Patent, FIG. 2
A surface pattern of uniform, repeating perforations.	The accused bags are described as having a "mesh surface," and the representative photo shows a perforated pattern.	¶9, ¶23	’124 Patent, FIG. 1
A top horizontal zipper closure.	The accused bags are alleged to have "a wide opening at the top that closes with a zipper," a feature visible in the provided photo.	¶9, ¶23	’124 Patent, FIG. 1, 8
A shoulder strap attached to the upper side edges of the bag body.	The photo of the accused product shows a shoulder strap attached to the sides in a configuration similar to the patented design.	¶23	’124 Patent, FIG. 1, 4

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal question will be whether an "ordinary observer," applying the standard from Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., would find the design of the accused bags to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’124 Patent. The complaint alleges Defendants sell products with "minor variations" (Compl. ¶14), which raises the question of whether any such variations are sufficient to alter the overall visual impression and avoid infringement.
• Technical Questions: A factual question will be how closely the specific features of the various accused products (e.g., the exact mesh pattern, the bag's proportions, the zipper pull design) match the details shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings. The comparison provided in the complaint shows a high degree of similarity between one representative product and the patented design (Compl. ¶23).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction involves describing the claimed design in words rather than defining textual terms. The scope of the claim is determined by the drawings as a whole.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a bag"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the visual scope of the patented design. The court's interpretation of what constitutes the core aesthetic of the design, versus minor, unprotected details, will be dispositive. Practitioners may focus on the level of detail required for a finding of substantial similarity.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the protectable design is the overall visual impression of a rectangular, perforated, zippered shoulder bag. They could contend that minor differences in the exact perforation shape, hardware, or proportions do not change this overall impression in the eye of an ordinary observer.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the design is limited to the very specific visual elements shown in the solid lines of the drawings, including the precise aspect ratio of the bag, the specific circular shape and spacing of the perforations, and the particular design of the zipper pull and strap attachments (’124 Patent, FIG. 1, 2, 8). Any deviation from these specific details could be argued to create a different overall visual appearance.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the Patent" (Compl. ¶7(1)(b)). However, the body of the complaint focuses on direct infringement by the Defendants through their own offers to sell, sales, and importation, and does not plead specific facts to support a separate claim for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶19, ¶20). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that Defendants are part of a network of infringers who engage in common tactics to conceal their identities and sell infringing products, rather than on specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the ’124 Patent itself (Compl. ¶14-¶18).

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

1. Substantial Similarity: The central issue is one of visual comparison: will an ordinary observer, examining the accused bags, be deceived into believing they are the same as the patented design? The side-by-side comparison in the complaint presents a strong initial case for similarity, but the ultimate determination will depend on the evidence presented for the full range of accused products.
2. Scope of Design Protection: A key question for the court will be defining the scope of the claimed design. The case may turn on whether the patent protects the general concept of a perforated shoulder bag of this shape, or if its protection is limited to a design that replicates the specific details and proportions depicted in the patent's figures.
3. Enforcement and Identification: A significant practical challenge, explicitly noted in the complaint, will be identifying the true operators of the "Seller Aliases" and enforcing any potential injunction or monetary judgment against foreign entities allegedly using tactics to conceal their identities and assets (Compl. ¶15, ¶18).