DCT

0:24-cv-61934

Li v. Shanghai Han Han Internet Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:24-cv-61934, S.D. Fla., 10/16/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged purposeful direction of sales to Florida residents through online platforms that ship to the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Adjustable Cervical Pillow" products infringe a U.S. design patent that protects the ornamental design of a pillow.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods sector, specifically concerning the aesthetic and ornamental design of ergonomic or cervical pillows, a competitive online marketplace category.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-08-29 U.S. D1,007,194 Priority Date (Application Filing Date)
2023-12-12 U.S. D1,007,194 Issue Date
2024-10-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,007,194 (the "'194" Patent"), "PILLOW," issued December 12, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but rather protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶2). The '194 Patent claims rights to a specific ornamental design for a pillow.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the unique visual appearance of a pillow, not its functional characteristics. The design is defined by the solid lines in its figures, which depict a complex, multi-level contoured shape with a distinct overall "butterfly" or "hourglass" configuration, a central depression, and raised, sculpted side portions ('194 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The dashed lines shown in the figures illustrate portions of the pillow that do not form part of the claimed design ('194 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct aesthetic in the market for ergonomic pillows, intended to serve as a source identifier and differentiate the product from competitors based on its appearance.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described" ('194 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The essential elements of the claim are the visual features of the pillow design as depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1 through 7, including:
    • The overall plan-view shape, featuring concave side edges and convex end edges creating a butterfly-like form.
    • The topography of the top surface, including a central recessed area and raised, contoured side "wings."
    • The specific curves and profiles of the front, rear, and side elevations.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Adjustable Cervical Pillow" sold by Defendants under various seller aliases (e.g., Hansleep US, Mophets, Yehong Store) on online platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7, 8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as pillows sold to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶4). The core of the allegation is not based on the pillows' function but on their ornamental appearance, which the Plaintiff alleges is "identical" and "substantially the same as the patented design" (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison to support this allegation (Compl. p. 3). This comparison juxtaposes patent drawings with photographs of an accused product, illustrating their alleged visual similarity from multiple perspectives.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the two designs are substantially the same, such that the observer would be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The complaint alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11).

Claim Chart Summary

As this is a design patent, the "claim elements" are distinct visual features of the patented design shown in the drawings.

Claim Element (from the design "as shown" in the '194 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality (as depicted in the Complaint) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall "butterfly" or "hourglass" shape of the pillow in top-plan view. The accused pillow is alleged to have the same overall butterfly-like shape. p. 3 Fig. 6
A central, contoured depression on the top surface. The accused pillow is depicted with a central, contoured depression that mirrors the design. p. 3 Fig. 1
Raised and contoured side portions or "wings." The accused pillow is shown with raised and contoured side wings of a similar shape and profile. p. 3 Fig. 3
The specific curvature and scalloped profile of the front and rear edges. The photographs of the accused pillow show front and rear edges with a curvature that allegedly matches the patented design. p. 3 Figs. 3, 4

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue in design patent cases is the distinction between ornamental and functional features. The defense may argue that certain aspects of the pillow's shape (e.g., the central depression, raised sides) are dictated by ergonomic function and are therefore not protectable by a design patent. This raises the question: to what extent are the shared design features purely ornamental versus functional?
  • Technical Questions: The ultimate question for the fact-finder will be whether the accused product's design and the '194 Patent's claimed design are "substantially the same." This analysis will depend on a visual comparison and the impact of any differences in proportion, surface texture, or specific contouring between the patent figures and the physical accused products. The complaint's visual evidence suggests a high degree of similarity (Compl. p. 3).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction involves describing the claimed design in words to assist the fact-finder. The primary "term" for construction is the claim itself.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this phrase defines the entire scope of the patent's protection. The analysis will focus on identifying which specific visual elements are ornamental and protected, versus which are functional or disclaimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the functional-versus-ornamental analysis will determine whether the patent is broad enough to cover the accused products or potentially invalid over prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim protects the overall visual impression and aesthetic appeal created by the unique combination of all the depicted elements, viewed as a whole.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that protection is limited to the exact shapes and contours shown in the solid lines of the patent figures. The patent explicitly disclaims the portions shown in dashed lines, indicating the claim is not for a generic pillow but for the specific ornamental features illustrated ('194 Patent, DESCRIPTION). Furthermore, any features found to be primarily dictated by function would be excluded from the scope of protection.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes a request for an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. p. 4, ¶1(b)). However, the complaint's factual allegations do not specify acts by Defendants that would constitute knowledge or intent to induce infringement by a third party.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks trebled damages for "intentional and willful" infringement (Compl. p. 5, ¶4). The pleading does not allege facts indicating Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '194 Patent, such as receipt of a notice letter. The basis for willfulness is therefore not explicitly stated.

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' pillow substantially the same as the design claimed in the '194 Patent, such that a potential purchaser would be confused?
  • A second key question will be one of scope and validity: How will the court and the parties distinguish between the claimed ornamental features and the potentially unprotectable functional aspects of the ergonomic pillow design? The answer will define the scope of the patent and will be critical in assessing both infringement and potential invalidity arguments based on prior art.
  • An evidentiary question will be the basis for willfulness: What facts, if any, support the allegation of willful infringement, especially regarding when and how Defendants became aware of the '194 Patent?