The Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Changyu Technology Co Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Foreign Jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rubiolaw PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:21-cv-22027, S.D. Fla., 06/02/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' sales directed to Florida residents through online platforms and the commission of tortious acts (infringement) causing injury within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of toilet brushes through various e-commerce stores infringes its U.S. design patent for a toilet brush.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer household goods sector and concerns the ornamental design of a toilet brush, specifically one with a flexible, paddle-shaped head and silicone-style bristles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff and that Defendants had actual notice of the patent since at least February 2021. No prior litigation or other proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D878,058 S, “TOILET BRUSH” (Issued Mar. 17, 2020)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamentation, not utility. As such, the patent does not articulate a technical problem. The implicit goal is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for a toilet brush that is not dictated by function.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a toilet brush as depicted in its eight figures ('058 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design’s key ornamental features include a brush with a flat, slightly curved, paddle-shaped head; rows of short, thick bristles arranged on the head's faces; and a long, slender handle composed of two connectable sections ('058 Patent, Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design achieved "commercial success," which motivated Defendants to copy it (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a toilet brush, as shown and described." ('058 Patent, col. 2:5-7).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the toilet brush depicted in the patent’s drawings, including:
  • The overall configuration of the brush.
  • The specific shape of the flat, paddle-like head.
  • The arrangement, shape, and density of the bristles on the head.
  • The proportions and two-part construction of the handle.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "toilet brushes that embody the design patented in the '58 patent," referred to as "Counterfeit Goods" (Compl. ¶¶17, 23). The complaint provides images of an accused product marketed under the brand name "Holikme" (Compl. p. 5).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are toilet brushes sold by the unidentified Defendants through e-commerce stores, such as Amazon.com, to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges these goods are "counterfeit" and of a "substantially different" quality than Plaintiff's genuine goods (Compl. ¶18). The infringement allegations are supported by a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and promotional images of an accused product, which includes the brush and a holder caddy (Compl. p. 5, ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶20). The visual comparison below is central to this allegation.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused product is "substantially the same" as the patented design. A potential point of contention may arise from features shown with the accused product that are not part of the patented design, such as the holder caddy depicted in the complaint's visual evidence (Compl. p. 5, ¶21). Defendants may argue such differences in the overall product offering would prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived.
• Technical Questions: While not a "technical" question in the utility patent sense, a key factual dispute will be the comparison of specific design features. The analysis will focus on whether minor variations in the bristle pattern, head curvature, or handle construction between the patented design and the accused products are significant enough to differentiate them in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The scope of the patent, and thus the significance of any differences, will depend on the prior art landscape for similar toilet brush designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the design as a whole, depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Therefore, claim construction focuses on identifying the overall ornamental scope of the design.

• The "Term": "The ornamental design for a toilet brush, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the scope of this visual claim. The court's interpretation of what constitutes the core ornamental impression of the design—and which features are most prominent to an ordinary observer—will determine whether the accused products infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression of a toilet brush with a flat, bristled, paddle-shaped head on a long, thin handle. Under this view, minor differences in bristle count or handle texture would not defeat infringement so long as the overall aesthetic is maintained. All features are shown in solid lines, suggesting they are all part of the claimed design ('058 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that specific, detailed features are integral to the claimed design and limit its scope. This could include the precise curvature of the brush head, the specific pattern of the bristles, and the two-part construction of the handle as shown in the exploded view ('058 Patent, Fig. 8). Any deviation from these specific details could be argued as a basis for non-infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: While the complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing others to infringe, or contributing to the infringement of the '058 patent" (Compl. p. 9, ¶D). The factual allegations focus on direct infringement by the defendant sellers.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants "willfully and knowingly" infringing (Compl. ¶24) and having "actual notice of the '058 patent since at least February 2021" (Compl. p. 8). The allegation that Defendants "copied the '058 patent design" in recognition of its commercial success could also be used to support willfulness (Compl. ¶20).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused toilet brush substantially the same as the design claimed in the '058 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid deception?
2. A second key issue will concern the scope of the patent's novelty: The significance of any visual differences between the patented design and the accused products will depend heavily on the context of the prior art. The central question will be how broad the '058 Patent's protection is in a market that may contain other similar designs.
3. An essential evidentiary question will be one of attribution: Can the Plaintiff prove that the various anonymous e-commerce sellers, identified only in a sealed schedule, are in fact responsible for offering for sale the specific infringing products depicted in the complaint's exhibits?