Kaiquan Huang v. T Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kaiquan Huang (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Foreign Jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Firm of Rubio & Associates, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-22812, S.D. Fla., 08/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are aliens and that they purposefully direct sales of allegedly infringing products to consumers in the district through interactive e-commerce websites.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online sellers are infringing a U.S. design patent for an ornamental design for a mobile phone stand for use in a vehicle.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the high-volume consumer electronics accessories market, specifically involving products for mounting mobile phones in vehicles.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. The complaint is brought against a sealed list of unidentified defendants, a common procedure in cases targeting online marketplace sellers.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D958,134S - "Mobile phone stand for use in vehicle"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D958,134S, “Mobile phone stand for use in vehicle,” issued July 19, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’134S Patent does not describe a technical problem or solution. It protects the purely ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶2; ’134S Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Design: The patent claims the ornamental design for a mobile phone stand as depicted in its eight figures (’134S Patent, Claim). The design consists of a primary rectangular body with rounded corners and a raised peripheral border. A key ornamental feature appears to be the set of small, tab-like protrusions extending from the top and bottom edges, as well as a different set of tab structures on the rear face (’134S Patent, Figs. 2, 3). Figure 8 shows the design in an "unfolded condition," suggesting the visual appearance when side flaps are extended (’134S Patent, Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: The complaint does not assert any specific technical importance, but in the consumer accessory market, distinctive ornamental designs can be a significant driver of consumer choice and brand identity.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim of a design patent is for "the ornamental design for a mobile phone stand for use in vehicle, as shown and described" in the patent's drawings (’134S Patent, Claim). The infringement analysis therefore compares the overall visual appearance of the accused product to the design shown in the patent's figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Counterfeit Copies" of the patented design (Compl. ¶24). These products are allegedly sold through various internet-based e-commerce stores, including those on Amazon and Aliexpress, operated by the unidentified Defendants listed on the sealed Schedule "A" (Compl. ¶¶3, 9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "exact copies and/or confusingly similar copies" of the claimed design (Compl. ¶24).
• It further alleges that Defendants are selling these products for "substantial profits" through their online stores (Compl. ¶4). The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality or market position of any single accused product.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed element-by-element infringement analysis. Instead, it asserts infringement based on the holistic "ordinary observer" test for design patents. The narrative theory is that the accused products are visually indistinguishable from the patented design.

The complaint alleges that the "designs of the Counterfeit Copies are so similar to Plaintiff’s as to be nearly identical such that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be so deceived by the substantial similarity between the designs so as to be induced to purchase Defendants’ products believing them to be the same design as the one protected by Plaintiff’s Patent" (Compl. ¶25). It further states that the accused products "contain every aspect of the claimed designs" (Compl. ¶41) and have an "overall appearance that is confusingly similar to the claimed designs in the 134 Patent" (Compl. ¶42).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue is how Plaintiff will produce evidence of the specific products sold by each unidentified defendant and demonstrate that those products are the ones seen by potential customers on the e-commerce platforms.
  • Substantive Question: The central question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of each accused product is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’134S Patent. This requires a side-by-side comparison which is not possible based on the information provided in the complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent cases, claim construction is typically limited to describing the visual features shown in the drawings, and disputes over the meaning of verbal terms are rare.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for induced or contributory infringement. The claims focus on direct infringement by the Defendants through their alleged acts of manufacturing, importing, offering for sale, and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶40).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendants "knew or should have known" of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶27). The complaint specifically alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the ’134S Patent since at least its issue date of July 19, 2022, and that subsequent infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶48).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Identity: Given the pleading against a sealed list of unidentified e-commerce sellers, a fundamental question is what evidence the Plaintiff will present to link specific, infringing physical products to the anonymous online storefronts and establish that these sellers are responsible for the infringing activity.
2. A Substantive Question of Visual Similarity: The core of the case will turn on the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The key question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the patented design, such that a typical purchaser would be deceived into buying the accused product believing it was the patented one.
3. A Procedural Question of Enforcement: A significant issue, common to this type of litigation, will be the practical challenge of obtaining and enforcing relief (such as injunctions and asset restraints) against a potentially large and shifting group of foreign-based, anonymous defendants operating through third-party platforms.