DCT
1:23-cv-24163
XYZ Corp v. T Schedule A
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fan Chen (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-24163, S.D. Fla., 11/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are aliens and because they purposefully direct business activities to the United States, including Florida, through online e-commerce stores, causing injury within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online merchants are infringing a design patent for a candle warmer lamp by selling "exact copies and/or confusingly similar copies" of the patented design.
- Technical Context: The technology is in the home décor and consumer goods sector, specifically relating to electric candle warmers that use a lamp to melt wax and release fragrance without an open flame.
- Key Procedural History: The filed document is an Amended Complaint. The case targets a "Schedule A" list of anonymous defendants, a common procedure in cases against large numbers of foreign online sellers. The heading for Count I in the complaint appears to contain a typographical error, referencing patent "D977,311S" while the substance of the complaint exclusively concerns patent "D995,826 S".
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-02-15 | U.S. Design Patent Application No. 29/884,689 Filed |
| 2023-08-15 | U.S. Design Patent No. D995,826 S Issued |
| 2023-11-27 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D995,826 S ("Candle Warmer Lamp"), issued August 15, 2023.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a unique aesthetic design for a consumer product.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a candle warmer lamp as depicted in its figures (’826 Patent, Claim; FIGS. 1-10). The design consists of a flat, circular base from which two thin, parallel rods curve upwards and inwards to support a downward-facing, conical lampshade. The top of the shade is gathered and capped with a decorative finial. The overall impression is one of a minimalist, modern table lamp. The power cord and in-line switch are depicted in broken lines, indicating they do not form part of the claimed design (’826 Patent, Description; FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The patent does not make claims about technical importance; its value lies in the distinct visual appearance it creates for a candle warmer lamp, which can serve as a source identifier and point of market differentiation.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a candle warmer lamp, as shown and described." (’826 Patent, Claim).
- The essential elements of this claim are the visual characteristics of the lamp as a whole, depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
- The circular, disc-shaped base.
- The pair of curved, parallel support arms extending from the base.
- The suspended, downward-facing conical shade.
- The gathered top of the shade with its finial.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products generally as "Counterfeit Copies" of Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶24). It does not name specific product models but alleges they are sold by the anonymous Defendants through online e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, Walmart, Ebay, Aliexpress, Alibaba, and Temu (Compl. ¶9).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants are manufacturing, importing, promoting, and selling goods that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶3, ¶23). The complaint asserts that Defendants' products are "so similar to Plaintiff's as to be nearly identical" and would deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design (Compl. ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
D995,826 S Infringement Allegations
As a design patent case, infringement is determined by comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product to the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. A traditional element-by-element claim chart is not applicable. The table below summarizes the allegations by mapping the core features of the patented design to the complaint's general assertions.
| Ornamental Feature (from '826 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a candle warmer lamp, as shown and described. | Defendants' "Counterfeit Copies" are alleged to be "exact copies and/or confusingly similar copies to the claimed designs." The complaint alleges the accused products have an "overall appearance that is confusingly similar to the claimed designs." | ¶24, ¶42 | Claim; FIGS. 1-10 |
| The specific combination of a circular base, dual curved supports, and a suspended conical shade. | The complaint alleges that the "Counterfeit Copies contain every aspect of the claimed designs" and are "so similar... as to be nearly identical." | ¶41, ¶25 | FIGS. 1, 4, 6 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The primary issue will be establishing that the products sold by the anonymous "Schedule A" defendants are, in fact, the "Counterfeit Copies" alleged. The complaint lacks specific, side-by-side visual comparisons between the patented design and any accused product.
- Scope Question: The infringement analysis will turn on the "ordinary observer" test. The central question for the court will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the ’826 Patent's design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the visual depiction in the drawings, not a set of text-based limitations. Therefore, traditional claim term construction is generally not performed. The central dispute is not over the meaning of a word, but over the visual scope of the design as a whole.
- The "Claim": The visual appearance of the "Candle Warmer Lamp" as depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1-10.
- Context and Importance: The scope of protection is defined by what is shown in solid lines versus what is disclaimed in broken lines. The court's analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the claimed features, not on any single element in isolation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for Broader Scope: The design is relatively minimalist. A party could argue that the key protectable features are the general arrangement of the base, the unique double-rod support structure, and the suspended conical shade, and that minor variations in proportion or finish on an accused product would not change the overall "substantially similar" visual impression.
- Evidence for Narrower Scope: A party could argue that the design is defined by the precise proportions, curves, and specific shapes shown in the drawings (e.g., the exact curvature of the support rods, the specific angle of the conical shade). Any deviation in these details in an accused product could be argued to create a different overall visual impression. The disclaiming of the cord and switch via broken lines explicitly limits the design's scope to the lamp structure itself (’826 Patent, Description).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement. It focuses on Defendants' direct infringement through their own manufacturing, importing, and sales activities (Compl. ¶40, ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful, knowing, intentional, and purposeful (Compl. ¶22, ¶44). The basis for this allegation is the claim that Defendants "knew or should have known of Plaintiff's ownership of the Patent" (Compl. ¶27) and have "actual notice of the 826 Patent" (Compl. ¶48), though the complaint does not specify how or when such notice was provided.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Linkage: A primary hurdle for the plaintiff will be an evidentiary one: can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to link the anonymous online "Seller IDs" from Schedule A to specific, physical products and then demonstrate that those products are "substantially the same" in overall appearance to the patented design?
- Scope of Appearance: The core substantive question will be one of visual scope: does the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products, once identified, create a visual impression that is substantially the same as the ’826 Patent's design in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art?
- Sufficiency of Pleading: A threshold procedural question may arise from the typographical error in the complaint's Count I heading, which misidentifies the patent-in-suit. While likely correctable, it raises a question of whether the complaint provides sufficient notice as drafted.