Shenzhen Xin Chang Tu Technology Co Ltd v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xinchangtu Technology Co., Ltd. (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: 1:24-cv-20901, S.D. Fla., 04/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that the defendants are aliens engaged in infringing activities and that they purposefully direct sales to consumers in Florida through interactive e-commerce websites.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of grape cutters infringe its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a device.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a handheld consumer kitchen utensil used for slicing small fruits like grapes.
• Key Procedural History: The action is an amended complaint filed against a large number of unidentified online sellers, listed on a sealed "Schedule A," a common litigation strategy aimed at combating widespread online sales of allegedly infringing goods originating from overseas.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,007,996 S - “Grape Cutter”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,007,996 S, “Grape Cutter,” issued December 19, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The patent secures rights to a new, original, and ornamental design for the article of manufacture, a grape cutter (’996 Patent, p. 3, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the grape cutter as depicted in the solid lines of its figures. The design features a cylindrical head containing cross-shaped blades, which transitions into an elongated, gently curved handle with a flared base (’996 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 5). The overall impression is one of a sleek, modern handheld tool. The broken lines in the drawings illustrate portions of the grape cutter that do not form part of the claimed design (’996 Patent, p. 3, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The patent’s value lies in establishing a unique and recognizable aesthetic for the product in the consumer marketplace, allowing it to be distinguished from competing products.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a grape cutter, as shown and described" (’996 Patent, p. 3).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article as depicted in the solid-line drawings of Figures 1-8. It protects the overall visual impression created by the combination of the cutter's shape, contours, and proportions.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are grape cutters, referred to in the complaint as "Counterfeit Copies," sold by the unidentified Defendants through online e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants sell "exact copies and/or confusingly similar copies" of the patented design through online marketplaces including Amazon, Aliexpress, eBay, Temu, and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶9, 24). These products are allegedly shipped from foreign jurisdictions to fulfillment centers within the United States for distribution to American consumers (Compl. ¶10). The complaint asserts these sales are for "substantial profits" (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The core infringement theory is presented in prose.

The central allegation is that the accused products are "so similar to Plaintiff’s as to be nearly identical" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint asserts that the "Counterfeit Copies" possess an "overall appearance that is confusingly similar to the claimed designs" and that they "contain every aspect of the claimed designs" (’996 Patent) (Compl. ¶¶42-43). The legal test for design patent infringement, which the complaint invokes, is whether an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold question for the court will be factual and evidentiary. As the complaint lacks images of the accused products, the litigation will depend on Plaintiff’s ability to introduce evidence showing the specific designs sold by each named defendant and demonstrate that these designs are, in fact, substantially similar to the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
  • Scope Question: While the complaint does not raise the issue, the scope of a design patent can be limited by prior art. If Defendants can produce prior art designs that are visually similar to the ’996 Patent, it may raise the question of how narrowly the patent’s ornamental features should be viewed and what level of similarity is required for a finding of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is not a central issue in most design patent cases, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. The complaint provides no basis for analysis of any specific claim term dispute. The primary focus will be on comparing the accused products to the patented design as a whole.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). It asserts direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for acts of making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the accused products (Compl. ¶¶41, 44).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement. It claims Defendants had actual notice of the ’996 Patent "since at least December 19, 2023," the patent's issue date, and that their infringement since that date has been willful (Compl. ¶49). The complaint also alleges that Defendants "knew or should have known" of Plaintiff's rights and acted with "reckless disregard or willful blindness" (Compl. ¶¶27, 29, 45).

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

• A key question will be evidentiary and factual: Can the Plaintiff produce specific evidence tying each anonymous "Schedule A" Defendant to the sale of a product, and does a visual comparison of that product to the patent drawings support a finding that an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same?
• A central challenge will be procedural and remedial: Given that the defendants are numerous, unidentified, and allegedly operating from foreign jurisdictions, can the Plaintiff effectively use the requested remedies—such as injunctions against third-party e-commerce platforms—to halt the alleged infringement and recover damages from a diffuse group of sellers?