DCT

1:25-cv-21474

Shenzhen Zilin Tech Co v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-21474, S.D. Fla., 03/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are aliens and because they direct e-commerce activities toward consumers throughout the United States, including within the Southern District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of bathtub toys infringe four of its U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The case involves the ornamental designs of children's bathtub toys, a market segment where visual appeal is a primary driver of consumer choice.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges that it has sold products embodying the patented designs under the brand CIBOLAR on Amazon since March 2021 and has marked these products with the relevant patent numbers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-03-XX Plaintiff begins selling CIBOLAR brand toys on Amazon.
2021-11-10 Priority Date for D987,736 Patent.
2021-11-10 Priority Date for D987,737 Patent.
2021-11-10 Priority Date for D987,738 Patent.
2021-11-10 Priority Date for D1,009,183 Patent.
2023-05-30 U.S. Patent No. D987,736 issues.
2023-05-30 U.S. Patent No. D987,737 issues.
2023-05-30 U.S. Patent No. D987,738 issues.
2023-12-26 U.S. Patent No. D1,009,183 issues.
2025-03-30 Complaint Filed.

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D987,736 - “Dinosaur Toy,” issued May 30, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent is directed at creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, specifically a dinosaur toy, that is visually distinct from prior art designs (’736 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a stylized dinosaur toy as depicted in its seven figures (’736 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The design features a cartoonish dinosaur with a smiling face, two small circular eyes, and a prominent, frill-like feature composed of several rounded, scalloped plates along its back (’736 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The commercial value of such a design lies in its aesthetic appeal to consumers, particularly in the toy market where visual distinctiveness can drive purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a dinosaur toy, as shown and described" (’736 Patent, Claim).
  • The claimed design is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict its overall shape, proportions, and surface ornamentation.

U.S. Design Patent No. D987,737 - “Dinosaur Toy,” issued May 30, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, like the ’736 Patent, is intended to protect a novel ornamental design for a dinosaur toy (’737 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The design, shown in seven figures, is for a stylized dinosaur with large, expressive eyes set within a rounded head (’737 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The defining characteristic is a series of distinct, rounded plates running down the center of the toy's back, culminating in a tapered tail (’737 Patent, Figs. 1, 6).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic for a toy product, which Plaintiff alleges is associated with its CIBOLAR brand and its reputation for distinctive designs (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a dinosaur toy, as shown and described" (’737 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the visual characteristics illustrated in the patent's figures.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D987,738

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D987,738, “Dinosaur Toy,” issued May 30, 2023 (’738 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a stylized, long-necked dinosaur toy, reminiscent of a brachiosaurus. The design features a long, curved neck, a rounded body, and a short tail, as depicted in the patent's figures (’738 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a dinosaur toy, as shown and described" (’738 Patent, Claim).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Infringing Products" embody a design that infringes the ’738 Patent (Compl. ¶26).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,009,183

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,009,183, “Dinosaur Toy,” issued December 26, 2023 (’183 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a stylized dinosaur toy with a large head featuring two prominent triangular horns and a smiling mouth. The design has a stocky body with a textured appearance on its back, as shown in the patent's figures (’183 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a dinosaur toy, as shown and described" (’183 Patent, Claim).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Infringing Products" incorporate a design that infringes the ’183 Patent (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "bathtub toys" referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants are e-commerce store operators who sell unauthorized and unlicensed bathtub toys through online marketplace platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶1, 14). These products are alleged to share an "identical infringing design" with Plaintiff's patented toys (Compl. ¶6). The complaint further alleges that Defendants operate under multiple "Seller Aliases" to conceal their identities and evade enforcement efforts (Compl. ¶1, 18, 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not contain specific infringement allegations mapping elements of the patented designs to features of the accused products, nor does it provide visual evidence of those products. The infringement theory is broadly pleaded, alleging that the "Infringing Products share identical infringing design" (Compl. ¶6). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical/Factual Question: The central issue for infringement will be a factual comparison. Does the design of the accused products appear "substantially the same" as the claimed designs in the eyes of an "ordinary observer"? The complaint's allegation of an "identical" design suggests Plaintiff will argue for a direct copy, but this remains an evidentiary question for the court, which will require visual evidence of the accused products to be resolved (Compl. ¶6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is typically construed as being limited to the "ornamental design... as shown and described" in the patent's figures. Formal construction of individual terms is rare. The analysis is a holistic visual comparison rather than a dissection of claim language. Therefore, the complaint does not raise specific issues of claim construction that would require a Markman hearing. The dispute will likely focus on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the accused products, once identified.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin aiding and abetting (Compl., p. 7, ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus on the Defendants as direct infringers (e.g., sellers), and the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim of induced or contributory infringement, such as identifying a third-party direct infringer and alleging that Defendants knowingly encouraged or supplied a component for that infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants "knowingly, and willfully infringed the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation may be supported by the claim that Plaintiff's genuine products have been marked with the patent numbers since March 2021, which can serve as constructive notice to the public (Compl. ¶9). The allegations of Defendants operating under aliases and communicating about evading litigation could also be used to argue that their conduct was egregious and willful (Compl. ¶1, 20).

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

  • A primary question is one of factual identity and evidence: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence to show that the products sold by the various Defendants are, in fact, visually "substantially the same" as the ornamental designs claimed in the four asserted patents, as viewed by an ordinary observer? The complaint's success hinges on this visual comparison, for which it has not yet provided evidence.
  • A significant procedural question concerns joinder and liability: Can the Plaintiff establish that the numerous, anonymous e-commerce operators listed on "Schedule A" constitute an "interrelated group" whose infringing conduct arises from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions" (Compl. ¶1, 22)? The court's acceptance of this theory is critical for allowing the case to proceed against a diverse set of sellers as a single group of defendants.