Wang v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yun Wang (an individual)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kemet Law Group, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-22959, S.D. Fla., 07/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendants are foreign entities who direct business activities to the district by operating interactive e-commerce stores, targeting and selling products to Florida residents, and causing tortious injury in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are selling door knockers that infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a bird-shaped door knocker.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of decorative hardware, where the aesthetic and ornamental appearance of a product is a primary driver of its market value and consumer appeal.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint has been filed against a group of unidentified defendants, listed on a sealed Schedule A, who allegedly operate under various seller aliases. The action joins these defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 299, alleging that their conduct arises from the same transaction or occurrence because they sell products with an allegedly identical infringing design.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-04-22	U.S. D1,039,961 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2024-08-27	U.S. D1,039,961 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-01	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,039,961 S, “BIRD SHAPED DOOR KNOCKER,” issued August 27, 2024.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving technical problems. The patent seeks to provide a new, original, and ornamental design for a common article of manufacture, a door knocker (’961 Patent, Title). The complaint suggests the value of this particular aesthetic is significant, noting the design is "broadly recognized by consumers" and its popularity has led to "significant infringement" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a door knocker as illustrated in its drawings (’961 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The design features a stylized, bird-shaped knocker element that pivots on a rectangular mounting plate, with a dependent pull-string and ball that actuates the knocking motion (’961 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 5). The claim covers the ornamental design "as shown and described" (’961 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff’s own products embodying the design are "well established on Amazon and enjoy quality customer review and high ratings," suggesting the design's aesthetic has achieved commercial recognition (Compl. ¶9).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a bird shaped door knocker, as shown and described."
  • As a design patent claim, its scope is defined by the overall visual appearance of the article depicted in the patent's eight figures, which show the design from various perspectives (’961 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "door knockers" sold by the Defendants, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶1).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants are e-commerce store operators who are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the U.S." unauthorized door knockers that infringe the ’961 Patent (Compl. ¶1). These products are allegedly sold on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further alleges that the various Infringing Products sold by the different Defendants "share identical infringing design" (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or other detailed mapping of the accused products to the patented design. The infringement theory is based on a direct assertion that the Defendants' products embody the patented design.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused door knockers sold by Defendants are visually, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’961 Patent (Compl. ¶1, ¶26). The complaint states that the defendants are selling the "same unauthorized and unlicensed products" (Compl. ¶1) and that these products "share identical infringing design" (Compl. ¶6). This suggests Plaintiff’s infringement theory rests on the assertion that Defendants are selling products that are knockoffs, or visually indistinguishable copies, of the design shown in the ’961 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central issue will be a factual comparison under the "ordinary observer" test. Without visual evidence of the accused products in the complaint, the primary question is whether discovery will show that the accused products are, in fact, "substantially the same" as the patented design such that an ordinary observer would be deceived.
  • Scope Question: A potential point of contention may involve separating the functional aspects of a door knocker from the claimed ornamental design. A defendant could argue that similarities are based on functional, unprotected elements, though the ’961 Patent does not disclaim any features with broken lines, which may inform this analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the claimed design rather than the definition of textual terms. However, the title and claim language provide context for the scope of the design.

• The Term: "bird shaped door knocker"
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Practitioners may focus on this term to frame the "ordinary observer" test and to distinguish ornamental features from potentially functional ones inherent to any "door knocker." The analysis will not turn on defining "bird," but on how the overall design applies to this specific type of article.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described," and the figures use solid lines exclusively, which generally indicates that all depicted features are part of the claimed ornamental design (’961 Patent, Claim; FIGS. 1-8). This would support an interpretation where the overall visual configuration, including the shape of the mounting plate and pull-string, is protected.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the scope of the design is limited to the purely aesthetic and non-functional flourishes, and that the basic mechanical configuration of a pivoting knocker on a base is functional. An argument could be made that an ordinary observer would discount these functional aspects when comparing the designs, thus narrowing the effective scope of the patent to only its most stylized features.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement ("infringe directly and/or indirectly") and includes a request to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement in its prayer for relief (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim of induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge that the products would be used to infringe or the absence of substantial non-infringing uses.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "knowingly, and willfully infringed the Design Patent" (Compl. ¶22). The factual support for this allegation appears to be based on the alleged popularity of the design and Plaintiff's marking of its own products with the patent number (Compl. ¶9). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engage in tactics to "conceal their identities," such as using multiple "Seller Aliases" and anonymous registration, which could be argued as evidence of an intent to evade liability (Compl. ¶1, ¶17-19).

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

1. The Factual "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case's outcome will primarily depend on a factual question: will the visual evidence, once produced, demonstrate that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’961 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The complaint's assertion of an "identical infringing design" will need to be substantiated with side-by-side product comparisons.

2. Procedural Viability of Joinder: A critical procedural question is whether the court will permit the joinder of numerous anonymous e-commerce entities under 28 U.S.C. § 299. The court will need to determine if Plaintiff's allegation—that selling products with an "identical infringing design" constitutes the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions"—is sufficient to bind dozens of separate storefronts into a single action.

3. Plausibility of Willfulness: A key legal question will be whether the complaint’s allegations of willfulness are plausible. The analysis will likely focus on whether the alleged use of seller aliases and other concealment tactics plausibly demonstrates egregious conduct related to the infringement itself, or whether these are simply common e-commerce practices insufficient to support a claim for enhanced damages at this stage.