DCT

1:23-cv-00026

Quanzhou Minghou Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00026, N.D. Ill., 01/03/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants, through online e-commerce stores, directly target business activities and sales toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ footwear products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a footwear sole.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of soles for athletic-style footwear, a market where distinctive visual appearance can be a significant commercial driver.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is brought against a group of unidentified defendants, listed on a sealed "Schedule A," who allegedly operate various online storefronts. This procedural posture is common in actions targeting numerous, often foreign, e-commerce sellers whose identities are obscured.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-07-18 U.S. Patent No. D912,376 Priority Date (Filing)
2021-03-09 U.S. Patent No. D912,376 Issued
2023-01-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D912,376 - "Footwear sole"

Issued March 9, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a functional problem but instead protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a novel and aesthetically distinct appearance for a product.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a footwear sole as depicted in its eight figures (’376 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design’s primary visual features consist of a series of large, open, somewhat triangular or wave-like voids that pass entirely through the sidewall of the sole, creating a hollow, cage-like structure. The bottom of the sole features a distinctive tread pattern with two large, oblong cutouts that expose the hollow interior (’376 Patent, Fig. 8). The overall impression is one of a complex, three-dimensional structure with significant negative space.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is "known and broadly recognizable by its distinctiveness" (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a footwear sole, as shown and described" (’376 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The essential visual elements of the asserted claim include:
    • The overall profile and contour of the sole.
    • A repeating pattern of large, angular voids along the sidewalls.
    • The specific shape and arrangement of the tread pattern on the bottom surface.
    • The appearance of large cutouts on the bottom surface.
  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the patent (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "footwear products with sole designs that infringe the Footwear Sole Design of ‘376 Patent" (Compl. ¶5, ¶19). These are referred to as the "Infringing Products."

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges Defendants operate e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as "Amazon.com," "eBay," "alibaba.com," and "Walmart" to sell the accused footwear (Compl. ¶3).
  • The infringement allegation is based entirely on the visual appearance of the soles on the accused footwear. The complaint includes multiple photographs of these products, showing athletic-style shoes with soles that feature prominent, hollowed-out sidewalls. One such representative image shows a red athletic shoe with a sole constructed of repeating, angular, open structures (Compl. p. 10).
  • Plaintiff alleges that these numerous online sellers are an "interrelated group of infringers" who use fictitious aliases and share common design templates, payment methods, and other identifiers (Compl. ¶21, ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design. The complaint presents its allegations through side-by-side visual comparisons.

'376 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a footwear sole, as shown and described. The complaint alleges that in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused products are "substantially similar" to the patented design. This is based on the "overall shape of the sole and its novel and ornamental features consisting of uniform jagged triangle shapes along the length of the sole and the 'holes' or empty spaces extending through the width of the soles." The complaint provides multiple side-by-side images to support this, such as the comparison of the patented design's side view with a photograph of an accused red shoe. ¶36, ¶37, p. 10 Figs. 1-8

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the visual differences between the patented design and the various accused products are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from finding them substantially the same. For example, a court may examine minor variations in the angle, size, or number of the "jagged triangle shapes" on the accused products compared to the patent drawings.
  • Scope of "as shown and described": The analysis will depend on how the court interprets the overall visual impression created by the patent's drawings. The images of the accused products' bottom soles, for example, will be compared to the patented design's Figure 8 to determine if the tread pattern and cutouts are substantially similar (Compl. p. 12). The court must determine if the design concept has been appropriated, even if not every detail is identical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not focused on textual terms but on the scope of the design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings. The key analysis is a visual comparison rather than a definition of words.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a footwear sole, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the entire scope of the patent right. The dispute will turn not on the meaning of these words, but on a visual comparison between the patent figures and the accused products. Practitioners may focus on which specific features of the drawings constitute the core "ornamental design" and which are minor details.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The court will look to the overall visual impression of the design, not just isolated features. The complaint argues for a broader scope by focusing on the appropriation of the general concept: the "overall shape," the "uniform jagged triangle shapes," and the "‘holes’ or empty spaces" (Compl. ¶37). This suggests an interpretation focused on the design's high-level visual motif.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the claim is limited to the exact proportions, angles, and arrangements depicted in the patent's eight figures. Any deviation in the accused products from these precise renderings could support a non-infringement argument. The patent's use of solid lines for all depicted features, without distinguishing between more or less important elements, may support an argument that the entire depicted design, in all its detail, is what is claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶38). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed third parties (e.g., downstream retailers or users) on how to infringe.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "willfully" infringed (Compl. ¶26). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants had "notice and knowledge of the ‘376 Patent at least as early its issue date on March 9, 2021" (Compl. ¶34). The complaint does not provide specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge by any particular defendant, such as a cease-and-desist letter.

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art of footwear sole designs, find the accused products to be "substantially the same" as the specific design illustrated in the '376 Patent, or are the differences sufficient to distinguish them?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of design appropriation: Does the evidence show that Defendants copied the overall ornamental impression and novel features of the patented design, as alleged by the Plaintiff, or do the accused products merely share a general functional or stylistic concept that is not protected by this specific design patent?
  • A central procedural question will be the viability of the "Schedule A" complaint: Given that the defendants are numerous, unidentified foreign entities, the case will test the practical ability of the court to exercise jurisdiction, enforce potential injunctions, and award damages against a diffuse and anonymized group of online sellers.