Shenzhenshi Borunxing Wujin You Xian Gong Si v. T Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhenshi Borunxing Wujin You Xian Gong Si (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01946, N.D. Ill., 03/28/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are foreign entities, and personal jurisdiction is asserted based on Defendants targeting commercial activities and sales of the accused products to consumers in Illinois through interactive online storefronts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ three-in-one wireless chargers, sold through various Amazon storefronts, infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is a foldable, multi-device wireless charger, a product category within the consumer electronics accessories market designed for portability and convenience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D963,570 - “THREE-IN-ONE WIRELESS CHARGER”

• Issued: September 13, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: While design patents do not explicitly state a technical problem, the context suggests the goal is to create a novel and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, specifically a wireless charger that is both aesthetically distinct and portable (Compl. ¶2).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a foldable, three-panel wireless charger ('570 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of three connected, generally square-shaped pads with rounded corners that can be laid flat. Key visual features shown in solid lines in the patent's figures include the surface ornamentation of each pad: the central pad features a raised circular element with a smaller concentric circle, while the two outer pads feature larger, recessed circular areas ('570 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The protection extends to the overall visual impression created by these elements, not their underlying electronic function ('570 Patent, Claim).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a compact, foldable form factor for charging multiple personal electronic devices (e.g., a phone, watch, and earbuds) simultaneously, a valuable feature for consumers seeking portable charging solutions (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a three-in-one wireless charger, as shown and described" ('570 Patent, Claim).
• As a design patent, the claim's scope is defined by its drawings. The core protected visual features, depicted in solid lines, include:
  • The overall configuration of a three-panel, foldable body.
  • The specific shape of the three connected pads, each being a rounded-corner square.
  • The particular surface contours on each pad, including a raised double-ring on the center panel and single recessed circles on the outer panels.
  • The visual proportions and arrangement of these features relative to one another.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• "Three-in-one Wireless Charger" products sold by Defendants via various Amazon storefronts, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are wireless chargers designed to simultaneously charge three separate devices, marketed for use with products like mobile phones, Apple Watches, and AirPods (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges that although sold under different brand names and "Seller Aliases," the accused products are physically identical or nearly identical, sharing the same shape, features, and product imagery (Compl. ¶9). The complaint provides an exemplary marketing image from one such storefront to illustrate the accused product's appearance and function (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint's allegations are presented below in a visual feature comparison format.

Visual Feature Comparison: '570 Patent

The complaint presents a side-by-side comparison image showing a figure from the '570 Patent next to a marketing image of the accused "MAGNETIC WIRELESS CHARGER" to argue for their substantial similarity (Compl. ¶23).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central legal and factual question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The court will need to determine if the accused product's design is "substantially the same" as the claimed design, considering the perspective of a typical purchaser of such goods. The analysis must disregard functional elements and focus solely on the claimed ornamental features.
• Technical Questions: The dispute may turn on whether any minor differences between the patented design drawings and the physical accused products are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived. The complaint alleges the products are identical in shape and features, but this remains a factual question for the court (Compl. ¶9). The scope of the patent, and thus the significance of any differences, will also depend on the prior art in the field, which is not discussed in the complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, formal claim construction is rare. The "claim" is understood through the patent's drawings. The most critical issue is determining the scope of the claimed design based on the drawings.

• The "Term": The scope of the "ornamental design" as defined by the solid versus broken lines in the patent figures.
• Context and Importance: This distinction is fundamental to any design patent infringement analysis. The patent explicitly states, "The broken lines shown in the drawings depict portions of the three-in-one wireless charger in which the design is embodied that form no part of the claimed design" ('570 Patent, Description). Infringement can only be found if the accused product incorporates the novel features shown in solid lines. Practitioners may focus on this distinction, as any alleged similarity in unclaimed (broken-line) features is legally irrelevant to the infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the "ornamental design... as shown and described," suggesting that the overall visual effect and impression are what is protected, not merely a checklist of individual features ('570 Patent, Claim).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit disclaimer of broken-line portions limits the scope of protection strictly to the visual elements rendered in solid lines across all eight figures ('570 Patent, Description; FIG. 1-8). This confines the infringement inquiry to the specific three-panel shape and the particular surface ornamentation depicted.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. Prayer ¶1.b). However, the complaint’s factual allegations focus on a theory that the various defendants constitute a single "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" to directly infringe the patent, rather than pleading a distinct claim for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" infringed the patent and that their infringement "is willful" (Compl. ¶¶19, 21). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that the accused products are identical copies sold under various aliases, which may suggest intentional copying of Plaintiff's design (Compl. ¶¶9, 23).

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

• A central issue will be a factual determination under the ordinary observer test: is the ornamental design of the accused chargers "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '570 Patent, such that a typical purchaser would be deceived? The side-by-side comparison in the complaint (Compl. ¶23) suggests a high degree of visual similarity, which will be a focal point of the dispute.
• A second key question will concern the scope of the patented design in view of the relevant prior art. Although not raised in the complaint, the novelty of the claimed design relative to other wireless chargers that existed before its August 2021 priority date will be critical in determining the breadth of its protection and the materiality of any differences between it and the accused products.