DCT
1:23-cv-04687
Jinjiangshisiluliangpinjinchukoumaoyi Co Ltd v. Entities Individuals
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jinjiangshisiluliangpinjinchukoumaoyi Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A (Jurisdictions unspecified, alleged to be primarily China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04687, N.D. Ill., 08/24/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants offer to sell and ship infringing products to residents within the district, thereby committing acts of infringement and establishing significant contacts there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, the exclusive licensee, alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a faucet extender.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the market for consumer plumbing accessories, specifically articulating faucet extenders sold through online e-commerce platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit with an explicitly granted right to sue. It also describes a "Whac-A-Mole" scenario where Defendants allegedly operate numerous online storefronts under concealed identities, selling products identical or substantially similar to Plaintiff's.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-02-15 | Patent Priority Date (D966,472) |
| 2022-10-11 | U.S. Design Patent D966,472 Issues |
| 2023-08-24 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D966,472 - "FAUCET"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D966,472, "FAUCET", issued October 11, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem but instead protect a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The ’472 Patent protects the specific aesthetic appearance of a faucet extender (Compl. ¶19; ’472 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design embodied in the drawings, which depict a faucet extender with a distinctive multi-jointed, robotic-like arm connecting a cylindrical base to a wide, disc-shaped nozzle head (’472 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design’s overall visual impression is defined by the specific proportions, contours, and arrangement of these components as shown in solid lines in the patent figures (’472 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design has commercial significance, alleging that shortly after Plaintiff began selling products embodying the design, "hundreds of sellers on various online platforms also started to sell faucet extenders identical or substantially similar" to it (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a faucet, as shown and described." (’472 Patent, CLAIM).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual characteristics of the article shown in the patent's drawings, which include:
- The overall configuration of a two-segment articulating arm with two prominent rounded joints.
- A cylindrical base component featuring three recessed oval shapes.
- A wide, cylindrical nozzle head.
- The specific geometric surface pattern on the top of the nozzle head, as detailed in the enlarged view of Figure 9.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "faucet extenders" offered for sale and sold by the Defendants, a group of online sellers identified in the complaint's Annex A (Compl. ¶1, ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are accessories that attach to a faucet to extend its reach and articulate the water stream (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges that these products are "identical or substantially similar" to the design claimed in the ’472 Patent and are sold at a lower price point than Plaintiff's authorized products (Compl. ¶2). Defendants allegedly operate through numerous e-commerce storefronts on platforms like eBay, Amazon, and Walmart, using tactics to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶6, ¶12, ¶17). The complaint includes a visual from the patent to represent the claimed design. FIG. 1, presented in the complaint, shows a perspective view of the articulating faucet extender design (Compl. ¶22).
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 was the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendants' faucet extenders infringe the ’472 Patent (Compl. ¶24). While the complaint does not provide a side-by-side comparison with an accused product, it alleges the products are "identical or substantially similar" (Compl. ¶2). The analysis below is based on this allegation, mapping the ornamental features of the patented design to the allegedly infringing products.
D966,472 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Ornamental Feature from Drawings) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a faucet extender as shown and described in the patent figures. | Defendants sell and offer to sell faucet extenders that embody a design "identical or substantially similar" to the claimed design, creating the same overall visual impression. | ¶2, ¶23-24 | Figs. 1-9 |
| A multi-segment, articulating arm connecting a base to a nozzle head. | The accused faucet extenders allegedly incorporate the distinctive visual appearance of the multi-jointed arm. | ¶2, ¶23 | Figs. 1, 3-6 |
| A cylindrical base with three recessed oval cutouts arranged circumferentially. | The accused products are alleged to feature a base with the same ornamental elements, contributing to the overall visual identity. | ¶2, ¶23 | Figs. 1, 3, 5-6 |
| A wide, disc-shaped nozzle head connected to the articulating arm. | The accused faucet extenders are alleged to possess a nozzle head of the same shape and proportion as depicted in the patent's drawings. | ¶2, ¶23 | Figs. 1-2, 7-8 |
| The specific geometric surface pattern shown on the top surface of the nozzle head. | The accused products allegedly replicate the surface ornamentation shown in the enlarged view of Figure 9, which is a key part of the design's unique look. | ¶2, ¶23 | Fig. 9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: A primary issue will be factual proof. The complaint makes broad allegations against numerous sellers. The case will depend on Plaintiff’s ability to present evidence showing that the specific products sold by each named Defendant are, in fact, "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The complaint itself does not contain images of the accused products for direct comparison.
- Scope Questions: The patent states that "dot-dash broken lines represent boundaries of the enlarged portion and form no part of the claimed design" ('472 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This disclaimer relating to the boundary of the enlarged Figure 9 could raise questions about the precise scope of the claimed surface pattern on the nozzle head, although the pattern itself is shown in solid lines and is therefore part of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction of terms is rare. The central dispute is typically over the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than the meaning of a specific word.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a faucet, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the scope of the claimed design and how it is perceived by an ordinary observer when compared to an accused product. The determination of what is "shown" in the drawings defines the boundaries of the intellectual property right. Practitioners may focus on which features are ornamental and which, if any, are purely functional, as functional aspects are not protected by a design patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of all features shown in solid lines in Figures 1-9. The design is not limited to any single feature but is the gestalt appearance of the article.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly states that any features depicted in "dash-dash broken lines" would form no part of the claimed design (’472 Patent, DESCRIPTION). While no such lines appear to be present in the final drawings, this standard language underscores that only what is shown in solid lines is protected. The distinction between ornamental and potentially functional elements of the articulating joints or the nozzle's spray pattern could be argued to limit the scope of protection.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶25). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants knowingly encouraged or supplied materials for direct infringement by a third party.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell infringing products" (Compl. ¶15). The basis for willfulness appears to be the alleged coordinated effort by numerous sellers to copy Plaintiff's design and use tactics to conceal their operations, suggesting intentional infringement rather than accidental similarity (Compl. ¶12-13, ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central question will be a factual one of design similarity: giving the attention a typical purchaser does, would an ordinary observer be confused into buying one of the Defendants' faucet extenders, believing it to be the product embodying the '472 Patent's design? The outcome will depend on a visual comparison between the patented design and the specific accused products.
- Defendant-Specific Proof: The case is brought against a large group of sellers identified in an annex. A key procedural and evidentiary hurdle will be for the Plaintiff to connect each specific Defendant to the sale of an infringing product and to establish personal jurisdiction and venue for each.
- Scope of Damages: A critical issue for the remedy phase will be whether Plaintiff can prove infringement and elect to recover the Defendants’ total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. This remedy, unique to design patents, can be significantly greater than a reasonable royalty and will likely be a major focus if liability is established.