Zhang v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guowei Zhang and Qujing Lingli E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A (China and other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bishop Diehl & Lee, LTD.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-06434, N.D. Ill., 08/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), which permits suit in any U.S. judicial district against defendants who do not reside in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that numerous foreign-based online merchants are infringing a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of an electric water flosser.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns portable oral hygiene devices, a high-volume category of consumer electronics where distinctive product design can be a key market differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the complaint's filing, the patent-in-suit underwent an ex parte reexamination at the USPTO, requested on September 18, 2024. The reexamination concluded with a certificate issued on June 20, 2025, confirming the patentability of the single claim without amendment. This proceeding could strengthen the patent's presumption of validity against challenges in this litigation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D966,499 - “ELECTRIC WATER FLOSSER”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D966,499, “ELECTRIC WATER FLOSSER,” issued October 11, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As is typical for design patents, the ’499 Patent does not articulate a functional problem to be solved. Instead, it claims a "novel and ornamental design" for an article of manufacture, seeking to protect its unique aesthetic appearance (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of an electric water flosser as depicted in its figures (’499 Patent, Figs. 1-8). Key ornamental features include a two-part construction with a distinct, ergonomically-curved upper handle portion and a straight, cylindrical lower reservoir portion. The design is further characterized by the specific shape and placement of a recessed control panel on the handle and the slender, angled nozzle (’499 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 5). The claim covers the overall visual impression created by these features in combination (’499 Patent, Claim).
• Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific aesthetic identity for a product in the competitive consumer market for portable oral care devices (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the single claim of the ’499 Patent (Compl. ¶37).
• Claim 1 protects: "The ornamental design for a electric water flosser, as shown and described." The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in Figures 1-8 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "electric water flosser" products sold by the various named Defendants (Compl. ¶¶1, 12). The complaint alleges that the Defendants sell "the same infringing products with minor variations" through online storefronts on platforms including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and others (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate "fully interactive, commercial online marketplaces" to target and sell the accused products to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶11, ¶18). It further alleges that Defendants are part of an "interrelated group of infringers" who use tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement efforts (Compl. ¶14, ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that it includes a claim chart in its Exhibit C comparing the patented design to the accused products; however, this exhibit was not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶39). The narrative infringement theory is that the products sold by Defendants incorporate the ornamental design claimed in the ’499 Patent, making them substantially the same in appearance to an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶39).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing a Defendant's product believing it to be the Plaintiff's patented design.
• Scope of Protection: A potential point of contention may involve the scope of the claimed design in light of prior art. The defense may argue that similarities between the accused products and the patented design are based on functional elements or designs that were already common in the public domain, thus limiting the scope of what the ’499 Patent protects. The patent's survival of reexamination may, however, blunt the effectiveness of such arguments.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of written terms is uncommon. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance rather than the definition of specific words. The title phrase "electric water flosser" serves only to identify the article of manufacture to which the design is applied and is not expected to be a point of contention. The key legal analysis will not be construing terms but comparing the accused products to the patented design as a whole.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and indirect infringement, and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. ¶37; Prayer for Relief ¶ A.b). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how any Defendant has induced or contributed to infringement by another party.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶42). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell infringing products" and use evasive tactics to continue their operations despite enforcement efforts (Compl. ¶14, ¶36).

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

1. A central issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the ordinary observer test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' water flosser products substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '499 Patent, particularly when viewed in the context of prior art designs?
2. A key procedural question will be one of enforcement: Given that the Defendants are alleged to be a network of foreign-based online sellers using fictitious identities, can the Plaintiffs successfully identify, serve, and enforce an injunction or monetary judgment against these entities?
3. A significant damages question will be the remedy sought: Will Plaintiffs pursue damages based on a reasonable royalty, or will they seek the disgorgement of the Defendants' total profits from the infringing sales, a remedy uniquely available for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and explicitly mentioned in the complaint (Compl. ¶44)?