Zhang v. Jpfreepe

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fei Zhang
  • Defendant: JPFreepe
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AU LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-16011, N.D. Ill., 11/16/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant targets and conducts business with consumers in Illinois by operating an interactive online store that offers shipping to the district and accepts payment in U.S. dollars.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce store sells wireless chargers that infringe Plaintiff’s U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns multi-device wireless charging stations, a widely adopted accessory category within the consumer electronics market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D889,403, “Wireless Charging Bracket,” issued July 7, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'403 Patent does not contain a background section describing a technical problem. Instead, it protects the novel, ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a wireless charging bracket as depicted in its figures (D'403 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The design consists of an elongated, flat base with two distinct surface areas for charging, combined with an upright support structure that terminates in a ring-shaped holder, presumably for a watch or similar device (D'403 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 7). The scope of the design is limited to the elements shown in solid lines (D'403 Patent, col. 2:58-60).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" and that these designs are associated by the public with the "quality and innovation" of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for the ornamental design itself.
• The claim covers: "The ornamental design for a wireless charging bracket, as shown and described" (D'403 Patent, col. 2:55-57). The key visual elements protected by this claim include:
  • The overall configuration of a flat base with an attached upright stand.
  • The specific contours of the base, including recessed areas for placing devices.
  • The shape and angle of the upright stand.
  • The ring-shaped element at the top of the stand.
  • The surface patterns shown on the charging areas in solid lines.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Infringing Products" are identified as wireless chargers sold through at least one online storefront operating under the name "JPFreepe" on marketplaces such as Temu (Compl. ¶¶1, 8, 23).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused products as wireless chargers offered for sale to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶8, 22). The core of the infringement allegation is not based on technical operation but on the products' visual appearance, which allegedly copies Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶¶1, 32). The complaint provides a perspective view of the patented design, showing a base with multiple charging surfaces and an upright stand (Compl. p. 3, FIG. 1). Plaintiff alleges Defendant presents the products to appear as "genuine Plaintiff products" to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of a design patent, for which the legal test is whether an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent. The complaint references "screenshots of Defendant's Temu.com storefront" in Exhibit 2 and other evidence in Exhibit 3, but these exhibits were not included in the filed document available for analysis (Compl. ¶¶23, 28). Therefore, a direct visual comparison is not possible based on the complaint alone. The following table summarizes the allegations based on the complaint's text.

D'403 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity Question: The central issue will be whether the design of the accused wireless charger sold by "JPFreepe" is substantially the same as the claimed design in the D'403 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This determination will depend on a side-by-side visual comparison.
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence linking the specific accused products to the Defendant entity and demonstrating that their design is indeed a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation" (Compl. ¶A.a) of the patented design, especially since the exhibits containing such evidence were not included with the complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings, and formal construction of text-based terms is less common than in utility patent cases. The court's primary task is to articulate a description of the patented design's visual characteristics.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a wireless charging bracket"
• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is the entire dispute. The court's interpretation, guided by the drawings, will define the visual elements against which the accused product is compared. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between protectable ornamental features and purely functional aspects, though this is not raised in the complaint.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim covers any wireless charger with the same overall visual impression and general configuration of a base with an upright stand, focusing on the gestalt appearance rather than minute details. The patent's title, "Wireless Charging Bracket," could support this view (D'403 Patent, p. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states that "The broken lines in the figures illustrate portions of the wireless charging bracket that form no part of the claimed design" (D'403 Patent, col. 2:58-60). This language provides a clear basis for limiting the scope of protection to only the features shown in solid lines, such as the specific contours of the base recesses and the precise shape of the ring-topped stand (D'403 Patent, FIGS. 1, 7).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶A.b).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendant's infringement of the Plaintiff Design was willful" (Compl. ¶29). This allegation is supported by the claim that Defendant acted "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶28) and by allegations of conduct intended to conceal its identity, such as using "a meaningless store name," omitting contact information, and operating through multiple fictitious identities (Compl. ¶¶25-26).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: when placed side-by-side, does the accused wireless charger sold by Defendant create an overall visual impression on an ordinary observer that is substantially the same as the specific ornamental design claimed in the D'403 patent?
2. A second key issue will be evidentiary: what proof can Plaintiff offer to demonstrate that the products depicted in its missing exhibits are the same products being sold by the entity "JPFreepe," and that their design is a direct copy of the patented design, sufficient to meet the "ordinary observer" test for infringement?