Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co Ltd v. Fujian Gowoodhut Ecommerce Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xiamen Zhaozhao Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Fujian Gowoodhut Ecommerce Ltd, et al. (Foreign Jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Palmer Law Group
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-16495, N.D. Ill., 12/05/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and have sold infringing products to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of a "Pet House" infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's own pet house product.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer pet products market, specifically focusing on products sold through large online e-commerce platforms like Amazon.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the named Defendants are part of a larger, interrelated network of online sellers who use fictitious storefronts and concealed identities to sell infringing goods, making identification and enforcement difficult.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D955,550 - "Pet House"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D955,550, "Pet House", issued June 21, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a technical problem. The goal is to create a new, original, and non-obvious aesthetic design for a pet house.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a pet house as depicted in its seven figures (’550 Patent, "CLAIM," FIG. 1-7). The design features a main rectangular house structure with a gently sloped, overhanging roof; a prominent arched main doorway; a smaller, raised side porch or step area; and distinctive side features including what appear to be a window box or planter and a secondary escape door (’550 Patent, FIG. 1, 4, 5). The patent explicitly disclaims the interior portions of the pet house by depicting them in broken lines, limiting the protected design to the external appearance (’550 Patent, "DESCRIPTION").
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is "useful and popular," has "innovative structure and design," and has garnered positive customer reviews, suggesting its aesthetic appearance contributes to its market success (Compl. ¶13-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a pet house, as shown and described." (’550 Patent, "CLAIM").
• The claim protects the overall visual impression created by the combination of ornamental features shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings.
• The complaint asserts infringement of the single claim of the ’550 Patent (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Infringing Products" are identified as a "Pet House" sold by Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts (Compl. ¶1, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants sell "counterfeit versions" of Plaintiff's patented Pet House through online stores designed to appear as authorized retailers (Compl. ¶1, 18). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison showing an image of the accused product next to a drawing from the patent. This image depicts a pet house with a sloped roof, an arched main entrance, and a side porch feature, visually similar to Plaintiff's design (Compl. ¶27). The complaint also provides a screenshot of Plaintiff's own "Rockever" brand pet house sold on Amazon, which embodies the patented design and is noted as an "Amazon's Choice" product with over 1,800 reviews, indicating the design's commercial context (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Infringement is found if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused design is such as to deceive such an observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The following table breaks down the key ornamental features of the patented design and the corresponding features of the accused product as alleged in the complaint.

D955,550 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Since the infringement test is based on the overall appearance, a key question will be whether any minor differences in proportion, color, or texture between the accused product and the patent drawings are sufficient to lead an ordinary observer to distinguish the two. The complaint's side-by-side comparison at paragraph 27 presents the accused product and patented design as nearly identical, suggesting Plaintiff's theory is one of direct copying.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be to apply the ordinary observer test by comparing the accused product to the claimed design. The analysis must filter out any un-claimed functional aspects and focus only on the claimed ornamental features. The court will need to determine if the visual similarities are strong enough to cause marketplace confusion.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, formal claim construction is rare. The "claim" is the design itself, as depicted in the drawings. The primary analytical task is to determine the scope of the design by distinguishing its protected ornamental aspects from any unprotected functional elements.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a pet house"
• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is the entire case. The court's analysis will focus on identifying the specific visual elements that constitute the "ornamental design" protected by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this analysis because any elements deemed purely functional would be excluded from the infringement comparison, potentially narrowing the patent's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described" (’550 Patent, "CLAIM"). This suggests the protected design is the overall visual impression created by the combination of all features depicted in solid lines, not just any single feature in isolation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly uses broken lines to "depict portions of the pet house that form no part of the claimed design" (’550 Patent, "DESCRIPTION"). Examination of the figures shows that the interior structures are depicted in broken lines, confirming that the claim is limited to the exterior ornamental appearance. Any infringement analysis must therefore disregard the interior configuration of the accused product.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of contributory infringement and inducement (Compl. ¶29, 30). However, it does not provide specific facts detailing how Defendants might have induced third parties (e.g., end-users) or supplied a special component for infringement. The allegations appear to be pleaded in the alternative to direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "notice of or knew of Plaintiff's patent" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint supports this by alleging that Defendants operate as an "interrelated group" that knowingly and willfully manufactures and sells infringing products, and that they use "fraudulent conduct" like anonymous storefront registration to conceal their identities and evade enforcement efforts (Compl. ¶19, 23, 24).

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

1. A core issue will be a direct application of the ordinary observer test: Is the accused "Pet House" so visually similar to the design claimed in the ’550 Patent that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing one believing it was the other? The side-by-side visual evidence provided in the complaint suggests the Plaintiff will argue the products are substantially identical (Compl. ¶27).
2. A key procedural and evidentiary question will be one of party identification and conduct: Can the Plaintiff successfully prove that the disparate, anonymously-operated defendant storefronts constitute an "interrelated group" acting "in active concert"? (Compl. ¶23). Proving this connection will be critical to the willfulness claim and to obtaining effective injunctive relief.
3. The case raises a question of remedy selection: Given the allegations of intentional copying and the difficulty in tracking sales from foreign entities, a central issue at the damages stage will be whether Plaintiff pursues its own lost profits, a reasonable royalty, or, as is common in design patent cases involving counterfeit goods, disgorgement of the Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶5).