E Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co Ltd v. Veizibee

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case: E-LINK PLASTIC & METAL INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. v. The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A
• Plaintiff: E Link Plastic Metal Industrial Co Ltd (Taiwan)
• Defendant: Entities Individuals Identified in Annex A (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
• Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ge (Linda) Lei
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-16811, N.D. Ill., 12/15/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate e-commerce stores that target and ship products to residents within the Northern District of Illinois, constituting acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing a U.S. Design Patent by selling pill organizers that are identical or substantially similar to the patented design.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of consumer products, specifically personal pill organizers, a common item sold through online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The filed document is an Amended Complaint. The complaint structure, which names a group of unidentified entities in an annex, is characteristic of actions targeting networks of online sellers, often involving requests for ex parte temporary restraining orders to freeze assets and disable storefronts.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-04-13	'347 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2020-10-13	'347 Patent Issue Date
2023-12-15	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D898,347, titled "PILL ORGANIZER", issued October 13, 2020.

The Invention Explained

As this is a design patent, the "invention" is the ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture, not its utility.

• Problem Addressed: The implicit problem is the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a pill organizer that is visually distinct from prior designs.
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific ornamental design for a pill organizer. The design features a generally rectangular case with rounded vertical edges and a curved, clamshell-style lid that covers the entire top surface ('347 Patent, FIG. 1). The front of the lid includes a small, centrally located recessed tab for opening ('347 Patent, FIG. 2). When open, the design reveals multiple curved internal compartments separated by dividers ('347 Patent, FIG. 8). The claim protects the overall visual impression created by these features in combination, as depicted in the patent's drawings.
• Technical Importance: The patent protects the specific aesthetic choices that give the pill organizer its unique appearance, which can be a key driver of consumer choice in a crowded market for personal accessories.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a pill organizer, as shown and described" ('347 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings. Key ornamental features include:
  • The overall elongated, rounded rectangular shape.
  • A clamshell lid with a curved top surface.
  • A small, centered, recessed tab on the front of the lid.
  • The configuration of internal dividers visible when the case is open.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "pill organizers" sold by Defendants through various online e-commerce storefronts on platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, eBay, and Temu (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants sell products that are "identical or substantially similar" to the design claimed in the '347 Patent (Compl. ¶2).
• The complaint further alleges that these products are sold at a "much lower price" than Plaintiff's authorized products (Compl. ¶2). The complaint asserts that Defendants operate a network of e-commerce stores using tactics to conceal their identities, such as using false names and nondescript seller aliases (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 10-11). The complaint references "Exhibit B" as containing images of the infringing products, but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a table showing figures from the asserted patent. The perspective view from the patent, provided as Figure 1 in the complaint, shows the overall shape and configuration of the claimed design (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused products. Instead, it makes a general allegation that Defendants are infringing the '347 Patent. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an "ordinary observer," the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

The complaint alleges that Defendants "directly or through intermediaries offer to sell and/or sell pill organizers which infringe the '347 Patent" (Compl. ¶21). It further states that Defendants are infringing by "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing... Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed" (Compl. ¶23). Without visual evidence of the accused products from the complaint's exhibits, a detailed comparison is not possible. The infringement case will depend on evidence, presumably contained in the unattached Exhibit B, showing that the accused pill organizers create the same overall visual impression as the design depicted in the '347 Patent's figures, such as the open-state view in Figure 8 (Compl. p. 8).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the design as shown in the drawings. Formal construction of text-based terms is rare. The central analysis is a comparison of the claimed and accused designs. However, disputes can arise over the scope of the design and which features are ornamental versus purely functional.

• The Term: The overall ornamental design "as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the scope of the claimed design. The court will need to determine which aspects of the pill organizer's appearance are ornamental and protected, and which, if any, are dictated by function and thus not part of the claimed design.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the claim covers any pill organizer with the same overall visual impression of a rounded rectangular case with a curved clamshell lid and recessed front tab, even with minor variations. The patent's description simply claims "the ornamental design for a pill organizer" without limitation to a specific material or size, supporting a focus on the overall shape and configuration ('347 Patent, Claim).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the design is limited to the exact proportions and features shown. For example, the specific curvature of the internal dividers ('347 Patent, FIG. 8) or the precise shape of the rear hinges ('347 Patent, FIG. 3) could be argued as essential elements of the claimed design, and any deviation could support a finding of non-infringement. The patent also disclaims certain subject matter, noting that "the broken lines depict environment that forms no part of the claimed design," which clarifies the scope by exclusion ('347 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" to sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶14) and that they infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶23). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing inducement or contributory infringement beyond the general allegation of a concerted network of sellers.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are acting "knowingly and willfully" in concert to sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶14). This allegation appears to be based on the inference that the Defendants' business model, which allegedly involves concealing their identities and selling "identical or substantially similar" products, demonstrates a willful disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 11).

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

1. A Core Question of Visual Similarity: The central issue will be a factual one: does the design of the accused pill organizers create the same overall visual impression as the '347 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on visual evidence, such as that purportedly contained in the unattached Exhibit B.
2. An Evidentiary and Procedural Challenge: A key challenge for the Plaintiff will be successfully serving and obtaining jurisdiction over the numerous, anonymous online sellers listed in Annex A. The case's structure highlights the practical difficulties brand owners face in enforcing IP rights against diffuse networks of international online infringers.
3. A Potential Functionality Dispute: The case may raise the question of whether the similarities between the patented design and the accused products are dictated by ornamental choices or by functional constraints of a pill organizer. Defendants could argue that features like a clamshell lid or internal dividers are purely functional and should be disregarded in the infringement analysis, potentially narrowing the scope of the patent's protection.