The Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wuhanqiuzhaokejiyouxiangongsi (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships, Individuals and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China and other foreign countries)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Y. Liu, Esq.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00464, N.D. Ill., 01/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district, and that they have offered to sell and sold products to consumers within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores on the Amazon platform sell counterfeit electric drill plate cutters that infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of a power tool accessory, specifically a plate cutter attachment for an electric drill.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D993,734 S - “Electric drill plate cutter”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D993,734 S (“the ’734 Patent”), “Electric drill plate cutter,” issued August 1, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’734 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Instead, it protects the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶10; ’734 Patent, Claim). The complaint alleges this patented design is distinctive and unique to the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of an "electric drill plate cutter" as depicted in its figures (’734 Patent, Figs. 1-11). The claimed ornamental design consists of the shape and configuration of the cutter's main body, which includes a gear housing, a cutting wheel assembly, and various surface details, all shown in solid lines (’734 Patent, Fig. 1). An elongated handle and other attachment features are shown in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the claimed design (’734 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the patented design is "instantly recognizable" to the purchasing public and is associated with the goodwill of the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶8, ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The ’734 Patent contains a single claim: “The ornamental design for an electric drill plate cutter, as shown and described.” (’734 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features of the article depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings. Key claimed features include:
  • The overall configuration of the gear and cutter housing.
  • The specific shape and placement of the cutting wheels and their protective shroud.
  • The surface ornamentation and contours of the housing components.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products" and "counterfeit products" described as "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's patented products (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 24). These products are allegedly sold by the numerous Defendants through e-commerce stores on Amazon (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate a network of e-commerce stores that sell products bearing the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to deceive consumers (Compl. ¶15). The complaint asserts these products are offered for sale and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the patented design to the accused products. Instead, it presents a narrative theory of infringement based on the "ordinary observer" test. The core allegation is that Defendants' "slavish copying" of the patented design "is likely to cause confusion to an ordinary observer, such that such a person may buy a copycat product from one of the Defendants thinking it comes from Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint further alleges that Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States... products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the ‘734 Patent" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint references Exhibit B for screenshots of checkout pages, but the exhibit itself was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶4, ¶26).

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Comparison: The central issue will be a visual one: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing an accused product believing it to be the product embodying the patented design. The outcome will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the drawings in the ’734 Patent.
• Scope of Protection: A potential point of contention may be the distinction between the claimed ornamental features (solid lines) and the unclaimed functional or environmental aspects (broken lines) shown in the ’734 Patent drawings, such as the long handle (’734 Patent, Fig. 1). The infringement analysis must properly exclude these unclaimed elements from consideration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is typically understood to be the drawings themselves, and formal claim construction of words is less common than in utility patent cases. The court's primary task is to interpret the visual scope of the design.

• The Term: "electric drill plate cutter"
• Context and Importance: This phrase, from the patent's title and claim, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its construction is not likely to be a point of major dispute; rather, it provides context for the visual analysis. Practitioners may focus on ensuring the infringement analysis is limited to the ornamental design applied to this type of article, as opposed to the article's underlying function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described," which points to the entirety of the visual representation in the drawings as the basis for the claim's scope (’734 Patent, Claim).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "DESCRIPTION" section of the patent explicitly states that "The broken lines depict portions of the electric drill plate cutter that form no part of the claimed design" (’734 Patent, Description). This language limits the scope of protection to only those features depicted in solid lines, narrowing the focus of the ordinary observer test.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶28) and requests an injunction against "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any products" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts detailing how any particular Defendant possessed the requisite knowledge and specific intent to encourage another's direct infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants "have knowingly and willfully used" the ’734 Patent (Compl. ¶22). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion of "slavish copying" (Compl. ¶10) and the alleged use of deceptive e-commerce tactics to conceal their identities and mislead consumers (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 18).

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

1. A central issue will be one of visual identity: will the evidence show that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’734 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer, such that the observer would be induced to purchase one believing it to be the other?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: given the lack of specific visual comparisons in the pleading, can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence of the accused products' appearance to meet its burden for infringement, particularly against a large and allegedly diffuse set of foreign defendants?
3. The case may also turn on the scope of the prior art: should Defendants introduce prior art designs, a critical question will be whether the similarities between the patented design and the accused products are primarily features that were already common in the prior art, which would weigh against a finding of infringement.