WenzhouFuruisi Jiancaiyouxiangongsi v. Xing

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WenzhouFuruisi Jiancaiyouxiangongsi (China)
  • Defendant: Ruoying Xing (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01136, N.D. Ill., 02/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant, an individual residing in China, is not a U.S. resident.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its two lines of bathroom faucets do not infringe Defendant's design patent and that the patent is invalid, following an infringement claim filed by Defendant on the Amazon.com marketplace that led to the removal of Plaintiff's product listings.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of widespread bathroom faucets, a highly competitive product category within the e-commerce home goods market.
• Key Procedural History: This action was precipitated by an intellectual property infringement complaint filed by the patent owner (Defendant Xing) through Amazon.com's internal reporting procedures. This action allegedly caused Amazon to de-list the accused products, prompting the accused infringer (Plaintiff Forious) to file this lawsuit seeking judicial clarification of its rights.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D994,081 - "FAUCET," issued August 1, 2023 (’081 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. This patent seeks to protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture," rather than solving a technical problem. (’081 Patent, Cover Page).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a faucet assembly as depicted in its eight figures. The design consists of a three-piece, widespread configuration featuring a central spout and two separate handles. The aesthetic is defined by its geometric, rectilinear shapes, most notably an open-channel "waterfall" spout and block-like handles with sharp, right-angled corners. (’081 Patent, Claim; Figs. 1, 7).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct visual appearance intended to differentiate the product in a crowded consumer marketplace. (Compl. ¶2-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a faucet, as shown and described." (’081 Patent, Claim).
• The ornamental design depicted in the figures includes the following visual elements:
  • A three-piece configuration of a central spout and two separate handles.
  • A wide, open-channel "waterfall" style spout.
  • Rectangular, block-shaped handles.
  • Sharp, right-angle corners on the upper surfaces of the handles.
  • A specific set of proportions among the spout and handle components.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two lines of accused products sold by Plaintiff Forious: the "Waterfall Design Disputed Faucets" and the "Standard Design Disputed Faucets." (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are bathroom faucets sold to U.S. customers through Plaintiff's "FORIOUS-US" storefront on Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶5, 7). The "Standard Design" faucets feature a conventional, closed-top spout, while the "Waterfall Design" faucets feature an open-top, waterfall-style spout. (Compl. ¶20, 25). The complaint alleges that after Defendant's infringement claim, Amazon removed all listings for both product lines, though the "Standard Design" listings were later relisted. (Compl. ¶24, 29). The complaint includes a visual comparison of the patented design with a photograph of the "Standard Design" faucet, highlighting the difference between the open waterfall spout of the patent and the closed traditional spout of the accused product. (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the plaintiff's arguments for why its products do not infringe. A central visual comparison in the complaint contrasts a top-view drawing from the patent with a photograph of the accused "Waterfall Design" faucet, with annotations pointing out alleged differences. (Compl. p. 5).

D'081 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations (re: "Waterfall Design Disputed Faucets")

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary dispute for the "Waterfall Design" faucets is a question of design scope: are the sharp corners and specific spout proportions shown consistently across all figures essential, limiting features of the claimed design, or are they merely details of one embodiment of a broader design concept?
• Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be whether the visual differences alleged by the Plaintiff—rounded handle corners and a greater spout depth—are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression for an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, thereby avoiding infringement. For the "Standard Design" faucet, the question is more fundamental: can a design with a closed, traditional spout be considered "substantially the same" as a patented design defined by an open, waterfall spout?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the visual disclosure of the drawings. Analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than the construction of specific text-based terms.

• The Term: The "overall ornamental design" for the faucet.
• Context and Importance: The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend on the court's assessment of the overall visual impression created by the patented design and whether the accused products are "substantially the same." Practitioners may focus on which specific visual features—such as the spout type, corner sharpness, and component proportions—are central to this overall impression and which are minor details.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Defendant (patentee) may argue that the core of the design is the general combination of a geometric, rectilinear form with a waterfall spout, and that minor variations in corner radii or spout depth do not change the overall aesthetic. The consistent use of blocky, geometric shapes throughout the figures could support an argument that this general "look and feel" is what is protected. (’081 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Plaintiff (accused infringer) will likely argue that the sharp, right-angle corners are a repeated, deliberate, and defining feature of the patented design, not an incidental detail. Their consistent depiction across all handles in all relevant views suggests they are integral to the claimed ornamental design. (’081 Patent, Figs. 1, 3-7). The complaint explicitly adopts this position, arguing these sharp corners are a "required" feature of the claimed design. (Compl. ¶30).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations related to indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. However, it does allege that the Defendant's infringement assertions on Amazon.com were made without a "good faith basis" and were "objectively baseless," which forms the basis for a request that the court find the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award attorney's fees. (Compl. ¶26, 34, 52-53; Request for Relief ¶d). These allegations also support a separate count for tortious interference with business relations. (Compl. ¶¶48-58).

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

This declaratory judgment action appears to center on three fundamental questions for the court:

1. A Threshold Question of Similarity: For the "Standard Design" faucet, is there any plausible argument that an ordinary observer would confuse its traditional, closed-spout design with the patented design, which is defined by an open, waterfall-style spout?

2. A Question of Design Scope: For the "Waterfall Design" faucet, are the documented differences in handle-corner sharpness and spout proportions sufficient to create a distinct overall visual impression, or are they minor variations that fall within the scope of the patented design?

3. An Interrelated Question of Validity: Does the cited Chinese '201 prior art patent disclose a design so similar to the '081 Patent that it renders the patent invalid for anticipation or obviousness? The Plaintiff's strategy appears to frame the case such that if its "Waterfall Design" faucet is found to be infringing, the '081 Patent must logically be invalid over the prior art, which allegedly shares the same distinguishing features.