Shenzhen Huarong Penghui Technology Co Ltd v. Entities Individuals

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Huarong Penghui Technology Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01798, N.D. Ill., 03/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants allegedly offering to sell and selling infringing products to residents of the Northern District of Illinois through various online retail websites and having significant contacts within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online sellers are infringing its U.S. design patent covering an ornamental design for a two-part candlestick holder.
• Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of a consumer home decor product, specifically a candlestick holder, sold through major e-commerce platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The filed document is an Amended Complaint. The action is brought against a group of unidentified defendants, listed in an annex to the complaint, who are alleged to operate a network of online storefronts that are "connected" and sell identical or "substantially similar" products.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D992,768, "CANDLESTICK," issued July 18, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The ’97 (’768 Patent, Claim at col. 1:57-58).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a candlestick. The design consists of two adjacent, rectangular, upright members of differing heights (’768 Patent, Fig. 1). When placed together, cut-outs on their adjoining faces combine to form a complete heart shape (’768 Patent, Fig. 2, 8). The top surface of each member features a circular indentation for holding a candle (’768 Patent, Fig. 6). The claim covers the overall visual appearance of the article as depicted in the patent's figures.
• Technical Importance: The design creates a distinctive aesthetic for a common household item, intended to be visually appealing, particularly when the two separate pieces are combined to form a single, cohesive decorative object.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a candlestick, as shown and described" (’768 Patent, col. 1:57-58).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's eight figures, which depict the candlestick from perspective, front, rear, left, right, top, and bottom views, including a view of the components detached (’768 Patent, col. 1:60-67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "candlestick holder products" that are allegedly "identical or substantially similar" to the design claimed in the ’768 Patent (Compl. ¶2, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants are a network of interconnected entities operating various e-commerce "storefronts" on platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Temu, and Shein (Compl. ¶5, ¶16). These storefronts allegedly sell identical accused products, use similar advertising and marketing, and employ tactics to conceal their true identities (Compl. ¶9, ¶11, ¶12). The complaint alleges these products are sold and offered for sale to consumers in the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶14, ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused candlestick holders infringe the single claim of the ’768 Patent, creating a visual appearance that is substantially the same as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides an image from the patent to illustrate the claimed design. This figure is a perspective view of the assembled two-part candlestick holder, showing its differing heights and the heart shape formed at the junction of the two parts (Compl. ¶20, FIG. 1). The complaint references Exhibit B for examples of infringing products, but this exhibit was not available for analysis.

D992,768 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue in design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. This analysis will depend on the overall visual impression of the accused products compared to the ’768 Patent's figures.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the products sold by each of the anonymous Defendants are, in fact, "identical" as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶10). Proving that each accused product sold by each distinct seller alias embodies a design substantially similar to the ’768 Patent will be a key factual hurdle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on specific textual terms. The claim is understood in light of the patent's figures.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a candlestick, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire dispute hinges on the visual scope of the design claimed in the ’768 Patent. The analysis will not parse words but will compare the overall visual appearance of the accused products to the design illustrated in the patent's drawings. Practitioners may focus on which specific features of the design are its most prominent and character-defining elements in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The scope is defined entirely by the drawings.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim covers any two-part candlestick holder that uses a heart-shaped cut-out, focusing on the overall concept rather than minor details of proportion or texture.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the exact proportions, rectangular shaping, and specific appearance shown in the figures. The depiction of what appears to be wood grain texture in Figures 1-5 and 8 may be argued as a limiting feature of the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests an injunction against inducing or contributing to infringement (Prayer ¶2). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by the Defendants who are alleged to "manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell" the products (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for induced infringement or the sale of a non-staple component for contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are acting "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶14). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that Defendants sell "identical" products and operate as a concerted enterprise to exploit Plaintiff's design (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). No specific allegation of pre-suit notice is made.

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

1. Entity Identification: A threshold issue is procedural: can the Plaintiff successfully demonstrate that the various anonymous online sellers identified in "Annex A" are in fact a single enterprise or are "operating in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" (Compl. ¶12)? The viability of this "John Doe" litigation strategy depends on proving this connection.
2. Infringement and Design Scope: The core substantive question will be one of infringement under the ordinary observer test: are the accused candlestick holders sold by the Defendants "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '768 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? This will involve comparing the accused products to the patent's drawings and considering the impact of any relevant prior art on the scope of the claimed design.
3. Evidentiary Proof: A key evidentiary challenge will be linking each specific, anonymous Defendant to the sale of a product that is proven to infringe the ’768 Patent. Given the alleged use of "fake names" and tactics to "conceal their identities," obtaining and presenting this evidence for each named Defendant will be central to the litigation (Compl. ¶5, ¶12).