Luo v. Partnerships Unincorp Organizations In Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yu Luo (Ya An, China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China and other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty and Associates
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01977, N.D. Ill., 03/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business to U.S. consumers, including in Illinois, through interactive commercial internet stores that offer shipping to the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sale of shelf brackets infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a shelf bracket.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a shelf bracket, a common hardware component used for mounting shelves.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint presents this case as an action against a network of online infringers who allegedly operate numerous storefronts using fictitious identities to sell infringing products. Plaintiff notes that it grants licenses to third parties and sells its own products featuring the patented design. The patent-in-suit is recently issued.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-01-11	U.S. Patent D1,012,683 Filing Date
2024-01-30	U.S. Patent D1,012,683 Issue Date
2024-03-08	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,012,683 - "SHELF BRACKET"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,012,683, "SHELF BRACKET," issued January 30, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a functional solution to a technical problem. The patent protects a new, original, and ornamental design for a shelf bracket ('683 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a shelf bracket as depicted in its eight figures ('683 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1.1-1.8). The design consists of an L-shaped bracket with a rectangular horizontal base plate containing four countersunk holes near the corners, and a vertical upright plate. A significant feature is the use of symbolic break lines on the vertical plate; the patent explicitly states that "the area between the symbolic break lines form[s] no part of the claimed design" ('683 Patent, Description). This disclaimer means the protected design consists of the base plate and the top and bottom portions of the vertical plate, with the length of the vertical plate being indeterminate.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff established its product featuring this design as "the first to market" and has an "established reputation and quality reviews" (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• As a design patent, there is a single claim for "The ornamental design for a shelf bracket, as shown and described" ('683 Patent, Claim).
• The key ornamental features constituting the claimed design include:
  • The overall L-shaped configuration.
  • The horizontal base plate with four countersunk holes arranged near its corners.
  • The visible upper and lower portions of the vertical plate, each featuring a countersunk hole.
  • The design as a whole, excluding the disclaimed indeterminate-length middle section of the vertical plate ('683 Patent, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically shelf brackets, that are offered for sale, sold, and imported by the Defendants through numerous online stores (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 19). Specific images of the accused products are contained in Exhibit B to the complaint, which was filed under seal and is not part of the public record (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Defendants operate a network of "Defendant Internet Stores" on various online marketplace platforms (Compl. ¶¶2, 11). These stores are alleged to be an "interrelated group" that uses common tactics, such as shared product images, similar pricing, and copied advertising, to market and sell the accused shelf brackets to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶9, 12). Plaintiff alleges this is done to conceal the Defendants' true identities and the full scope of their operation (Compl. ¶¶3, 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or include images of the accused products in the public filing, as they are contained in a sealed exhibit (Compl. ¶8). As such, a direct comparison of the patented design to the accused products is not possible from the available record. The complaint's infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents.

The core allegation is that the accused shelf brackets are "substantially the same" in appearance as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing an accused product believing it to be the patented one (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The complaint asserts that Defendants' products are a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the '683 Patent" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). The complaint includes a visual, "Image 1," which it identifies as "Plaintiff's inventive design" to serve as the basis for comparison (Compl. ¶5, p. 4). Image 1 from the complaint depicts a perspective view of the patented shelf bracket design, consistent with Figure 1.1 of the '683 Patent (Compl. p. 4).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question of Similarity: The central issue will be a factual comparison between the specific designs of the accused products (in sealed Exhibit B) and the claimed design of the '683 patent. The case will depend on whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the patented design to an ordinary observer.
  • Scope Questions: A key question for the court will be how to apply the ordinary observer test given the patent's disclaimer of the middle portion of the bracket's vertical arm ('683 Patent, Description). The infringement analysis must disregard this disclaimed section and focus only on the similarity of the claimed portions—the base plate and the top and bottom ends of the vertical member.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While formal claim construction is less common in design patent litigation, the scope of the single claim is a central issue.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a shelf bracket, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The scope of this claim is expressly limited by the specification. Practitioners may focus on the disclaimer stating that "the area between the symbolic break lines form[s] no part of the claimed design" ('683 Patent, Description). The interpretation of this limitation is critical because it dictates that infringement must be judged based on the appearance of the bracket's end portions and base, not the length or appearance of its disclaimed middle section.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the use of break lines and the express disclaimer are intended to give the design broad scope, covering brackets of any length so long as the claimed ornamental features of the ends and base are present.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that protection is limited to the precise visual details shown in the non-disclaimed portions of the figures, such as the specific proportions, corner radii, and countersink profiles depicted in Figures 1.1 through 1.8.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing conduct (Compl. ¶19) and references "aiding, abetting, contributing to" infringement in the prayer for relief (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge of the patent combined with actions intended to encourage infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" sell products that infringe (Compl. ¶9, 16). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the claim that Defendants operate a coordinated network of online stores that copy "product images, ... advertising, [and] design elements" and are designed to appear as legitimate retailers while knowingly selling infringing goods (Compl. ¶¶3, 12).

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

1. A Factual Question of Visual Similarity: The dispositive issue is factual: are the accused products, which are not visible in the public record, "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the claimed design of the '683 patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
2. The Impact of the Design Disclaimer: A central legal and factual question will be the proper application of the "ordinary observer" test in light of the patent's explicit disclaimer of the bracket's middle section. The infringement analysis will likely focus entirely on a comparison of the claimed end portions and base plate, irrespective of differences in the unclaimed sections of the accused products.
3. The Scope of Injunctive Relief: A key procedural question will be whether Plaintiff can prove its allegations that the numerous Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" (Compl. ¶9) operating in concert, which would be necessary to justify a single, broad injunction covering all of their separate online storefronts.