Jiaxiang Ye v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jiaxiang Ye (Individual)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Foreign entities)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Albert Wai-Kit Chan, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02874, N.D. Ill., 04/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Northern District of Illinois on the basis that the defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ warmer lamps, sold through various online e-commerce stores, infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a "Warmer Lamp."
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer home goods and decor market, specifically concerning electric candle warmer lamps that use a light bulb to melt wax.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff has granted licenses to certain e-commerce stores on Amazon, distinguishing them from the accused infringers. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned. The case is structured as an enforcement action against a network of unidentified foreign online sellers.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,017,877 S - “Warmer Lamp”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,017,877 S, “Warmer Lamp,” issued March 12, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents address the need for new, original, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture, rather than solving a technical problem. The patent protects a novel aesthetic appearance for a warmer lamp.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a warmer lamp, which consists of the visual characteristics shown in the patent's figures (D’877 Patent, FIG. 1-8). The design combines a rectangular base with a circular indent, a J-shaped arm extending vertically from the base, and a pleated, frustoconical (tapered cone) lampshade suspended over the base (D’877 Patent, FIG. 1; DESCRIPTION). The power cord and plug are depicted in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the claimed design (D’877 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The design’s importance lies in providing a distinct and recognizable aesthetic in the competitive market for home decor and fragrance products, which the complaint alleges is "instantly recognizable" to consumers (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a warmer lamp, as shown and described." (D’877 Patent, CLAIM).
• The essential ornamental elements of the claimed design are:
  • A rectangular block-like base.
  • A curved, J-shaped support arm extending upward from one end of the base.
  • A downward-facing, pleated, frustoconical lampshade suspended from the arm.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Warmer Lamp" products sold by the Defendants through "fully interactive e-commerce stores on Amazon" and other platforms (Compl. ¶12, ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are alleged to be "counterfeit products" and "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's patented products (Compl. ¶1, ¶24). The complaint alleges that these products are sold by a network of foreign entities that use various tactics to conceal their identities and appear as legitimate retailers (Compl. ¶15, ¶18-19). The complaint includes a photograph of what it identifies as a "Sample Infringing Product," showing a lamp with a candle placed on its base beneath the lampshade (Compl. p. 4). This image depicts a product that visually appears to be a candle warmer lamp (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused article thinking it was the patented design. The complaint presents its infringement theory through a side-by-side visual comparison.

D’877 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The side-by-side comparison in the complaint suggests a high degree of similarity (Compl. p. 4). Any potential defense would have to focus on identifying visual differences between the accused lamps and the patent's drawings that are significant enough to prevent observer confusion.
• Scope Questions: As the power cord and plug are disclaimed via broken lines in the patent drawings, they cannot form a basis for either infringement or non-infringement (D’877 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The analysis will focus exclusively on the visual appearance of the lamp itself—the base, arm, and shade.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the visual design as depicted in the patent's drawings, not a set of written words. Consequently, formal construction of specific textual terms is generally not a central issue. The court's primary role is to interpret the scope of the design as a whole, often by describing its ornamental features verbally, before comparing it to the accused product. The complaint does not present any dispute that would turn on the interpretation of a specific word or phrase, instead focusing on the overall visual identity of the lamp (Compl. ¶10).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶28). However, the factual allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, offering for sale, and selling the accused products through their e-commerce stores, which are acts of direct infringement (Compl. ¶12, ¶22).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully" used the '877 Patent (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by claims of "slavish copying" and operating a business model designed to sell "counterfeit products" and "inferior imitations" (Compl. ¶1, ¶10). Plaintiff seeks enhanced damages, which requires a finding of willful infringement (Compl. p. 12, ¶5).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the ornamental design of the accused warmer lamps substantially the same as the design claimed in the '877 patent? The resolution of this question will depend almost entirely on a visual assessment of the products against the patent drawings.
• The primary practical challenge will be one of enforcement: Given that the defendants are alleged to be a network of unidentified foreign entities operating through transient e-commerce storefronts, a key question is whether the court's jurisdiction can be effectively established and whether any resulting injunction or monetary award can be meaningfully enforced against them.