DCT

1:24-cv-02948

Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co Ltd v. Entities Individuals

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Case Name: Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., LTD. v. The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A
  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02948, N.D. Ill., 01/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Northern District of Illinois, where Defendants allegedly target residents and offer to sell and ship infringing products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing its design patent by selling foldable fans that are identical or substantially similar to the patented ornamental design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics market, specifically concerning the design of portable, personal cooling devices sold through online e-commerce platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff previously filed a successful lawsuit against other sellers of similar products, suggesting a history of enforcing this patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-12-02 D'982 Patent Priority Date
2020-06-09 D'982 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-22 Mention of prior related litigation decision
2025-01-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D886,982 - “FOLDABLE FAN”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D886,982, titled “FOLDABLE FAN,” issued on June 9, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a functional problem. The goal is to provide a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a foldable fan (D'982 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses the ornamental design for a foldable fan, which is characterized by its appearance in both folded and unfolded states. The design features a smooth, elongated, pill-shaped body when closed, with a circular indentation on one side (D’982 Patent, FIG. 11, 15). The fan unfolds via a hinge mechanism, revealing the fan blades and creating an L-shaped configuration for use (D’982 Patent, FIG. 19). The patent shows two distinct embodiments, with the primary difference being the base of the fan handle (D’982 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a compact, aesthetically distinct appearance for a portable fan, combining the handle and fan head into a single, pocketable form factor when not in use (D'982 Patent, FIG. 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a foldable fan, as shown and described" (D'982 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's twenty figures, which depict the design from multiple perspectives and in various states of configuration (e.g., folded, unfolded).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "foldable fans identical or substantially similar to claimed design" sold by the numerous Defendants listed in Annex A (Compl. ¶2). The complaint refers to these as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants operate e-commerce "storefronts" on platforms like eBay, Amazon, and Walmart to sell the accused fans to customers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that the Defendants, believed to be based in China, use tactics to conceal their identities and operate as an interconnected network, often using the same product images and descriptions (Compl. ¶3, ¶9, ¶12). The complaint includes an image of the patented design in a closed state, taken from Figure 11 of the patent, to represent the "Claimed Design" (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or side-by-side visual comparisons of the patented design and the accused products. It alleges that photographic evidence of the accused products is contained in Exhibit B, which was not included with the provided complaint. Therefore, a direct comparison is not possible based on the supplied documents.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused foldable fans are "identical or substantially similar" to the claimed design of the '982 Patent (Compl. ¶2). The complaint asserts infringement both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶22). In design patent cases, the legal test for infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the two designs are substantially the same, such that the observer would be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other.

The complaint provides several figures from the '982 Patent to illustrate the protected design. For example, the complaint includes Figure 11, showing a perspective view of the fan in its compact, folded state (Compl. p. 7). It also includes Figure 19, which shows the fan unfolded into its operational L-shape, illustrating the relationship between the handle and the fan head (Compl. p. 11). These figures establish the specific ornamental appearance that Plaintiff alleges is being infringed.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused products (as shown in the un-provided Exhibit B) and the specific ornamental features depicted in the '982 Patent's figures.
    • Scope Questions: The analysis will depend on the overall visual impression of the patented design, not on a comparison of discrete features. The extent to which prior art designs may limit the scope of the '982 Patent's protection will be a key issue should Defendants challenge the patent's validity or scope.
    • Evidentiary Questions: A primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to present sufficient evidence linking each of the numerous, pseudonymous Defendants identified in Annex A to the sale of specific, infringing products within the jurisdiction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. Design patents have a single claim for "the ornamental design as shown," and its scope is defined by the drawings, not by construing textual terms.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes a request for an injunction against inducing or contributing to infringement (Compl., Prayer ¶2). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement, alleging Defendants "directly or through intermediaries offer to sell and/or sell foldable fans" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are acting "knowingly and willfully" in concert to sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶14). The basis for this allegation appears to be the alleged scale and coordinated nature of the infringement across many online sellers, rather than specific notice of the '982 Patent provided to any particular Defendant (Compl. ¶5, ¶9).

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

  1. The Ordinary Observer Test: The case will fundamentally depend on whether an ordinary observer, comparing the accused fans to the design shown in the '982 Patent, would find them substantially the same. The outcome will hinge on the overall visual impression created by the products, not on minor differences.
  2. Impact of Prior Art: The scope of the '982 Patent's design protection, and thus the breadth of the infringement analysis, may be influenced by the landscape of prior art for foldable fans. The novelty of the patented design's overall appearance compared to what came before it will be critical.
  3. Enforcement and Evidence: A significant practical question is whether the Plaintiff can successfully serve and obtain jurisdiction over the numerous, allegedly anonymous foreign entities. Furthermore, Plaintiff bears the burden of presenting clear evidence tying each specific Defendant to the sale of products that meet the "ordinary observer" test for infringement.