Gong v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yuanwen Gong (Zhuhai, China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (People's Republic of China and other foreign/domestic jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty and Associates
• Case Identification: Yuanwen Gong v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 1:24-cv-02985, N.D. Ill., 04/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ operation of interactive commercial websites that target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing a design patent for a wall lamp by selling products with a virtually identical ornamental appearance.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of lighting fixtures, a consumer product category where aesthetic appearance is a significant factor in purchasing decisions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. This filing appears to be the initial enforcement action.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,002,902 - "WALL LAMP"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,002,902, "WALL LAMP," issued October 24, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the patent does not articulate a technical problem. Instead, it seeks to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (U.S. D1,002,902 S, p. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a wall lamp. The claimed design, illustrated in seven figures, consists of the visual characteristics of a circular wall-mounting plate, a slender, curved gooseneck arm extending from the plate, and a lamp head assembly at the end of the arm composed of tiered cylindrical shapes (’902 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The design claim explicitly excludes portions shown in broken lines, such as the electrical cord and certain internal mounting features, which are not part of the protected design (’902 Patent, p. 3, col. 2:54-57).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's product embodying the design was "first to market" and has established a "reputation and quality reviews," suggesting the design's commercial significance (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a wall lamp, as shown and described" (’902 Patent, p. 3, col. 2:50-52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," identified as wall lamps sold by the Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants market, sell, and import products that are "reproduction[s], cop[ies] or colorable imitation[s]" of the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 20; Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). It further alleges that the Defendants operate as an "interrelated group of infringers," sharing common identifiers such as the same product images, advertising, and pricing strategies across their various online stores (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9, 12). Image 1 in the complaint provides a perspective view of the patented design being asserted (Compl. p. 4). The complaint references an Exhibit B, which purportedly shows the accused products, but this exhibit was not included with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. For a design patent, the legal test for infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendants’ products infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '902 Patent (Compl. ¶20). The infringement theory rests on the assertion that the accused wall lamps are visually indistinguishable from the design depicted in the '902 Patent's figures.

• 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 claimed design. This comparison will depend on the evidence of the accused products' appearance, which the complaint states is shown in the unavailable Exhibit B (Compl. ¶8).
  • Scope Questions: The scope of the '902 Patent's protection will be defined by its drawings. A key issue may be the impact of prior art on this scope. If Defendants can show the patented design is a minor variation of earlier lamp designs, the scope of protection may be narrowed, requiring a closer identity for a finding of infringement. The disclaimer for the electrical cord means that any differences in the cords of the accused products are legally irrelevant to the infringement analysis (’902 Patent, p. 3, col. 2:54-57).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than words. However, the title of the article of manufacture can be relevant.

• The Term: "wall lamp"
• Context and Importance: This term, from the patent's title, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied (’902 Patent, p. 3, Title). Its definition is foundational but unlikely to be a point of major dispute unless Defendants argue their accused products are not "wall lamps" at all. Practitioners may focus on the visual comparison of the design itself rather than a semantic debate over this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent provides a clear and consistent context for the term.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide specific detail for analysis of this element.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures themselves provide the primary definition, depicting an article that is unambiguously a wall lamp intended for mounting on a vertical surface (’902 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The description also consistently refers to the article as a "wall lamp" (’902 Patent, p. 3, col. 2:51, 56).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶9) and aiding and abetting (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts, such as providing instructions or components to a third party, that would be necessary to support a standalone claim for induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on Defendants' own direct infringement through sales.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶17). This allegation is based on assertions that Defendants have "knowingly" offered for sale and sold infringing products (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 16) and have engaged in tactics to conceal their identities and operations, such as using fictitious names (Compl. ¶11).

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

1. A central issue will be one of visual comparison: when applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused products substantially the same as the design claimed in the '902 patent, considering both the claimed solid-line features and the unclaimed broken-line elements?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of collective liability: can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil or otherwise prove that the various "Defendant Internet Stores," which are alleged to be operated by separate entities, function as a single "interrelated group" (Compl. ¶9) such that they can be held jointly liable for infringement?

3. The outcome may also turn on the scope of the patent in view of prior art: should the case proceed, a critical question for the court will be how prior designs in the field of wall lamps limit the scope of the '902 patent, which in turn will dictate how similar an accused product must be to infringe.