Zhang v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mingsen Zhang (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Liu, Esq.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02988, N.D. Ill., 06/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities and may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of sink installation brackets on platforms like Amazon and Ebay infringe a patent related to an adjustable sink support bracket.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical hardware accessories used in plumbing and construction to provide adjustable support for under-counter sinks, preventing deformation and leakage.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants are part of a network of online sellers who use fictitious names and other tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement efforts.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,060,269 - Bracket for Installing Sink

(Issued: July 13, 2021)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional sink installations where the sink is supported only by its outer rim on a countertop. This can lead to deformation, water leakage, and seepage due to the sink's weight ('269 Patent, col. 1:17-24). Existing support tripods are often fixed in length and angle, making them difficult to install, not easily adjustable for different environments, and lacking in versatility ('269 Patent, col. 1:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an adjustable bracket designed to be mounted to a wall or cabinet wall to support the sink from below. It consists of a fixed base, a support rod that can be adjusted for height (upward-downward) and angle (rotatable) within the base, and a "jacking structure" at the top of the rod that abuts the corner of the sink to provide support ('269 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The adjustment is facilitated by a connecting bolt that passes through "waist-shaped holes" in the base, and the final support tension is applied by a "jacking bolt" at the bottom that pushes the support rod upward ('269 Patent, col. 4:25-col. 5:54).
• Technical Importance: This design allows for a versatile and adjustable support that can be adapted to different sink types and installation spaces, aiming to simplify installation and improve the sink's long-term structural integrity ('269 Patent, col. 3:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "the claims of the '269 Patent" without specifying particular claims (Compl. ¶19). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A fixed base installed via an installing structure.
  • A support rod with a lower end that extends into the fixed base and is movable upward-downward and is rotatable.
  • An upper end of the support rod configured with a jacking structure for abutting a corner between a sink body and an installing plate.
  • A holding structure for holding the lower end of the support rod.
  • The fixed base comprises a first, second, and third vertical plate forming a rectangular structure, with extension plates for mounting.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

"Bracket for installing sink" sold by Defendants through e-commerce stores on Amazon and Ebay (Compl. ¶2). The complaint refers to these as "counterfeit bracket[s]" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are sold and offered for sale to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶6). The functionality of the accused products is to provide support for sinks, directly competing with the patented invention (Compl. ¶7, 9). The complaint includes a visual aid showing checkout pages for the accused products being offered for sale to consumers in the judicial district. (Compl. ¶4; Ex. B). Plaintiff alleges Defendants operate a "massive infringing operation" using multiple fictitious names and tactics to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed, element-by-element infringement allegations in its text. Instead, it alleges that the accused products are "counterfeit" and incorporates by reference an "Exhibit C," which it describes as a direct comparison of the accused brackets with the patented invention (Compl. ¶17). The complaint contains a visual comparison of an accused product with the patented invention. (Compl. ¶17; Ex. C). The core of the infringement theory is that the accused products are direct copies that embody all elements of the asserted claims. The complaint also provides screenshots as evidence of Defendants offering the products for sale in the United States. (Compl. ¶4; Ex. B).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "jacking structure for abutting against a corner between a sink body of the sink and an installing plate for the sink" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the interface between the invention and the sink itself. The precise meaning of "jacking structure," "corner," and how it "abuts" will be central to determining infringement, especially if an accused device has a differently shaped top piece or makes contact with the sink in a slightly different location.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, describing what the structure does ("abutting against a corner"). This may support an interpretation that covers any structure performing this function, regardless of its specific form.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment: a "jacking plate (9)" with an "upper abutting portion (901)" and a "lower abutting portion (902)" that form a "corner structure" ('269 Patent, col. 5:14-21; Fig. 4). A defendant might argue the term should be limited to this two-part, corner-shaped plate structure.

• The Term: "waist-shaped hole" (Claim 2)

• Context and Importance: This term, recited in dependent claim 2, is critical to the adjustability feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a specific structural feature that enables both up-and-down and rotational movement. An accused product using a simple slot, a circular hole, or another mechanism for adjustment could argue it does not meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which could support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art, potentially covering similar elongated slots that serve the same function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 depicts the "waist-shaped hole (5)" as a vertical slot with straight sides and rounded ends ('269 Patent, Fig. 3). The term itself implies a specific shape, which could be used to argue for a narrow construction that excludes simple rectangular slots.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶19) but does not plead specific facts to support either inducement (e.g., instructions encouraging infringement) or contributory infringement (e.g., knowledge of infringement and lack of substantial non-infringing uses).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully" infringed the '269 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Prayer for Relief ¶4). The basis for willfulness appears to be allegations that Defendants operate as a network of "online infringers" who actively conceal their identities and sell "counterfeit" products (Compl. ¶9, 11, 17).

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

1. Evidentiary Challenge: A primary issue will be one of proof and attribution. Can the Plaintiff successfully link each of the numerous, allegedly anonymous "Schedule A" Defendants to the specific offers for sale and sales of the accused products in the United States, as depicted in the complaint's exhibits?
2. Scope of "Counterfeit": The case appears to be premised on the accused products being direct copies. A key factual and legal question will be whether the products identified in Exhibit C are, in fact, direct copies that meet every limitation of the asserted claims, or if there are subtle but material technical differences.
3. Claim Construction: Should the case proceed to claim construction, a central issue will be one of definitional scope. Can the functional term "jacking structure" from Claim 1 be construed broadly to cover various top-piece configurations, or will it be limited to the specific two-part plate embodiment shown in the patent's figures? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for infringement.