Guo v. CH E com

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kundian Guo (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule “A” (Jurisdictions unspecified, alleged to be primarily in China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty IP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03318, N.D. Ill., 06/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial internet stores, offering shipping to Illinois, and allegedly completing sales to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling storage shelves that infringe a U.S. design patent for an ornamental storage shelf design.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer home goods sector, specifically concerning the ornamental appearance of furniture and storage solutions sold through online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that it is common for defendants in similar cases to use fictitious names and move funds to evade enforcement, suggesting a pattern of litigation against such entities. The asserted patent is very recent, having issued approximately three months prior to the filing of this amended complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,019,220 - "Storage Shelf"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,019,220, "Storage Shelf," issued March 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the same manner as utility patents. The implicit goal is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a storage shelf (D'220 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a storage shelf, not its functional aspects (D'220 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a multi-tiered, stepped structure with four distinct shelf levels, creating a descending profile from left to right when viewed from the front (D'220 Patent, FIG. 1, 5). The overall form is composed of a series of interconnected rectangular frames that define the shelves and their vertical supports. The design as depicted is for the overall configuration and appearance of the shelf unit (D'220 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was the "first to market the claimed design" and has established a reputation for quality (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a storage shelf, as shown and described." (D'220 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings (D'220 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The essential visual elements include:
  • A four-tiered, stepped configuration.
  • An assembly of thin, rectangular frame members.
  • The specific proportional relationship between the heights and depths of the different tiers.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "storage shelf" products sold by the Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9). The complaint alleges that the Defendants sell the "same infringing product" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Defendants operate numerous online storefronts, often under fictitious names, to sell products that are direct copies of the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9, 10). The complaint includes a visual, "Image 1," which depicts the patented design itself and which Plaintiff also uses for its own products sold under the name THYGIFTREE (Compl. ¶5, p. 4, Image 1). This image of the patented design is used to represent what is allegedly being sold by Defendants.
• The complaint alleges that the Defendants' stores share common features, such as using the same product images, pricing, and marketing text, suggesting a coordinated operation (Compl. ¶11). The Defendants are alleged to be based primarily in China and target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8).

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 supposing it to be the patented one. The complaint does not include a comparative claim chart exhibit. The following summarizes the allegations.

D'220 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The central question will be a factual one: does the design of the products actually sold by the numerous, anonymous Defendants appear "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'220 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The complaint alleges the products are the "same" (Compl. ¶3), but this will require evidentiary proof for each Defendant.
  • Scope Questions: In design patent cases, the scope is defined by the drawings. A potential point of contention could arise if the accused products have variations in proportion, materials, or minor decorative elements not present in the patent's figures, which could raise the question of whether such differences are sufficient to avoid infringement in the eyes of an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction, which is generally not a central issue in design patent cases where the drawings, rather than words, define the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect infringement, stating Defendants' products "infringe directly and/or indirectly the claimed design" (Compl. ¶9). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging Defendants instructed others to infringe. The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. p. 8, ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" make and sell the infringing product (Compl. ¶9). The complaint further alleges that the infringement was willful without providing a factual basis for pre-suit knowledge, such as a notice letter (Compl. ¶16). The claim may rely on an inference of copying, given the allegation that Defendants sell the "same infringing product" (Compl. ¶3).

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

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The substantive core of the case will turn on the application of the ordinary observer test. The key question for the court will be whether the products sold by Defendants are "substantially the same" as the patented design shown in the D'220 Patent's figures, such that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived. This is a purely factual and visual determination that will depend on the evidence presented.
2. Defendant Identification and Enforcement: A significant practical issue, highlighted by the complaint's structure and allegations, will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction. The case alleges a network of difficult-to-identify foreign sellers operating through online marketplaces (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10). A central challenge for the Plaintiff will be successfully identifying the correct parties, effectuating service, and ultimately enforcing any judgment against entities allegedly designed to be anonymous and transient.