Lu v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yanzhe Lu (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03476, N.D. Ill., 04/30/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and ship products to consumers in Illinois, constituting tortious acts within the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators sell a soap dish apparatus that infringes a U.S. design patent owned by the Plaintiff.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns consumer home goods, specifically self-draining soap dishes, a product category characterized by intense competition on global online marketplaces where visual design is a key differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a schedule of unnamed e-commerce storefronts, a common strategy in actions against diffuse online seller networks. Plaintiff alleges these sellers coordinate to evade enforcement, citing their participation in online forums and websites such as "sellerdefense.cn".

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D968,842 - "SOAP DISH", issued November 8, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a novel aesthetic design for a consumer product (U.S. Patent No. D968,842, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a soap dish as depicted in its figures ('842 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of a leaf-shaped, angled dish with a drainage spout, which sits atop a two-part pedestal with a suction cup base ('842 Patent, FIGS. 1, 6). The design's visual identity is defined by the combination of its overall shape, the specific contours of the dish, and the proportions of the base.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is "unique and innovative" and "instantly recognizable" to consumers, suggesting its value lies in creating a distinct brand identity and visual appeal in the crowded online marketplace for household goods (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a soap dish, as shown and described" ('842 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual elements shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, which include:
  • An oblong, leaf-shaped top dish with a pointed end forming a drainage spout.
  • A concave top surface featuring several longitudinal ridges.
  • A distinct downward angle of the dish relative to its vertical stand.
  • A two-tiered cylindrical pedestal mounted on a flared, suction-cup-style base.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "soap dish apparatus" products sold by the Defendants under various "Seller Aliases" on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶¶4, 11). These are referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are unauthorized versions of the Plaintiff's product that feature the patented design (Compl. ¶4). It further alleges that the Defendants operate numerous storefronts, often with common identifiers, which suggests the products may originate from a common manufacturing source and are marketed using similar strategies to target U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶¶14, 17). The complaint does not include images of the actual accused products but asserts they are the "same...product that infringes" the patented design (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint's allegations are presented below.

D968,842 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The central issue will be factual. The complaint asserts that the accused products are the "same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶20), but it does not provide side-by-side visual evidence comparing an accused product to the patent drawings. The case will depend on Plaintiff producing evidence (such as product samples or screenshots of online listings) demonstrating that the Defendants' products are "substantially the same" as the claimed design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
  • Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over the proper application of the ordinary observer test. The court will need to determine if the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially similar to the overall visual impression of the '842 patent's design, considering the claimed features as a whole.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is generally not a central issue in design patent cases, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by words. The scope of the claim is "what is shown" in the figures. However, a potential point of contention could involve the portions of the design shown in broken lines.

• The Term: The scope of "as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The patent states that "The broken lines shown in the drawings are included for the purpose of illustrating environmental structure and unclaimed portions of the soap dish and form no part of the claimed design" ('842 Patent, Description). Practitioners may focus on this disclaimer because the infringement analysis must be limited to the elements shown in solid lines.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that infringement exists so long as the accused product copies the novel ornamental features shown in solid lines, regardless of how it implements the unclaimed (broken-line) portions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that differences in the unclaimed portions, while not dispositive, can alter the overall visual appearance of the accused product such that it is no longer "substantially the same" to an ordinary observer, thereby avoiding infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and asks for an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). The factual basis for this claim rests on the allegation that Defendants are "working in active concert" (Compl. ¶20).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the infringement was "knowingly and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants participate in online communities and use websites specifically designed to provide tactics for evading detection and litigation for IP infringement (Compl. ¶18).

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

1. A Core Evidentiary Question: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that the products sold by the numerous, pseudonymous Defendants are, in fact, "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the claimed design in the '842 patent? The outcome will likely depend on product-by-product visual comparisons.
2. A Central Procedural Challenge: Can the Plaintiff effectively enforce its patent rights against a diffuse, allegedly coordinated network of foreign e-commerce sellers who, according to the complaint, actively employ tactics to conceal their identities and evade legal judgments? This raises questions about jurisdiction, service of process, and the practical ability to secure and collect damages.