DCT

1:24-cv-03794

Zhang

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Guanyi Zhang (People's Republic of China)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03794, N.D. Ill., 05/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unidentified online merchants are infringing a U.S. design patent by selling table lamps that copy the patented ornamental design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer lighting products, specifically table lamps sold through online e-commerce platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is brought against a group of unnamed defendants, identified only in a sealed "Schedule A," a common procedural posture in cases targeting numerous, allegedly related online infringers. Plaintiff alleges these defendants operate as an interrelated network to sell the same infringing products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
c. 2020 Plaintiff begins marketing and selling table lamp products in the U.S.
2021-09-08 U.S. Design Patent D985,180 application filed (Priority Date)
2023-05-02 U.S. Design Patent D985,180 issues
2024-05-09 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D985,180 - "TABLE LAMP"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D985,180, "TABLE LAMP", issued May 2, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address a technical problem but instead protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (’180 Patent, Title Page).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a table lamp. Key ornamental features shown in the patent's figures include a rectangular base, a central vertical support structure shaped as a rectangular "open window," and a rectangular lampshade mounted atop the support (’180 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 2). The base is depicted with integrated outlets and/or switches (’180 Patent, FIG. 2). The overall aesthetic is one of clean, geometric shapes.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying the patented design are known for their "distinctive designs" and are "loved by customers" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a table lamp, as shown and described" (’180 Patent, Claim).
  • This claim protects the overall visual impression of the lamp created by the combination of all ornamental features depicted in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "table lamp products ('the Infringing Products')" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Defendants, a group of unidentified online merchants, are making, using, offering for sale, and/or importing table lamps that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶¶4-5).
  • These products are allegedly sold through "fully interactive, internet e-commerce stores" (Compl. ¶2), which share common features such as product images, payment methods, and pricing, suggesting a coordinated operation (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not contain images of the accused products themselves, instead providing a representative figure from the patent to illustrate the design at issue (Compl. p. 4). This figure from the complaint is described as "A representative figure of the ’180 Patent" (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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 does not provide a side-by-side comparison or detailed breakdown. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the Defendants’ "Infringing Products" are confusingly similar to the patented design.

The infringement theory is that the "Infringing Products" sold by Defendants are visually identical or nearly identical to the lamp design shown in the ’180 Patent (Compl. ¶¶4, 24). The complaint alleges that Defendants' e-commerce stores sell "the exact same infringing products" and use the "same or similar product images" across their storefronts, which presumably depict a lamp that copies the patented design (Compl. ¶14). The core of the infringement claim rests on the allegation that the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’180 Patent (Compl. ¶24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the drawings themselves, and formal claim construction of verbal terms is rare. The central analysis will not be the definition of a word but a visual comparison of the accused product to the patented design as a whole.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. ¶23; Prayer for Relief ¶A). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a separate count of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement has been "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶¶18, 19, 23). This allegation appears to be based on the general assertion that Defendants are intentional "online infringers who trade upon Mr. Zhang's patented design" (Compl. ¶4) and use common tactics to evade enforcement (Compl. ¶¶15-17).

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

  1. Evidentiary Proof of Infringement: A central question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the specific products sold by each of the numerous, unnamed Defendants are, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’180 Patent. The complaint asserts this but does not provide visual evidence of the accused products.
  2. Procedural Viability: The case's structure—suing a large, allegedly interconnected group of anonymous foreign sellers—raises the question of whether the court will find joinder of all "Schedule A" defendants appropriate and whether the Plaintiff can effectively obtain discovery and enforce a judgment against these entities.
  3. Willfulness and Damages: A key factual dispute will be whether Plaintiff can prove that the Defendants had the requisite knowledge of the ’180 Patent to support a finding of willful infringement, which would be a predicate for enhanced damages and attorney's fees. Proving knowledge for a diffuse group of anonymous online sellers may present a significant challenge.