He v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CL He (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction(s) Unknown, alleged to be primarily People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-04193, N.D. Ill., 05/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are believed to be aliens engaged in infringing activities and causing harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are selling jigsaw puzzle tables that infringe two of its U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of specialty furniture, specifically tables designed for assembling jigsaw puzzles, often featuring adjustable tops and storage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents-in-suit were assigned to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2023, from the original inventor. It further alleges that a prior assignee was forced to close an Amazon store due to price erosion from infringing products, which may inform the context for alleged damages and irreparable harm. The lawsuit targets a collective of unnamed e-commerce operators, a common strategy in anti-counterfeiting litigation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-01-27	Priority Date for D972,038 and D986,339 Patents
2022-12-06	U.S. Patent No. D972,038 Issued
2023-05-16	U.S. Patent No. D986,339 Issued
2023-12-15	Patented Designs assigned to Plaintiff CL He
2024-05-21	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D972,038

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D972,038 (Jigsaw Puzzle Table), issued December 6, 2022 (the “’038 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’038 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture (’038 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a jigsaw puzzle table, as depicted in its figures (’038 Patent, Claim). The core visual elements shown in solid lines include a three-panel tabletop, where a central panel can be tilted upwards, flanked by two stationary horizontal side panels (’038 Patent, FIG. 1). The design also features a distinct front profile with two small drawers or openings centered beneath the tabletop (’038 Patent, FIG. 2). The leg structure and other underlying mechanical components are rendered in broken lines, indicating they do not form part of the claimed design (’038 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "Patented Designs are broadly recognized by consumers," suggesting the design possesses market significance and consumer appeal (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a jigsaw puzzle table, as shown and described" (’038 Patent, Claim).
• The key ornamental features of the design are defined by the solid-line drawings and include:
  • A three-part top surface with a central tilting section.
  • Two fixed, rectangular side sections flanking the central top.
  • A specific front facade appearance with two central rectangular elements.

U.S. Patent No. D986,339

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D986,339 (Puzzle Table), issued May 16, 2023 (the “’339 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like the ’038 Patent, the ’339 Patent protects the ornamental design of a puzzle table, not a technical solution to a problem (’339 Patent, Claim). This patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to the ’038 Patent (’339 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data).
• The Patented Solution: The ’339 Patent claims an ornamental design for a puzzle table that shares a similar overall configuration to the ’038 Patent but introduces distinct features shown in solid lines. These include four pull-out drawers (two on each side) situated beneath the fixed side panels and a more detailed tilting mechanism support structure on the back (’339 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). The patent provides enlarged views detailing the ornamental appearance of features such as drawer hardware and support straps (’339 Patent, FIG. 10-14).
• Technical Importance: As with the ’038 Patent, the complaint alleges broad consumer recognition of the design (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a puzzle table, as shown and described" (’339 Patent, Claim).
• The key ornamental features of this design include:
  • A tilting central top surface.
  • Two fixed side sections, each positioned above two pull-out drawers.
  • The specific visual appearance of the drawer faces and associated hardware.
  • The ornamental appearance of a strap-based support for the tilting top.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "jigsaw puzzle tables" sold by the Defendants on e-commerce platforms like Amazon (Compl. ¶1, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate under multiple "Seller Aliases" to sell "unauthorized and unlicensed products" that are visually identical or substantially similar to the patented designs (Compl. ¶1). These e-commerce stores are alleged to target U.S. consumers and use "substantially similar advertising and marketing strategies" (Compl. ¶14, ¶16). The complaint states that the defendants are part of an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers" working in concert (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides figures from the asserted patents to illustrate the claimed designs (Compl. pp. 3-4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or side-by-side visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused products. The infringement theory is based on a general allegation that the Defendants are selling products that embody the claimed designs.

The complaint includes figures from U.S. Patent No. D972,038, such as a perspective view (FIG. 1), to illustrate the claimed ornamental design for a jigsaw puzzle table (Compl. p. 3). Similarly, the complaint displays figures from U.S. Patent No. D986,339, including a perspective view showing drawers and a tilting top (FIG. 1), to depict the design at issue (Compl. p. 4). The infringement test for design patents 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 implicitly alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶1, ¶26).

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: As the complaint does not contain images of the actual accused products, a central question for the court will be an evidentiary one: what is the specific appearance of the products sold by each Defendant, and are they substantially the same as the patented designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer?
• Scope Questions: Both patents use broken lines to disclaim significant portions of the table's structure (e.g., the legs and underlying framework) (’038 Patent, Description; ’339 Patent, Description). This raises the question of whether the accused products, which may have different unclaimed features, create a different overall visual impression that would defeat a claim of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is uncommon, as the drawings themselves define the scope of the claimed design. However, the interpretation of the article of manufacture can be relevant.

• The Term: "jigsaw puzzle table" / "puzzle table"
• Context and Importance: This phrase, found in the patents' titles, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied (’038 Patent, Title; ’339 Patent, Title). The definition of this article is relevant for identifying the scope and content of the prior art, which forms the backdrop for both the infringement and validity analyses. Practitioners may focus on this term to frame arguments about what an "ordinary observer" would consider when comparing the designs.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patents do not provide a specific textual definition for "jigsaw puzzle table" or "puzzle table." The interpretation is therefore guided by the figures themselves, which depict a table with a large, flat top surface suitable for puzzle assembly, along with features like tilting tops and storage drawers that are common in this product category (’038 Patent, FIG. 1; ’339 Patent, FIG. 1). The evidence is visual and contextual, rather than textual.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26) and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus exclusively on the Defendants' own alleged acts of making, using, offering for sale, and selling the accused products. The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for induced or contributory infringement against these seller Defendants.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly, and willfully infringed the Patented Designs" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not allege pre-suit notice to the Defendants but appears to base its willfulness claim on the theory that the Defendants are part of a network of intentional counterfeiters who are aware of their infringing conduct (Compl. ¶13-22).

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

• Evidentiary Linkage and Proof: A core issue will be an evidentiary one: can the Plaintiff successfully link the anonymous e-commerce storefronts to specific products and responsible entities, and then produce evidence showing that the visual appearance of those products is substantially the same as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
• Scope of Protection vs. Overall Appearance: A key question for infringement will be the impact of the disclaimed features: how will the court weigh the similarities in the claimed ornamental features against potential differences in the unclaimed structural elements (e.g., legs, materials, or overall size) when assessing the design's overall visual impression on an ordinary observer?
• Procedural Viability: A threshold question concerns joinder: can the Plaintiff successfully litigate against a diverse group of online sellers in a single action by demonstrating that they are an "interrelated group...working in active concert" (Compl. ¶22), or will the court find the Defendants to be improperly joined?