DCT

1:24-cv-04193

He v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: GZ Long Ya Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdictions not specified, alleged to be foreign)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-04193, N.D. Ill., 05/28/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendants are aliens and may be sued in any district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores are selling jigsaw puzzle tables that infringe the ornamental designs protected by two U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The case involves the market for specialized furniture, specifically tables designed for assembling and storing jigsaw puzzles, sold through online e-commerce platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it is the sole assignee of the patents-in-suit via an assignment executed on April 24, 2024. The complaint is filed against a group of unnamed e-commerce sellers, a common strategy in the Northern District of Illinois for targeting alleged counterfeiters operating under various online aliases.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-01-27 Earliest 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
2024-04-24 Patents-in-suit assigned to Plaintiff
2024-05-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D972,038, "Jigsaw puzzle table," Issued December 6, 2022

The Invention Explained

Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not its function.

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the manner of utility patents. The implicit goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for an article—in this case, a jigsaw puzzle table.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a jigsaw puzzle table as depicted in its seven figures (’D972,038 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The design features a central rectangular tabletop with two foldable, winged side panels of equal size. This top assembly rests on a base with four simple legs connected by lower crossbars. The broken lines in the drawings indicate that the underlying support structure and other elements are not part of the claimed design (’D972,038 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic for a foldable, expansive work surface intended for hobbyists.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have only one claim. The claim is for "the ornamental design for a jigsaw puzzle table, as shown and described" (’D972,038 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The essential visual elements are:
    • A three-panel top surface with a central panel and two foldable side panels.
    • The specific proportions and rectangular shape of the panels as shown in the figures.
    • The overall visual impression created by the solid-lined elements of the drawings.

U.S. Design Patent No. D986,339, "Puzzle table," Issued May 16, 2023

The Invention Explained

This patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ’038 Patent, protects a related but distinct ornamental design for a puzzle table (’D986,339 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data).

  • Problem Addressed: As with the parent patent, the goal is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for a puzzle table.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’339 Patent claims the visual appearance of a puzzle table that includes additional features not present in the ’038 Patent design (’D986,339 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The drawings show a table with a tilting central work surface, drawers integrated beneath the side panels, and a different leg and support structure. The claim covers the specific aesthetic combination of these features, as depicted in the sixteen figures (’D986,339 Patent, FIG. 1-16).
  • Technical Importance: This design offers a different aesthetic for a puzzle table, characterized by integrated storage drawers and an adjustable, angled work surface.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim is for "the ornamental design for a puzzle table, as shown and described" (’D986,339 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The essential visual elements are:
    • A central tabletop capable of tilting.
    • Drawers located beneath the left and right side surfaces.
    • The specific handle design and placement on the drawers.
    • The overall aesthetic appearance created by the combination of these features in the proportions shown.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "jigsaw puzzle tables" sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under multiple "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are "unauthorized and unlicensed products" that infringe the patented designs (Compl. ¶1). They are offered for sale on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon and target consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that the e-commerce stores share unique identifiers, such as similar product images and specifications, suggesting the products originate from a common source or network (Compl. ¶1). The complaint includes figures from the patents to illustrate the patented designs; for example, a perspective view of the table design from the '038 Patent is shown. (Compl. ¶7, p. 3). A similar perspective view of the more complex table design from the '339 Patent is also displayed in the complaint. (Compl. ¶7, p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, and selling "Infringing Products" that infringe both the ’038 and ’339 Patents (Compl. ¶26). It references "jigsaw puzzle tables shown in Exhibit 1" as the infringing articles (Compl. ¶1). However, Exhibit 1 was not included with the complaint provided for analysis. Therefore, a direct visual comparison between the patented designs and the accused products is not possible.

The infringement allegation for a design patent rests on 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's allegation that Defendants sell the "same unauthorized and unlicensed products" suggests a theory of direct copying or near-identical similarity (Compl. ¶1).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs. This will require a side-by-side comparison of the accused products (as shown in Exhibit 1 or other evidence) with the patent drawings.
    • Scope of the Designs: A potential issue is the scope of the claimed designs, particularly the distinction between the elements shown in solid lines (which are claimed) and those in broken lines (which are not). Infringement requires appropriation of the novel ornamental features of the claimed design, not just the general concept of a puzzle table.
    • Distinction Between Patents: The court may need to consider whether the accused products infringe the simpler design of the ’038 Patent, the more complex design of the ’339 Patent, or both. Infringement of one does not automatically imply infringement of the other, as they claim distinct ornamental features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are typically no "claim terms" to construe in the traditional sense. The claim is defined by the drawings as a whole. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance of the design rather than the definition of words.

Practitioners may focus on the scope of the "ornamental design" itself. The key legal determination is not the meaning of a term, but what specific visual elements are protected by the patent's solid lines and how those elements combine to create the overall aesthetic impression.

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the design's overall visual effect is what matters, and that minor differences in the accused product should be ignored if the general appearance is the same. The focus would be on the overall configuration and impression created by the claimed features, such as the three-panel folding top (’D972,038 Patent, FIG. 1) or the combination of a tilting top with side drawers (’D986,339 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the exact proportions, surface ornamentation, and specific shapes shown in the drawings. Any deviation in the accused product from these precise details would support a finding of non-infringement. For example, the specific mechanism for tilting the table or the exact handle design on the drawers in the ’339 Patent could be argued as limiting features of the claimed design (’D986,339 Patent, FIG. 11, 12).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing the Patented Designs (Compl. ¶26). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed third parties on how to infringe or provided a component with no substantial non-infringing use. The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly, and willfully infringed the Patented Designs" (Compl. ¶22). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the general assertion that Defendants are part of an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers misappropriating Plaintiff's valuable intellectual property" (Compl. ¶22), rather than an allegation of knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit prior to the litigation.

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

  1. The Evidentiary Question of Appearance: As this is a design patent case against online sellers where the specific accused products are not yet before the court, the primary issue is evidentiary. A key question will be: What is the actual ornamental appearance of the products sold by the Defendants, and is that appearance substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’038 and ’339 patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer?
  2. The Scope of Liability: The complaint alleges that a diverse group of "Seller Aliases" are an "interrelated group" acting in concert (Compl. ¶22). A central procedural and substantive question will be: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to link these disparate online storefronts and demonstrate that they are a unified operation, justifying joint liability and a broad injunction?
  3. The Basis for Damages: Plaintiff alleges it had to close its own store due to "unfair competition and price erosion" (Compl. ¶2). A critical question for the damages phase will be: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to quantify its own losses or the Defendants' profits, and to establish a causal link between the alleged infringement by a diffuse set of sellers and its specific economic harm?