DCT

1:24-cv-04655

Shenzhen Jiyou Supply Chain Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-04655, N.D. Ill., 08/05/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendants are foreign corporations, which may be sued in any judicial district, and that they have offered for sale and sold products to consumers within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators infringe its U.S. design patent by making, offering for sale, and selling watch bands with a substantially similar ornamental appearance.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of watch bands, a product category within the highly competitive market for wearable technology accessories.
  • Key Procedural History: The Amended Complaint targets numerous, unidentified e-commerce sellers, designated collectively on a "Schedule A." This procedural posture is common in actions against diffuse online sellers who allegedly use tactics to conceal their identities and operations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-11-15 '089 Patent Priority Date
2022-11-22 '089 Patent Application Filing Date
2023-05-16 '089 Patent Issue Date
2024-08-05 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D986,089 - "Watch Band"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '089 Patent does not address a technical or functional problem. Rather, it provides a "distinctive and unique ornamental design" in the market for watch bands (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a watch band as depicted in its drawings ('089 Patent, CLAIM). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, consists of a multi-layered band featuring prominent crisscross stitching in a central section, rectangular hardware loops, and a particular configuration for the end pieces (see, e.g., '089 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). The patent explicitly disclaims portions of the watch band shown in broken lines, stating they "form no part of the claimed design" ('089 Patent, p. 2). The patent discloses three distinct embodiments of the design.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "instantly recognizable" and has generated significant goodwill for the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶5, ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a watch band, as shown and described" ('089 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual elements depicted in solid lines in the patent’s figures, including:
    • The overall configuration and proportions of the band.
    • A layered construction with visible edges.
    • A pattern of crisscross stitching on a central portion of the band.
    • The shape and placement of the band's hardware, such as the loops.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed watch bands" (the "Infringing Products") allegedly sold by the Defendants through e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, Walmart, Ebay, Alibaba, Temu, and Aliexpress (Compl. ¶7, ¶11, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as watch bands that are "infringing copies, or colorable imitations" of the design claimed in the '089 Patent (Compl. ¶11; Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). It alleges that Defendants design their e-commerce stores to appear as authorized retailers and use various tactics to attract consumers and conceal their identities (Compl. ¶16, ¶19). The complaint further alleges these products are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' products infringe the '089 Patent because their design is "substantially the same" as the patented design, such that their "slavish copying" is "likely to cause confusion to an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶18, ¶26). The infringement theory relies on the "ordinary observer" test, where an accused design infringes if it would deceive an ordinary observer into believing the accused product is the patented design. The complaint references "Amended Exhibit D" as containing a comparison of the accused products with the patented design, but this exhibit was not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶15). Therefore, a detailed side-by-side analysis of the claimed design and the accused products is not possible from the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design. This analysis will need to properly account for the features shown in broken lines, which are not part of the claimed design and cannot form the basis of an infringement finding ('089 Patent, p. 2).
    • Technical Questions: The ultimate question is one of visual comparison. The court will need to compare the accused products to the '089 Patent's drawings to determine if an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived. The existence of three embodiments in the patent may suggest a broader scope of protection, but each accused product must still be compared to the claimed design as a whole.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction does not involve defining words in the same manner as in utility patent cases. Instead, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself, as depicted in the drawings. The primary construction issue is determining the scope of the claimed design.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a watch band, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The scope of what is protected is the core of the dispute. Practitioners may focus on the visual effect of the disclaimed portions (broken lines). The infringement analysis must be based only on the features shown in solid lines, and the court's interpretation of the design's overall visual impression, excluding the disclaimed elements, will be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the overall "ornamental design," not isolated features. The disclosure of three distinct embodiments (see, e.g., '089 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 9, FIG. 17) may be argued to show that the protected concept is not limited to a single, rigid appearance but covers variations that share the core aesthetic.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes an explicit disclaimer: "The broken lines depict portions of the watch band that form no part of the claimed design" ('089 Patent, p. 2). This statement provides a clear and narrow boundary, limiting the protected design strictly to the elements illustrated with solid lines. Any similarity based on the functional or structural aspects shown in broken lines would be irrelevant to the infringement analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation that Defendants "infringe directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶26). However, the pleading does not set forth specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed or supplied materials to third-party infringers. The factual allegations focus exclusively on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing (Compl. ¶26).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully" infringed the '089 Patent (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation appears to be the alleged "slavish copying" of the design and the assertion that Defendants operate as part of a network of infringers who engage in deceptive business practices (Compl. ¶18, ¶19).

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

  1. The Visual Test: The case will fundamentally turn on a factual and visual question: Is the overall ornamental design of the accused watch bands substantially the same as the design claimed in the '089 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? Answering this will require comparing the actual accused products to the patent's drawings, focusing only on the claimed features shown in solid lines.
  2. Enforcement and Identification: A significant procedural issue will be the feasibility of enforcement. Given that the defendants are alleged to be anonymous, foreign-based entities using tactics to conceal their operations (Compl. ¶6, ¶19), a primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be identifying the responsible parties and securing effective relief.
  3. Scope of Protection: A key legal question will be how the court defines the scope of the patented design. The outcome of the visual test will depend on how the court weighs the overall appearance of the design as a whole against the specific elements shown across the three disclosed embodiments, while properly excluding all disclaimed subject matter.