Zhu v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jiaren Zhu (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05028, N.D. Ill., 07/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce sellers are infringing a U.S. design patent by selling magnetic key holders that are visually almost identical to the patented design.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental aesthetic design of a consumer gadget, specifically a magnetic box used for securely storing keys.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights the procedural difficulty of litigating against the named Defendants, who are alleged to be numerous foreign entities operating under aliases on e-commerce platforms to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-07-01	Plaintiff allegedly created the design for magnetic keyholders (approximate date)
2023-09-29	U.S. Patent No. D1,020,230 S Priority Date (Application Filed)
2024-04-02	U.S. Patent No. D1,020,230 S Issued
2024-07-17	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,020,230 S - “Magnetic Key Holder”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,020,230 S, titled “Magnetic Key Holder,” issued April 2, 2024 (the ’230 Patent). Note: The complaint text incorrectly cites the patent-in-suit as U.S. Patent No. D813,317 S; however, the named inventor, subject matter, and the application and issuance dates cited in the complaint correspond exclusively to the ’230 Patent (Compl. ¶5, ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’230 Patent protects ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint states the plaintiff engages in creating designs for "daily use gadgets that are both functional and aesthetic pleasing" (Compl. ¶5).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a magnetic key holder. The design features a rectangular case with rounded corners, a ribbed texture across the front and back surfaces, two prominent circular elements on the front face, and an integrated loop feature at the top of the case ('230 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3). The figures further depict the design from all sides and in an open, clamshell configuration ('230 Patent, FIGS. 1-9).
• Technical Importance: The design's asserted importance is its unique aesthetic, which serves to distinguish the plaintiff's product in the consumer gadget marketplace (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The ’230 Patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a magnetic key holder, as shown and described" ('230 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article as depicted in Figures 1-12 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "magnetic keyholder[s]" sold by the Defendants through e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶4, ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "almost identical to Plaintiff's Patented Design" (Compl. ¶10). Plaintiff's own product is marketed with keywords like “Magnetic Key Holder Under Car” and “Waterproof Key Hider/Box,” indicating the products are intended for secure, external key storage (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges that the visual similarity between the products makes it "impossible" for consumers to differentiate the accused products from those embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶12).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart, and the exhibit referenced as containing photos of the accused products (Exhibit 2) was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶10). The infringement theory is based on the legal standard for design patent infringement, known as the "ordinary observer" test. The complaint alleges that the accused products are "almost identical" to the patented design and that this resemblance is sufficient to cause consumer confusion (Compl. ¶10, ¶12).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central factual question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, would find the accused designs to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’230 Patent. The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison of the accused products and the patent figures.
  • Scope of Protection: The analysis may raise the question of which specific visual features of the patented design are ornamental and protected, versus those that might be considered primarily functional. Design patents protect only the non-functional, ornamental aspects of an article's design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. Design patent claims, which consist of a reference to drawings, are typically not subject to claim construction of specific terms in the manner of utility patent claims.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a formal count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief includes a request for an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the Patented Design" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is alleged on the basis that "Defendants are working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶15-16). The complaint does not allege specific facts indicating that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’230 Patent itself.

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: are the accused magnetic key holders sold by the various online sellers "substantially the same" in overall appearance as the design claimed in the ’230 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived?
• A significant procedural challenge will be the identification, service, and exercise of jurisdiction over the numerous, pseudonymous defendants, who are alleged to be foreign entities deliberately using online platforms to obscure their identities—a factor the plaintiff characterizes as a "Wack-A-Mole" game.
• A preliminary evidentiary question will be what visual evidence is produced to establish the appearance of the accused products. The case will turn on a direct comparison, and the court's analysis cannot proceed without clear depictions of the products sold by each defendant.