Shenzhen Yixun Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Yixun Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdiction(s) unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: Shenzhen Yixun Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 1:24-cv-05410, N.D. Ill., 06/27/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through the operation of interactive e-commerce stores and the shipment of products to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that virtual reality accessories sold by Defendant e-commerce operators infringe three of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of accessories for virtual reality (VR) headsets, a consumer electronics market where aesthetic design and ergonomics are key product differentiators.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the case is related to a prior case, 2024-cv-4780, which involves "some of the same intellectual property." The defendants are a group of unnamed entities identified on a "Schedule A," a procedural approach often used in actions against numerous, and allegedly related, online sellers.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2022-01-09	Priority Date for U.S. Patent D1,004,684
2022-01-11	Priority Date for U.S. Patent D993,245
2022-01-17	Priority Date for U.S. Patent D1,004,574
2023-07-25	U.S. Patent D993,245 Issued
2023-11-14	U.S. Patent D1,004,574 Issued
2023-11-14	U.S. Patent D1,004,684 Issued
2024-06-27	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D993,245 - "Virtual Reality Headset," issued July 25, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem but instead protect the novel, non-obvious ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D993,245 Patent, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a VR headset. The design is characterized by the overall configuration and appearance of its components, including a curved top head strap, elongated side arms connecting to the visor section, and a distinct rear-mounted adjustment knob assembly (D993,245 Patent, DESCRIPTION; Fig. 1). The claim covers the visual impression of the article as a whole, as depicted in the solid lines of the patent's drawings.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges these patented designs are "instantly recognizable" and have come to "symbolize high quality virtual reality devices" among consumers (Compl. ¶7, ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a virtual reality headset, as shown and described" (D993,245 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features shown in solid lines in Figures 1-8, which include:
  • The overall shape and proportions of the head strap assembly.
  • The specific contours of the side arms and their attachment points.
  • The design of the circular rear adjustment knob and its housing.

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,004,574 - "Virtual Reality Goggle Frame," issued November 14, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent protects the ornamental design of a "virtual reality goggle frame," also known as a facial interface (D1,004,574 Patent, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for the frame that interfaces with the user's face. The design's key visual features include its specific ovoid perimeter, the contours of the inner and outer surfaces, and the distinct shape of the nose cutout area (D1,004,574 Patent, DESCRIPTION; Fig. 1-3).
• Technical Importance: As the primary point of contact with the user, the design of a facial interface is significant for comfort and light-blocking performance, making its aesthetic appearance a key element of the product's identity. The complaint alleges this design is part of the broader "Yixun Design" recognized by consumers (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a virtual reality goggle frame, as shown and described" (D1,004,574 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope is defined by the solid-line drawings, which depict:
  • A continuous, contoured frame with a specific curvature.
  • A pronounced, V-shaped indentation for the nose bridge.
  • The layered or stepped profile of the frame's edges.

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,004,684 - "Glasses Protective Cover for Virtual Reality Goggles," issued November 14, 2023

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,004,684, "Glasses Protective Cover for Virtual Reality Goggles," issued November 14, 2023.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a lens protector accessory for VR goggles. The claimed design consists of two connected, ovular caps shaped to fit over the device's lenses to prevent scratches or dust accumulation ('684 Patent, DESCRIPTION; Fig. 1).
• Asserted Claims: The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described ('684 Patent, CLAIM).
• Accused Features: The complaint broadly alleges that the "Infringing Products," described as a "virtual reality apparatus," infringe the design protected by the ’684 patent as part of the overall "Yixun Design" (Compl. ¶5, ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "virtual reality apparatus" and "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5). It does not name specific manufacturers or product models, instead targeting products sold by a list of unnamed e-commerce operators on "Schedule A" (Compl. ¶1, ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are accessories for VR headsets, such as head straps, facial interfaces, and lens covers, that are allegedly unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶5, ¶7). They are sold on online marketplace platforms like Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that these products are designed to appear as if they are authorized products, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from genuine "Yixun Products" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a figure from the '245 patent to represent the design of the allegedly infringing products. The complaint provides a perspective view of the '245 patent design, labeled FIG. 1, to illustrate the "Yixun Design" that is allegedly infringed (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts. The infringement theory is based on a direct comparison between the patented designs and the accused products, asserting that they are substantially similar from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

The complaint alleges that Defendants "are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Yixun Design disclosed and claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. D993245, D1004574 and D1004684" (Compl. ¶25). The infringement test for design patents is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the two designs are substantially the same, such that the observer would be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The complaint visually represents the asserted designs by including figures from the patents-in-suit. For example, the complaint displays multiple views of the asserted "virtual reality goggle frame" design from the '574 patent (Compl. p. 5). It similarly includes several views of the asserted "glasses protective cover" design from the '684 patent (Compl. p. 7).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: The primary factual question will be the actual appearance of the products sold by each of the "Schedule A" Defendants. As the complaint does not contain photographs of the accused products themselves, a direct comparison is not possible from the pleading alone. Evidence of what was actually sold will be required for each Defendant.
  • Scope Questions: The central legal question for infringement will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the claimed designs in the '245, '574, and '684 patents. This analysis will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the designs as a whole, considering the claimed features depicted in solid lines in the patent drawings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings, and formal claim construction of text is less common than in utility patent cases. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design. However, the scope of the article of manufacture to which the design is applied is a threshold question.

• The Term: "Virtual Reality Headset" ('245 Patent); "Virtual Reality Goggle Frame" ('574 Patent); "Glasses Protective Cover for Virtual Reality Goggles" ('684 Patent).
• Context and Importance: These phrases in the patent titles and claims define the "article of manufacture" to which the ornamental designs apply. The infringement analysis is confined to a comparison between the patented design and an accused design that is applied to the same type of article. This is unlikely to be a point of major contention, as the accused products are alleged to be in the same category of VR accessories (Compl. ¶7).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "as shown and described" broadly incorporates all the visual elements depicted in the drawings (e.g., D993,245 Patent, CLAIM). Parties may argue that the overall visual impression, rather than minor details, should control the analysis.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is limited by the specific features shown in solid lines in the patent figures (e.g., D993,245 Patent, DESCRIPTION). Any elements shown in broken lines are for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design, which could narrow the scope of protection against dissimilar designs.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement and aiding and abetting (Compl. ¶25; p. 14, ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the requisite elements of either induced or contributory infringement, such as specific actions taken by Defendants to encourage infringement by others with the requisite knowledge and intent. The allegations primarily focus on direct infringement through making, using, and selling (Compl. ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in concert to manufacture and sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit.

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

1. Evidentiary Linkage: A foundational issue will be evidentiary: can the Plaintiff successfully link each anonymous "Schedule A" Defendant to the specific online storefronts and, more importantly, to the sale of accused products whose designs can be compared against the patents-in-suit?
2. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central substantive question will be one of visual comparison for each patent. Does the overall ornamental design of the accused products create a visual impression so similar to the patented designs that it would deceive an ordinary observer, inducing them to purchase the accused product supposing it to be the patented one?
3. Jurisdiction and Enforcement: Given the allegations that Defendants operate from foreign jurisdictions with "lax intellectual property enforcement systems" (Compl. ¶10) and use tactics to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶11), a key practical question will be the court's ability to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants and effectively enforce any resulting injunction or damage award.