Li v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peng Li (Putian, China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” (Jurisdiction(s) Unknown, believed to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Palmer Law Group, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05518, N.D. Ill., 06/29/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are infringing a U.S. design patent covering an ornamental design for a shoe-mountable light.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to personal lighting devices, specifically lights designed to be attached to footwear to improve the wearer's visibility in low-light conditions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not identify any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the asserted patent. The case is structured against a "Schedule A" of unidentified defendants, a common procedure in actions against networks of online sellers.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D992,787 - “SHOE LIGHT”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the product category as addressing the need for improved visibility for individuals such as runners and cyclists during low-light conditions, making the wearer more noticeable to others and illuminating the immediate area (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a shoe light. The claimed design consists of a generally cylindrical main body featuring several prominent horizontal ribs, a distinct front lens face with recessed features, and an H-shaped clip on its side for attachment to an article of manufacture (D’787 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 8). The patent explicitly disclaims certain elements shown in broken lines as not being part of the protected design (D’787 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "acclaimed design" has gained "popularity and recognition among consumers," becoming a "hallmark of Plaintiff's innovative approach" in the market for advanced shoe lights (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for a shoe light, as shown and described" (D’787 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design as a whole include:
  • The overall configuration and shape of the light.
  • The specific surface ornamentation, including the horizontal ribs on the cylindrical body.
  • The particular appearance of the front lens.
  • The shape and placement of the side-mounted attachment clip.
• The complaint does not specify an intent to assert any other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "shoe lights" (the "Infringing Products") sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are lights intended for footwear that improve user visibility (Compl. ¶7). It further alleges Defendants operate e-commerce stores using templates and images designed to make them appear as authorized retailers, making it "very difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide images of the accused products for a direct comparison against the patented design.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a design patent case, infringement is assessed under the "ordinary observer" test, which compares the overall ornamental appearance of the patented design with that of the accused product. The complaint alleges that the accused "shoe lights" infringe the ornamental design claimed in the D’787 patent, but does not include images of the accused products themselves, precluding a direct visual comparison in this report.

The complaint does provide several images of the patented design to illustrate the protected subject matter. For example, the complaint includes several perspective views of the patented design, which highlight its overall shape and specific surface features (Compl. ¶8). These images correspond to figures from the D’787 patent itself, such as the front perspective view seen in Figure 1 of the patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue for the case will be establishing the actual ornamental appearance of the "Infringing Products." The infringement analysis is entirely dependent on evidence, presumably to be gathered in discovery, that depicts the products sold by the Defendants.
• Scope Question: The ultimate infringement question will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The analysis will likely focus on the similarity of the overall visual impression, including a comparison of the key features shown in the D'787 patent's drawings, such as the ribbed body, lens face, and clip design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the visual meaning of the drawings rather than the definition of textual terms.

• The "Term": The claim as a whole: "the ornamental design for a shoe light, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The scope of the patent is defined by the visual depiction in its drawings. Practitioners may focus on the overall visual impression created by the combination of elements in the solid-line drawings. The central dispute will not be over the meaning of a word, but over how similar an accused product's design must be to the patented design to be considered infringing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A court would evaluate the design as a whole. Arguments for a broader scope may suggest that the overall visual effect is the same, even if minor details of the accused product differ from the drawings. The patent title, “SHOE LIGHT,” and the figures establish the article of manufacture to which the design applies (D’787 Patent, Title).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Arguments for a narrower scope will likely emphasize the specific features shown in the solid lines of the patent figures, such as the precise configuration of the ribs, the details of the lens face, and the exact "H" shape of the clip. The patent's disclaimer that "broken lines in the figures illustrate portions of the shoe light that form no part of the claimed design" expressly limits the scope of protection (D’787 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a conclusory allegation that Defendants infringe "indirectly" (Compl. ¶25) and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)). The pleading does not, however, set forth specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement or the elements of a contributory infringement claim.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants are part of a network of infringers who engage in tactics to conceal their identities, use multiple aliases, and participate in online forums that allegedly discuss methods for evading intellectual property enforcement actions (Compl. ¶¶ 17-20).

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

• A primary issue is evidentiary and visual: what is the specific ornamental design of the accused shoe lights? As the complaint does not depict the accused products, the infringement claim is presently unsubstantiated by visual evidence and will depend entirely on evidence produced during discovery.
• A central legal question will be the application of the ordinary observer test: assuming accused products are identified, the court will have to determine whether their overall ornamental design is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'787 patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived.
• A key procedural question concerns the identification of the defendants: the complaint's structure against unnamed "Schedule A" entities suggests that successfully identifying the operators of the e-commerce stores and establishing personal jurisdiction over them will be a significant and foundational challenge for the plaintiff.