Huang v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zhiyong Huang (Luoding, China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (jurisdictions not specified, believed to be primarily People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: deWitty IP, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05569, N.D. Ill., 07/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly targeting business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive commercial internet stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling brushes that infringe a U.S. design patent for a brush.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a detangling hair brush, a consumer product sold in a competitive online marketplace.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint frames this lawsuit as part of a broader effort to combat online infringers who allegedly operate under fictitious names and use common tactics to evade enforcement. The defendants are identified only in a sealed "Schedule A," a common procedure in lawsuits against large groups of foreign online sellers.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D952,355, "BRUSH," issued May 24, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not functional solutions. The '355 Patent seeks to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for a hair brush. (D952355 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a brush as depicted in its nine figures. (D952355 Patent, Claim). Key ornamental features shown in solid lines include a brush head composed of several distinct, flexible, rib-like arms that fan outwards from the handle, with each arm containing rows of bristles. The design also features an ergonomic, curved handle and a detachable bar that can be placed across the back of the arms, seemingly to adjust their spacing. ('355 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The complaint provides an image of the claimed design to illustrate the patented product. (Compl. ¶5, Image 1). This image, a reproduction of the patent's Figure 2, shows a bottom, rear, and left side perspective view of the brush design. (Compl. p. 4; '355 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was the "first to market the claimed design" and has "established a reputation for quality." (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a brush, as shown and described." ('355 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
  • The overall configuration of the brush head and handle.
  • The fan-like arrangement of separated, flexible bristle arms.
  • The specific shape and curvature of the handle.
  • The appearance of the bristles on each arm.
  • The appearance of the detachable cross-bar.
• The patent notes that any features shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design. ('355 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are brushes ("Infringing Products") allegedly sold by the Defendants through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores." (Compl. ¶¶3, 8). The specific products and store identities are detailed in Exhibit C, which was filed under seal and is not publicly available. (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants market, sell, and/or distribute an "unlicensed product that infringes upon Plaintiff's U.S. Patent US D952,355 S." (Compl. ¶3). It further alleges that the Defendants operate dozens of internet stores that are designed to appear as if they are selling licensed products but are in fact selling the "same infringing product," suggesting a coordinated operation. (Compl. ¶3). The Defendants are alleged to be an "interrelated group of infringers" who conceal their identities. (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The infringement allegation rests on the legal standard for design patent infringement, which is 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 core of the allegation is that the Defendants "offer for sale, sell, and/or import...the same Infringing Products that infringe the ornamental design claimed in the D952,355 S patent." (Compl. ¶20). The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin the sale of any "reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of the design." (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). Without access to Exhibit C showing the accused products, a direct visual comparison is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused brushes are "substantially the same" as the design shown in the '355 Patent figures. This will involve a side-by-side comparison of the overall visual impression of the products.
• Scope Questions: A potential issue may be the impact of any functional aspects of the design. While the patent protects the ornamental appearance, a court may need to consider whether similarities between the patented design and the accused product are dictated primarily by function, which is not protected by a design patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is uncommon as the drawings themselves define the claim scope. The primary interpretive issue relates to the overall visual impression created by the design.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a brush"
• Context and Importance: The scope of this "term" is the entire case. The analysis will focus not on defining words but on determining which visual features shown in the drawings are part of the protected design and contribute to its overall appearance. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the distinction between ornamental and functional features can be dispositive.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described." ('355 Patent, Claim). A party could argue this protects the overall visual impression and gestalt of the brush, preventing others from making products that are merely colorable imitations, even if they differ in minor details. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly states that "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the brush that form no part of the claimed design." ('355 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This acts as a clear disclaimer, limiting the protected design strictly to the elements shown in solid lines. Any similarity based only on features shown in broken lines would not support an infringement finding.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' products "infringe directly and/or indirectly" the '355 Patent. (Compl. ¶16). It also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the Patented Design." (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis for these claims appears to be the allegation that the Defendants operate as an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert." (Compl. ¶9).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]." (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants created internet stores to appear as if they were selling licensed products while "actually and knowingly" selling infringing ones, and that they use various tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement. (Compl. ¶¶3, 9, 13).

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

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central substantive question is one of visual identity: once the accused products from the sealed Exhibit C are examined, will an ordinary observer perceive their design as "substantially the same" as the ornamental design claimed in the '355 Patent, or are the visual differences sufficient to avoid infringement?

2. Procedural Efficacy: A key procedural question is the viability of this litigation strategy. Can the Plaintiff successfully join and serve a large, shifting group of allegedly anonymous foreign online sellers in a single action and, if successful on the merits, obtain effective injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits from entities allegedly using offshore accounts and fictitious identities?

3. Proof of Damages: An evidentiary challenge will be quantifying liability. Given the alleged concealment tactics, a critical question is whether the Plaintiff will be able to obtain sufficient discovery to prove the Defendants' total profits from the infringing sales, as permitted for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289.