Jtle Investments LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: JTLE INVESTMENTS LLC (d.b.a. Hang Smart) (Florida)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto (Jurisdiction(s) unknown, alleged to reside or operate in the People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rosenbaum & Segall, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-06268, N.D. Ill., 09/23/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers within the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that TV wall mounts sold by numerous online merchants infringe its design patent for a TV wall mount.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns TV wall mounts, specifically a "stud-free" design intended for easy, do-it-yourself installation.
• Key Procedural History: This filing is an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have not only infringed its patent but have also wrongfully used Plaintiff's own intellectual property to file false takedown notices against Plaintiff's product listings. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment of ownership and validity of its IP and notes that a related utility patent application is pending.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-01-08	'255 Patent Filing Date (Priority Date)
2020-06-16	'255 Patent Issue Date
2022-06-30	Plaintiff's Hang Smart Product Launch Date
2023-06-15	Plaintiff's Related Utility Patent Application Filing Date
2024-09-23	Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D887,255 S - “TV WALL MOUNT,” issued June 16, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the commercial embodiment of the patented design as a "stud-free, 'do-it-yourself' TV wall mount device," which suggests the design is intended for a product that solves the common problem of needing to locate wall studs for secure television mounting (Compl. ¶9).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design for a TV wall mount, not its functional aspects (Compl. ¶1). The design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a two-piece bracket system. Each piece features a distinctive upper plate with a multi-lobed, scalloped perimeter and several circular openings, connected to a lower hanging portion that includes a hook-like structure and a downwardly-extending strap with additional holes (’255 Patent, Figs. 1-4).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the commercial product embodying the design is the "world's first of its kind" device for installing flat-screen televisions without requiring wall studs (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a TV wall mount, as shown and described." (’255 Patent, CLAIM).
• This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article depicted in the patent’s drawings, not its utilitarian features. The complaint does not reserve the right to assert any other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," which are TV wall mounts sold by the Schedule A Defendants through various online e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, eBay, and Ubuy (Compl. ¶¶4, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are "identical" to Plaintiff's product and "substantially similar to the design claimed in the Hang Smart patent" (Compl. ¶20). They are allegedly sold by numerous, difficult-to-identify sellers who reside or operate in the People's Republic of China and are designed to appear as authentic "Hang Smart" products to unknowing consumers (Compl. ¶¶10, 19, 27). The complaint includes a photograph of Plaintiff's product packaging, which advertises features such as "NO STUDS REQUIRED" and compatibility with TVs up to 100 inches and 150 lbs, providing market context for the product category (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the sole claim of the ’255 Patent. The legal standard for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the design of the accused product is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented one.

The complaint presents its infringement theory through direct visual comparison. A side-by-side image juxtaposes a line drawing from the ’255 Patent with a photograph of the "Infringing Products" (Compl. p. 8). This image shows that the accused products appear to share the same overall configuration as the patented design, including the distinctive scalloped shape of the upper plate, the arrangement of holes, the hook-like feature, and the shape of the lower strap (Compl. p. 8). The complaint asserts that based on these similarities, an "ordinary observer or purchaser would find the overall design of Hang Smart Patent and the Infringing Product substantially similar" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint references a detailed infringement analysis in "Exhibit C," but this exhibit was not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶21).

Identified Points of Contention

• Holistic Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be the application of the ordinary observer test. The question for the court is whether the holistic visual appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented design shown in the ’255 Patent’s figures.
• Effect of Minor Differences: While the complaint’s visual evidence suggests a high degree of similarity in form and configuration, the court may need to consider if any minor differences in proportion, surface texture, or finish between the patent drawings and the physical accused products are sufficient to differentiate them in the eye of an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific terms is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim's scope is defined by the patent's drawings as a whole. The primary analysis focuses on the "ordinary observer" test rather than disputes over term definitions. The only term provided by the patent is "TV wall mount," which defines the article of manufacture to which the design is applied (’255 Patent, Title). The meaning of this term is not presented as a point of contention in the complaint.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶48). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement, nor does it detail any basis for contributory infringement. The allegations focus almost exclusively on direct infringement through making, using, and selling the accused products.

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶50). The complaint bases this on the "distinct similarities between the Infringing Product design, product function, packaging design, colors, images, descriptions, and marketing materials" which allegedly evidence that Defendants knew of the patent and brand (Compl. ¶22). It further alleges that Defendants were notified of their infringing activities but ignored the notices and continued to infringe (Compl. ¶46). The complaint also alleges Defendants engaged in bad faith by using Plaintiff's IP to file false takedown notices against Plaintiff, which could be presented as evidence of egregious conduct (Compl. ¶45).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the holistic "ordinary observer" test, is the ornamental design of the Defendants' products substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’255 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid purchaser confusion?
• A key practical question will be one of enforcement and remedy: Given that the lawsuit targets a large schedule of allegedly foreign-based, anonymous online sellers, a central challenge will be whether Plaintiff can effectively identify the defendants, serve process, and obtain meaningful injunctive relief and damages against these entities.
• A final question will be one of willfulness and bad faith: Do the allegations of nearly identical copying, coupled with claims that Defendants ignored infringement notices and filed retaliatory, false takedown claims against the patent owner, rise to the level of egregious conduct required to support a finding of willful infringement and justify enhanced damages?