DCT

1:24-cv-08104

Hefei Makie Siyou Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Individuals Companies and Or Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Hefei Makie Siyou Trading Co, Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships, Individuals, Companies and/or Unincorporated Associations Identified in the Annexed Schedule A (unidentified entities, alleged to be located in the People's Republic of China)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gottesman Legal
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08104, N.D. Ill., 09/05/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate online sales portals that target and sell infringing products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online sellers operating through various e-commerce platforms are infringing its U.S. design patent for a folding sofa.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of convertible furniture, specifically folding sofas that can be reconfigured into a mattress, a product category prevalent in online marketplaces.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the defendants as "John Doe" entities listed on a sealed schedule, a common strategy in cases against diffuse online counterfeiters. Plaintiff also references a prior, similar case filed in 2022 (Maxyoyo Trading Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships..., 1:22-cv-06922), suggesting a pattern of enforcement activity against this type of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-05-15 Patent Application Filing Date
2023-11-28 U.S. Design Patent D1,005,706 S Issues
2024-09-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,005,706 S - "Folding Sofa"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,005,706 S (“Folding Sofa”), issued November 28, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '706 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. The complaint provides context by alleging that Plaintiff has developed "innovative products" with "distinctive patented designs" that are "broadly recognized by consumers," attracting competitors who trade on Plaintiff's goodwill (Compl. ¶3, ¶22, ¶25, ¶26).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a folding sofa, not its functional or structural characteristics. The design consists of a multi-segment body with rounded-rectangular cushions that can be arranged into a chair-like configuration or unfolded into a flat, mattress-like pad ('706 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 8). The sole claim is for the visual design as depicted in the patent’s nine figures ('706 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's patented designs are a key market differentiator, associated by consumers with the "quality and innovation that the public expects Hefei Products" (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a folding sofa, as shown and described" ('706 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 9 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," which are folding sofas that allegedly copy the patented "Hefei Design" (Compl. ¶43, ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Defendants are numerous online sellers who market infringing products through e-commerce platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶31). These sellers are alleged to operate under multiple fictitious "Seller Aliases" and use common storefront templates, payment methods, and marketing tactics, suggesting they originate from a "common source" (Compl. ¶40, ¶41). The complaint alleges these Defendants specifically target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, and design their e-commerce stores to appear as authorized retailers (Compl. ¶36, ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants are directly and indirectly infringing the '706 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, and selling products embodying the claimed ornamental design (Compl. ¶47). However, the complaint does not contain a claim chart or any images of the accused products for a visual comparison against the patent's figures. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: The central issue will be factual and evidentiary. Without visual evidence in the pleading, the infringement case hinges on Plaintiff's ability to produce accused products and demonstrate to the court that, to an ordinary observer, the accused designs are substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the '706 Patent.
  • Scope Question (Prior Art): The infringement analysis for a design patent considers the design as a whole in the context of the prior art. A potential point of contention may arise if Defendants argue that any similarities between their products and the patented design are based on functional elements or design features that were already common in the prior art for folding sofas, thereby limiting the scope of what is protectable in the '706 Patent design ('706 Patent, pp. 3-4, References Cited).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the visual design as depicted in the patent's figures, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Consequently, the analysis does not turn on the construction of specific claim terms as it would in a utility patent case. The legal inquiry focuses on a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the claimed design and the accused product. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific claim construction disputes.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a general allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶47) and a request for injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus on the Defendants' own direct infringement through manufacturing and selling, rather than providing specific facts to support a claim of inducement or contributory infringement against a third party.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶44). The claim is supported by allegations that the Defendants are engaged in a concerted and knowing scheme to infringe by operating under fictitious aliases, using deceptive online storefronts, and selling products from a common, unauthorized source (Compl. ¶40, ¶43).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the Plaintiff present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the products sold by a diffuse network of "John Doe" defendants are, in fact, substantially the same in ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the '706 Patent, from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The absence of such evidence in the complaint makes this the immediate threshold question for any requested injunctive relief.
  • The case also presents a fundamental question of enforcement feasibility: given that the defendants are alleged to be a coordinated network of overseas online sellers operating under layers of fictitious aliases (Compl. ¶35, ¶40), can the Plaintiff successfully join them as a single group and obtain and enforce a meaningful injunction and monetary judgment against entities structured to evade identification and accountability?