Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations On Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xingxia Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08339, N.D. Ill., 09/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores and shipping products to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores are making, selling, and importing shelf apparatuses that infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer-grade shelving units, a product category common in online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The suit is brought against a schedule of unidentified e-commerce operators, a common strategy for targeting diffuse online sellers.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,034,007, titled "Shelf," issued on July 9, 2024.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve functional problems; they protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" (’007 Patent, p. 1). The complaint alleges that its designs are "distinctive," "unique and innovative," and "instantly recognizable" to consumers (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a shelf, as depicted in its figures ('007 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). Key visual features include two rounded, U-shaped tubular side frames that also serve as legs, supporting two horizontal tiers. Each tier appears to be composed of four parallel, flat slat-like elements ('007 Patent, FIG. 1). The design creates a minimalist and modern aesthetic for a simple storage rack.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "Xingxia Design" has become associated with "high quality shelves" and that consumer products styled after it are associated with the "quality and innovation that the public has come to expect from Xingxia Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a shelf, as shown and described" ('007 Patent, col. 3:50-52).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 8 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are "shelf apparatus" sold by Defendants on various e-commerce platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 11). These are referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶4).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges Defendants operate e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" to sell products that feature the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 10). The complaint asserts these stores target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, and are designed to appear as authorized retailers, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from genuine sellers (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14). The complaint includes an image of the patented design, which it states is being infringed by the accused products (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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 complaint's allegations are presented below.

• D1034007 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '007 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The court will compare the accused products' overall visual appearance to the patent's figures.
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether minor variations in the accused products—such as different dimensions, materials, or number of slats per tier—are sufficient to distinguish their overall visual impression from the patented design. The broken lines in the patent's drawings illustrate portions of the shelf that are not part of the claimed design, which may narrow the scope of protection and be a point of analysis ('007 Patent, col. 3:66-68).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the patented design as shown in the drawings, rather than on interpreting specific text.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a shelf, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the visual scope of the design claimed in the '007 Patent. The court will not construe individual words but will determine the design's overall appearance to compare against the accused products. Practitioners may focus on which features of the drawings are ornamental and which are purely functional, as functional aspects are not protected by a design patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The title "Shelf" is broad, suggesting the design could apply to various types of shelving units ('007 Patent, (54)). The solid lines in the figures define the scope of the claimed design, which encompasses the key visual elements of the rounded side frames and multi-slat tiers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual appearance is fixed by the drawings. Any significant deviation in the accused product's configuration, such as sharp-cornered frames instead of rounded ones or a solid surface instead of slats, could support a finding of non-infringement. The patent's description explicitly disclaims the portions shown in broken lines, limiting the claim to the specific elements shown in solid lines ('007 Patent, col. 3:66-68).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and aiding and abetting (Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). However, the body of the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how Defendants induced or contributed to infringement by others, focusing instead on Defendants' own direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged, based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" manufactured, imported, and sold the Infringing Products in "active concert" (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary consumer purchasing a shelf, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products substantially the same as the specific design depicted in the '007 Patent's figures?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of product identification: Can the Plaintiff successfully link the specific, unnamed Defendants listed in Schedule A to the e-commerce storefronts selling the allegedly infringing products and establish that those products are, in fact, visually identical to the patented design?
• A final question relates to the scope of the design claim: What is the effect of the broken lines in the patent drawings, and do any functional aspects of the shelf's design limit the scope of what can be considered "ornamental" and therefore protected?