1:24-cv-09119
Ningbo Meigao Outdoor Products Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ningbo Meigao Outdoor Products Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Fengke Jiancai Tech Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Palmer Law Group, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09119, N.D. Ill., 09/28/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendant's business activities directed at the United States, including Illinois, through its Amazon online store, which allegedly gave Defendant fair warning it could be brought into court there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their "Swivel Rocker Chairs" do not infringe Defendant’s design patent, following Defendant’s successful requests to have Plaintiffs’ product listings removed from Amazon.com.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of wicker-style outdoor patio chairs, a product category where aesthetic appearance is a primary driver of consumer choice and market differentiation.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by infringement reports filed by the Defendant with Amazon.com, leading to the deactivation of Plaintiffs' product listings. The complaint preemptively raises a Chinese patent as prior art to argue for non-infringement. Notably, U.S. Design Patent No. D926,487 survived an ex parte reexamination requested on August 29, 2024, with a certificate issued on May 28, 2025, confirming the patentability of its single claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-10-14 | Filing date of alleged prior art Chinese Patent CN 303582470 S |
| 2016-02-10 | Publication date of alleged prior art Chinese Patent CN 303582470 S |
| 2019-08-29 | Filing date of U.S. Design Patent No. D926,487 |
| 2021-08-03 | Issue date of U.S. Design Patent No. D926,487 |
| 2024-07-26 | First Amazon.com infringement notice received by Plaintiffs |
| 2024-08-02 | Second Amazon.com infringement notice received by Plaintiffs |
| 2024-08-29 | Reexamination of D'487 Patent requested |
| 2024-09-28 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
| 2025-05-28 | Reexamination Certificate for D'487 Patent issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D926,487 - "SWIVEL CHAIR"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As is typical for design patents, the D’487 Patent does not articulate a specific technical problem. The implicit goal is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture to distinguish it aesthetically in the marketplace (D’487 Patent, col. 1:57-58).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a swivel chair as depicted in its nine figures (D’487 Patent, Figs. 1-9). The overall visual impression is created by the combination of a high, slightly curved backrest; thick, outwardly rolled armrests; a woven, wicker-like texture covering the chair body; and a circular swivel base (D’487 Patent, Figs. 1, 7, 8). The protection afforded by the patent is limited to the visual appearance of the chair, not its functional aspects.
- Technical Importance: In the competitive consumer furniture market, a unique aesthetic can serve as a key product differentiator and source of brand identity (Compl. ¶6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a swivel chair, as shown and described" (D’487 Patent, col. 1:57-58).
- 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 accused products are "Swivel Rocker Chairs" sold by Plaintiffs as part of patio furniture sets on their Amazon storefronts, LayinSun and Aeeiua (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
The chairs are described as outdoor furniture items featuring a swivel and rocker mechanism (Compl. ¶6). A provided image shows the accused chair, which has a woven appearance, a seat cushion and back cushion, and a circular base, and is offered as part of a multi-piece set. The complaint shows an image of a "LayinSun 3 Pieces Outdoor Patio Furniture Set" to illustrate the Accused Products (Compl. p. 2). The complaint notes that the products were sold to consumers in the United States via Amazon until the listings were deactivated due to Defendant's infringement reports (Compl. ¶¶3, 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its central theory is that the accused chairs are not "substantially the same" as the patented design under the controlling "ordinary observer" test, particularly when the designs are viewed in the context of the prior art (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not contain a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the designs. Instead, it relies on the legal conclusion that an ordinary observer, informed by the prior art, would find the designs "substantially dissimilar" (Compl. ¶10).
The primary piece of evidence Plaintiffs introduce to support this argument is a Chinese patent, CN 303582470 S, which they assert qualifies as prior art that narrows the scope of the D'487 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The infringement analysis will therefore depend not just on a side-by-side comparison of the accused chair and the patented design, but on how both compare to the design disclosed in the asserted prior art.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The ultimate factual question is whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing Plaintiffs' chair believing it to be Defendant's patented design. This will involve a detailed visual comparison of the overall designs as well as their constituent elements, such as the shape of the armrests, the proportions of the backrest, and the appearance of the base.
- Scope Questions: A key issue will be the extent to which the asserted prior art limits the scope of the D’487 patent. If the prior art is very similar to the patented design, then even minor differences in the accused product may be sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement. The court will need to determine how the existence of the prior art design affects the perception of the "ordinary observer."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, formal claim construction focusing on textual terms is rare. The "claim" is the visual design as a whole. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design in light of the drawings and the prior art.
- The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a "swivel chair" as shown in Figures 1-9.
- Context and Importance: The dispositive issue is the scope of the design patent's monopoly. Practitioners may focus on whether protection extends to the general "look and feel" of a woven swivel chair with rolled arms, or if it is confined to the precise lines, proportions, and visual details depicted in the patent's drawings. The answer will likely be shaped by the asserted prior art.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The defendant (patentee) may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the unique combination of elements—the high back, the specific flare of the rolled arms, and the particular wicker texture shown—and that the design as a whole is what is protected (D'487 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plaintiff (accused infringer) will likely argue that protection is limited to the exact design shown, and not general concepts. They will point to the asserted prior art to argue that features like a woven texture and a swivel base are common, and therefore the scope of the D’487 patent must be narrowly construed to cover only its specific, novel ornamental features (Compl. ¶¶8, 10).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The Prior Art's Impact: A central issue will be one of scope limitation: to what extent does the asserted Chinese prior art patent, CN 303582470 S, narrow the scope of enforceable design elements in the D'487 patent? The closer the patented design is to this prior art, the more significant any differences in the accused product become.
- The Ordinary Observer Test: The case will turn on a key factual question of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, viewing the patented design in the context of the prior art, be deceived into thinking the Plaintiffs' accused chair is the same as the patented design? This holistic, visual test will likely be a matter for the jury.
- Commercial Context and Remedy: Beyond a simple non-infringement finding, a critical issue is the commercial consequence: will the court grant Plaintiffs' request for an order requiring Defendant to retract its infringement complaints on Amazon.com? This question highlights the practical business realities driving the litigation, where platform enforcement actions can be as impactful as a formal injunction.