Che v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xiaoling Che (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09239, N.D. Ill., 10/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendants target business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through "fully interactive, internet e-commerce stores."
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ puzzle board products infringe a U.S. design patent for a puzzle board.
• Technical Context: The technology falls within the market for puzzle accessories, specifically boards designed to facilitate the assembly and storage of jigsaw puzzles.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a prior U.S. application that issued as U.S. Design Patent No. D1,024,210. The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a procedural approach often used to target numerous, allegedly related online sellers whose identities are not fully known at the time of filing.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,040,241 S - "PUZZLE BOARD"

• Issued: August 27, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a functional solution to a technical problem. The goal is to create a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims "The ornamental design for a puzzle board, as shown and described" (’241 Patent, Claim). The design, defined by the solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a rectangular main board featuring a central, circular rotating surface and four pull-out drawers or trays—two extending from each of the board's shorter sides (’241 Patent, Figs. 1-2, 4). The patent's description clarifies that broken lines in the figures depict portions of the puzzle board that form no part of the claimed design, effectively disclaiming those aspects (’241 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the plaintiff's puzzle board products are "known for their distinctive designs" and are "loved by customers at least because of the unique patented design(s)" claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the sole claim of the ’241 Patent (Compl. ¶26).
• As a design patent, there is only one claim, which covers the overall ornamental appearance of the article as depicted in the drawings. The key visual elements comprising the design are:
  • A primary rectangular board with a flat top surface.
  • A circular feature inset into the center of the top surface.
  • Four rectangular trays or drawers, arranged in pairs, that extend from the shorter ends of the main board.
  • The specific proportions and arrangement of these elements relative to one another.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "puzzle board products" ("the Infringing Products") sold by the Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants are a network of online infringers who sell products featuring the patented design (Compl. ¶6, ¶15). These products are alleged to have "components that are the same as one another and function the same in all respects relevant to" the ’241 Patent (Compl. ¶5). The complaint focuses on the Defendants' alleged business practices, such as operating under fictitious names and using common product images and marketing tactics, to argue for joinder of the otherwise anonymous entities (Compl. ¶15-16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit or specific, element-by-element allegations mapping an accused product to the patented design. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the Defendants' "Infringing Products" infringe the sole claim of the ’241 Patent (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides a representative figure from the patent to illustrate the claimed design. The figure provided is a perspective view showing the puzzle board's main surface, central rotator, and side drawers (Compl. p. 4, ¶10).

Because the complaint lacks a specific comparison of the patented design to an accused product, a claim chart cannot be constructed. The infringement analysis rests on the general assertion that the products sold by Defendants are copies of the patented design.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that the products actually sold by the numerous "Schedule A" Defendants embody a design "substantially the same" as the one claimed in the ’241 Patent.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement test for a design patent 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 analysis will turn on a visual comparison between the accused products (once identified) and the drawings in the ’241 Patent, giving proper weight to the disclaimed elements shown in broken lines.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction of specific terms is uncommon in design patent litigation, as the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall visual impression of the design rather than the definition of words.

• The Term: "as shown and described"
• Context and Importance: This phrase incorporates the patent's drawings as the definition of the claim. The central dispute will not be over the meaning of a word, but over the visual scope of the drawings. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between the solid lines, which represent the claimed design, and the broken lines, which represent disclaimed subject matter (’241 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall ornamental design, suggesting that minor differences in individual features may not defeat infringement if the overall visual appearance is substantially the same.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual appearance of the claimed elements—the particular shape and proportion of the board, the circular inset, and the four side drawers as shown in solid lines in Figures 1-9—defines the scope of protection. Any significant deviation in the accused product's design from this specific visual arrangement may support a finding of non-infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. ¶25; Prayer for Relief ¶A). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendants' infringement "is and has been willful" (Compl. ¶21). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that Defendants have "knowingly" offered for sale products that infringe the patent and have engaged in tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement efforts (Compl. ¶15-17, ¶20).

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

1. Joinder and Pleading Sufficiency: A primary procedural question is whether the allegations of a coordinated enterprise selling products that are the "same...in all respects relevant to the patent" are sufficient to permit the joinder of numerous, anonymous defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299, or if the case will be severed.
2. Visual Similarity: The core substantive issue will be one of visual comparison. Once accused products are identified, the case will turn on whether their ornamental design is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’241 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
3. Impact of Disclaimed Features: A key aspect of the infringement analysis will be the effect of the disclaimed subject matter (the broken lines in the patent figures). The court's determination of how these unclaimed environmental elements influence the perception of the overall claimed design will be critical to the outcome.