DCT

1:24-cv-09356

Sun v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Weiming Sun (Guanzhou, China)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule "A" (People's Republic of China and other jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty and Associates
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09356, M.D. Ill., 10/02/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive commercial internet stores that target business activities toward consumers throughout the United States, including residents of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling retractable water bottles that infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of portable, collapsible water bottles, a product category often marketed for travel or for use with pets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" case, targeting a large number of often anonymous online sellers. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants use fictitious names and other tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, suggesting a primary challenge in the case will be procedural and jurisdictional.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-12-27 '839 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date)
2020-01-07 '839 Patent Issue Date
2024-10-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D871,839 - “RETRACTABLE WATER BOTTLE” (January 7, 2020)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’839 Patent does not articulate a technical problem; its purpose is to protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (U.S. D871,839 S, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "retractable water bottle," as depicted in its figures (U.S. D871,839 S, DESCRIPTION). The design as a whole creates a distinct visual impression characterized by a cylindrical, telescoping body, a ribbed cap, and an integrated, curved drinking trough that folds against the main body, along with a specific latch shape and placement (U.S. D871,839 S, FIGS. 1-8).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was the "first to market the claimed design" and has established a "reputation for quality" associated with it (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a retractable water bottle, as shown and described" (U.S. D871,839 S, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article as illustrated in the patent's seven drawing sheets, which depict the design from perspective, front, rear, side, top, and bottom views.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically retractable water bottles offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendants through their online stores (Compl. ¶3, ¶8, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" on various online marketplace platforms to sell products that feature the patented design (Compl. ¶2, ¶12). It further alleges that Defendants use tactics such as copying Plaintiff's product images and descriptions to market these products (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides an illustration of the patented design itself but does not include images of the accused products, instead referencing an unattached "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶5, Image 1; Compl. ¶8). This image of the claimed design shows a perspective view of the retractable water bottle (Compl. ¶5, Image 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide images of the accused products for direct comparison against the patented design. The infringement allegations are therefore based on the Plaintiff's assertion that the Defendants' products are "colorable imitation[s]" of the claimed design (Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). Analysis of design patent infringement turns on 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. Without visual evidence of the accused products, a substantive comparison cannot be conducted.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' products infringe by being visually indistinguishable from the design claimed in the ’839 Patent (Compl. ¶20). The central factual question for the court will be to compare the accused products, once identified, to the design claimed in the patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. Therefore, claim construction in the traditional sense is typically not a central issue. The analysis focuses on a comparison of the accused design to the patented design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's figures. The key legal question is not the meaning of a specific term but the overall visual similarity between the patented design and the accused product.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" to infringe the patent, and makes a general allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶9, ¶16, ¶20). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the elements of induced or contributory infringement, such as specific actions taken with the intent to cause infringement by others. The primary focus of the factual allegations is on direct infringement through sales and importation.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly" marketing, selling, and distributing an infringing product (Compl. ¶3, ¶17). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants' internet stores use "content copied from Plaintiffs original product listings," which, if proven, may be used as evidence of deliberate copying to support the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶12).

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

  1. A question of visual identity: The central infringement issue will be whether the accused products create the same overall visual impression as the ’839 Patent’s design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. This determination will depend entirely on evidentiary showings comparing the Defendants' actual products to the figures in the ’839 Patent.
  2. A question of enforceability: A significant procedural question is whether the Plaintiff can successfully identify, serve, and establish jurisdiction over the numerous, allegedly anonymous foreign Defendants. The case's progress may depend on the court's management of a "Schedule A" complaint where defendants are accused of actively concealing their identities to evade legal accountability.