Zheng v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zhiwu Zheng (Shenzhen, CN)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (jurisdictions not specified, alleged to be based in China and other foreign countries)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dragon Sun Law Firm, P.C.
• Case Identification: Zhiwu Zheng v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 1:24-cv-10814, N.D. Ill., 10/20/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce merchants are selling counterfeit magnetic bases for mobile phone supports that infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology involves magnetic accessories used to mount mobile phones, a widely adopted product category in the consumer electronics market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff notes that it sells products covered by the patent in its own e-commerce stores.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-12-10	'D787 Patent Priority Date
2021-04-13	'D787 Patent Application Filing Date
2022-03-01	'D787 Patent Issue Date
2024-10-20	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D944,787 - “Magnetic Base for a Mobile Phone Support”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution in the same manner as utility patents. Instead, they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture ('D787 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design of a magnetic base for a mobile phone support. The design is characterized by a thin, ring-shaped body with a flat profile and beveled or chamfered outer and inner edges, as depicted in the patent's figures ('D787 Patent, DESCRIPTION, FIG. 1, FIG. 5). The claim is for the visual appearance of the article as a whole, not any of its functional attributes ('D787 Patent, col. 1:50-52).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is distinctive and instantly recognizable to consumers, creating goodwill for the plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶8, ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a magnetic base for a mobile phone support, as shown and described." ('D787 Patent, col. 1:50-52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "counterfeit products" and "Infringing Products" described as "magnetic bases for mobile phone support" (Compl. ¶2, ¶4, Prayer for Relief ¶4.a). The specific products and sellers are identified on Schedule A, which was not included with the provided complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, targeting consumers in the United States and the Northern District of Illinois (Compl. ¶2, ¶13).
• The accused products are alleged to be "copycat product[s]" and the result of "slavish copying" of the plaintiff's patented design, intended to confuse consumers into believing they are purchasing genuine products from the plaintiff (Compl. ¶10). The complaint further alleges that screenshots of checkout pages for the infringing products are attached as Exhibit B, though this exhibit was not provided (Compl. ¶4).

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 alleges that the defendants' products are "colorable imitations" of the patented design (Compl. ¶10, Prayer for Relief ¶1.e).

The complaint alleges infringement of the ornamental design depicted in the patent's figures, such as the front and top perspective view shown in FIG. 1 (’D787 Patent, FIG. 1).

• 'D787 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the Single Claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a magnetic base for a mobile phone support, as shown and described.	Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, and selling products that directly and/or indirectly infringe upon the ornamental design. The complaint alleges these are "copycat" products that embody a "slavish copying" of the design, which is "likely to cause confusion to an ordinary observer."	¶10, ¶28	col. 1:50-52

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint does not contain images of the accused products, referencing an external Exhibit B. A primary question will be what evidence the plaintiff presents to demonstrate that the products sold by each of the numerous, unidentified defendants are "substantially the same" as the claimed design.
  • Scope Questions: The core of the dispute will be the application of the ordinary observer test. This raises the question of how the claimed design, as a whole, compares to the accused products. The analysis will depend on the overall visual impression of the design, rather than a comparison of discrete features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the design as depicted in the drawings, and construction of specific text is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the scope of the article of manufacture to which the design applies can be relevant.

• The Term: "magnetic base for a mobile phone support"
• Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent's title and claim defines the article of manufacture. Practitioners may focus on this term because the scope of a design patent is limited to the design as applied to the specified article. A dispute could arise if a defendant were to argue its product constitutes a different article of manufacture, though that appears unlikely based on the allegations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the title and claim suggests the design applies generally to the category of magnetic bases for phone supports (D'787 Patent, Title, col. 1:50-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual characteristics shown in Figures 1-8, such as the thin, ring-like shape, inherently limit the scope of the design to a particular embodiment of a magnetic base, rather than all possible forms of such bases ('D787 Patent, FIG. 1-8).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶28) and, in the prayer for relief, seeks to enjoin defendants from "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any products as genuine products" (Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for inducement, such as allegations that defendants provided instructions or encouragement to third-party infringers.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶22). The factual basis appears to be the allegation of "slavish copying" of the plaintiff's design and the characterization of the defendants' e-commerce operations as a "massive infringing operation" designed to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶10, ¶18).

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

1. An Evidentiary Challenge: A central issue will be one of proof. Can the plaintiff, in a case against numerous unidentified online sellers, produce sufficient evidence to show that each defendant's specific accused product is "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on the evidence presented for each of the many accused storefronts.
2. The Scope of Design Protection: The case will turn on the scope of the design patent. The key legal question for the court will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is confusingly similar to the specific ring-shaped design claimed in the '787 patent, when viewed in the context of any relevant prior art. The degree of similarity required for an "ordinary observer" to be confused will be the dispositive issue.