1:24-cv-11487
Shenzhen Cometo Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Cometo Technology Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdiction(s) Unknown, Believed to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: J. Zhang and Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11487, N.D. Ill., 11/06/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' e-commerce stores targeting business activities and sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ photo booth products, sold through various online marketplaces, infringe the ornamental design claimed in Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of photo booths, which are popular products in the event and entertainment equipment market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The case is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common procedural posture for actions targeting online marketplace sellers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-07-06 | U.S. Patent No. D978,951 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2023-02-21 | U.S. Patent No. D978,951 Issues |
| 2024-11-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D978,951 - "PHOTO BOOTH"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D978,951, titled "PHOTO BOOTH", issued on February 21, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but rather protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent aims to protect a specific aesthetic design for a photo booth.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a photo booth as depicted in its figures ('951 Patent, Claim). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, consists of the visual combination of a low, circular platform base with multiple adjustable feet, a tall, slender pole assembly attached to the edge of the platform, and a ring-light fixture at the top of the pole ('951 Patent, FIG. 1). Key ornamental features include the specific structure of the platform's underside and the detailed configuration of the adjustment collars on the vertical pole ('951 Patent, FIG. 8, FIG. 9). Certain internal components and connectors are shown in broken lines, indicating they do not form part of the claimed design ('951 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint does not specify the importance of the design, but such designs often seek to create a distinct visual identity and aesthetic appeal for products used in the event and entertainment industry.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a photo booth, as shown and described."
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's nine drawing sheets, limited to the elements shown in solid lines.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "goods that incorporate and infringe Plaintiff's Patent," referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5). These are identified as photo booths (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendants are manufacturing, importing, and selling the Infringing Products through "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges that Defendants operate under multiple fictitious aliases to conceal their identities and sell products that bear "similar irregularities and indicia of being unauthorized" (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
D978,951 Infringement Allegations
For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.
The complaint alleges that "Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Plaintiff's Patent" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not, however, provide a detailed comparison between the patented design and the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The pleading states that images of the accused products are contained in Exhibit 1, which was attached to the complaint but not included in the provided documents (Compl. ¶5).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central question will be a factual comparison between the design of the accused products and the design claimed in the ’951 Patent. The outcome will depend entirely on the specific appearance of the accused products, which are not depicted in the complaint itself.
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may be the impact of the elements shown in broken lines in the patent drawings ('951 Patent, Description). A court would filter these unclaimed features from the patented design before comparing the overall visual impression of the claimed portions with the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of verbal terms is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim is primarily defined by the drawings. The focus is typically on the overall visual appearance.
- The Term: "photo booth"
- Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the patent’s title and claim, defines the article of manufacture to which the design is applied. Its construction is unlikely to be a central point of dispute unless Defendants argue their products are not "photo booths" at all. Practitioners may focus less on construing this term and more on comparing the visual elements of the designs as a whole, guided by the patent figures and any relevant prior art designs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent itself provides the primary context for the term.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the general term "photo booth" could suggest the design is applicable to a range of similar photographic equipment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific configuration shown in the figures—a platform for a subject and an attached arm for a camera/light—defines the specific type of "photo booth" to which the design applies ('951 Patent, FIG. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and a request to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a standalone claim of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "deliberate and willful" (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 22). The pleading does not state whether this allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge, such as a notice letter, or is inferred from the act of infringement itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary evidentiary question will be one of visual identity: what is the actual ornamental design of the accused products? Without this evidence, which the complaint states is in an un-provided exhibit, the core infringement analysis under the "ordinary observer" test cannot proceed.
- The central legal and factual issue will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the specific combination of features claimed in the ’951 Patent, after properly disregarding the unclaimed elements shown in broken lines.
- A significant practical hurdle for the Plaintiff will be procedural and jurisdictional: successfully identifying the anonymous Defendants, effecting service of process, establishing personal jurisdiction in an Illinois court over foreign entities, and ultimately enforcing any judgment that may be obtained.