Shenzhen Yibaifen E Commerce Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Yibaifen E-commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11664, N.D. Ill., 11/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target business activities and direct sales to consumers within the state of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are making, using, selling, and importing cushions that infringe a U.S. design patent covering an ornamental cushion design.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental appearance of consumer goods, specifically seating cushions, within the competitive e-commerce market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint has been filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a procedural approach often used in the Northern District of Illinois to target networks of online sellers who allegedly operate under multiple aliases to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,041,204 S, "Cushion," issued September 10, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '204 Patent does not address a technical or functional problem. Instead, it protects the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (U.S. D1,041,204 S, Claim). The complaint alleges that the patented "Yibaifen Design" is a "unique and innovative design" that has become "instantly recognizable" to consumers (Compl. ¶6-7).
• The Patented Design: The patent claims the ornamental design for a cushion. Key visual features that contribute to its overall appearance include its multi-sectioned construction, a distinct tufted or quilted diamond pattern on the main surfaces, a raised border of small, circular elements along the edges of the sections, and a particular overall silhouette that includes an integrated upper section or headrest (U.S. D1,041,204 S, FIG. 1, 3).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the design's aesthetic has commercial importance, asserting that the design is associated with the "quality and innovation" of the Yibaifen brand and has come to "symbolize high quality cushions" (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a cushion, as shown and described" (U.S. D1,041,204 S, Claim).
• The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent’s drawings. Infringement is assessed using the "ordinary observer" test, which determines if an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it was the patented design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "cushion apparatus" referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶4). These products are allegedly sold by the Defendants through various "Seller Aliases" on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Walmart (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants sell "unauthorized and unlicensed" versions of the cushion (Compl. ¶4). It further alleges that the Defendants' e-commerce stores use content and images that make it "very difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer," suggesting the products are marketed to the same consumer base as Plaintiff's genuine goods (Compl. ¶14). A perspective view of the patented cushion design is provided in the complaint, which Plaintiff alleges is being infringed by Defendants' products (Compl. ¶7, p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts a single count of patent infringement against the Defendants for making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing products that allegedly infringe the '204 Patent (Compl. ¶23-24). For a design patent, the infringement analysis is a visual comparison of the patented design to the accused product. The legal standard is whether an "ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived by the similarity between the two designs." (Compl. ¶4, 24).

The complaint does not contain images of the accused products themselves but references an "Exhibit 1" that purportedly shows an example (Compl. ¶4). Based on the text, the core of the infringement allegation is that the Defendants are selling products that are visually indistinguishable from the patented design, thereby appropriating its ornamental features (Compl. ¶4, 14, 24).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be whether the accused products sold by the Defendants are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the design claimed in the '204 patent. This analysis will depend on the evidence of what Defendants are actually selling.
  • Scope of Protection: The scope of the design patent's protection may be a point of contention. A court's analysis will consider the overall visual impression of the patented design in light of any prior art to determine which features are novel and ornamental. The question will be whether the similarity between the accused products and the patent resides in these protected ornamental features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the design as depicted in the patent's figures, rather than on interpreting textual claim terms. The scope of the claim is defined by the drawings. A court's analysis would likely focus on the combination of the following visual elements which create the design's overall appearance:

• The Term: The overall ornamental design.
• Context and Importance: The specific combination of visual features creates the design's aesthetic impression. Practitioners may focus on the uniqueness of this combination, as the infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused products capture this same overall look and feel.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described" (U.S. D1,041,204 S, Claim). Parties arguing for broader scope might emphasize the overall configuration and impression created by the combination of the quilted pattern, the multi-section layout, and the specific silhouette, rather than focusing on any single minor detail (U.S. D1,041,204 S, FIG. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Parties arguing for a narrower scope might point to the precise details shown in the drawings as limitations, such as the exact diamond shape of the tufting, the specific quantity and placement of the raised circular elements on the border, and the exact proportions of the different sections (U.S. D1,041,204 S, FIG. 3, 7).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not set forth specific factual allegations to support a standalone claim for indirect infringement (e.g., inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, and selling the accused products, which constitute direct infringement (Compl. ¶20, 24). The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, which is standard language (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" and that their infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶20-21). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants are part of a network of infringers who use tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, suggesting general knowledge of their unlawful conduct rather than specific knowledge of the '204 Patent prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶10, 16-19).

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

• Evidentiary Linkage: A primary procedural question will be whether the Plaintiff can successfully link the various "Seller Aliases" identified in the sealed Schedule A to the sale of specific, infringing products and establish that these disparate online storefronts are operated by an interrelated network of defendants as the complaint alleges.
• Visual Infringement: The central substantive issue will be one of visual comparison under the "ordinary observer" test. The case will turn on whether the actual products sold by the Defendants are found to have an overall ornamental design that is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '204 patent.
• Damages Calculation: Should infringement be established, a key question will be the calculation of damages. For design patents, this can include the infringer’s total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Proving the profits attributable to the infringing design across numerous, potentially anonymous online sellers could present a significant evidentiary challenge.