Shenzhen Qinyi Tech Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Yjtgkx; and the individual/entity operating Yjtgkx (China or other foreign jurisdiction)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11693, N.D. Ill., 01/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign entity believed to be engaged in infringing activities directed at the United States, including the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce sales of "egg bunny plushies" infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of novelty consumer products, specifically reversible plush toys, a market segment where visual appeal is a primary driver of sales.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant is an unidentifiable entity operating through one or more seller aliases on e-commerce platforms like Temu to conceal its identity. Plaintiff also alleges its own products are marked with the patent number.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,034,847 - "Reversible Plush Toy"

• Issued: July 9, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem in the manner of a utility patent. Instead, it addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, as required for a design patent (D1034847 Patent, p. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a two-sided ornamental design for a plush toy. One side depicts a stylized bunny with long, floppy ears that contain a zipper. The other side, presumably revealed when the bunny form is inverted, depicts a strawberry-like object. The claim protects the specific visual appearance of the toy as shown in the patent's figures (D1,034,847 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The scope of the design is defined by the solid lines in the drawings; portions shown in broken lines are explicitly disclaimed and form no part of the patented design (D1,034,847 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a novel visual appearance for a reversible plush toy, a popular category of children's toys where distinctive aesthetics can create commercial value (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim of the ’847 Patent is asserted.
• The claim protects: "The ornamental design for a reversible plush toy, as shown and described" (D1,034,847 Patent, Claim). This incorporates the seven figures of the patent by reference.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "egg bunny plushies" sold by the Defendant under the seller alias "YJTGKX" on e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶1, ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed products" that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶1). They are offered for sale on "fully interactive e-commerce stores" that target consumers in the U.S. and accept payment in U.S. dollars (Compl. ¶4, ¶13, ¶15). The complaint contends that the popularity of the patented design has led to significant infringement by such online sellers (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or side-by-side visual comparison to support its infringement allegations. Instead, it asserts in a conclusory manner that the Defendant is "making, using, offering for sale, selling and importing... Infringing Products that infringe directly and indirectly the Asserted Patent" (Compl. ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The central test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: A primary question for the court will be whether the Defendant's "egg bunny plushies" have an overall visual appearance that is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’847 Patent. This will require a side-by-side comparison of the accused product and the patent figures.
  • Scope Questions: The analysis will depend on the scope of the claimed design, which is limited to the elements shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings. The question will be whether the accused products replicate these specific ornamental features, or if they differ in ways that an ordinary observer would find significant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, and formal construction of text-based terms is uncommon. The key analysis concerns the scope of the patented design.

• The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described"
• Context and Importance: The scope of protection is defined by the patent's drawings. A critical feature of the ’847 Patent is its use of both solid and broken lines. The patent explicitly states, "The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of the reversible plush toy that form no part of the claimed design" (D1,034,847 Patent, Description). Practitioners may focus on this disclaimer, as it strictly limits the protected design to the features drawn in solid lines, potentially excluding aspects like the shape of the feet in the bunny configuration or the seeds on the strawberry configuration.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the overall visual impression created by the combination of the claimed solid-line features is what matters, even if minor unclaimed elements differ.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit disclaimer of all elements shown in broken lines provides strong evidence to narrow the scope of protection strictly to the visual features rendered in solid lines (D1,034,847 Patent, Description). Any significant deviation in the accused product's version of these solid-line features could support a non-infringement argument.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement, such as identifying specific actions taken by the Defendant to encourage infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that the Defendant "knowingly and willfully infringed the Asserted Patent" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint further alleges that the Defendant is part of an "interrelated group of e-commerce sellers" who actively work in concert and communicate via platforms like WeChat about "tactics for operating multiple accounts, evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits" (Compl. ¶19, ¶21). These allegations suggest an intent to plead that the infringement was deliberate and egregious, potentially supporting a claim for enhanced damages.

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

1. A core issue will be one of infringement under the ordinary observer test: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendant's "egg bunny plushies" substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the ’847 Patent, considering the explicit disclaimer of all elements shown in broken lines?
2. A second central issue is enforcement and identity: Given the allegations that the Defendant is an unidentifiable foreign entity operating through transient online aliases (Compl. ¶10, ¶12), a key challenge will be identifying the responsible party, effecting service, and obtaining jurisdiction to enforce any potential judgment.
3. A third question relates to remedies: If infringement is found, a key issue will be the calculation of damages, particularly Plaintiff's request for Defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (Compl. ¶28), a remedy unique to design patent infringement that may be difficult to calculate against an allegedly evasive foreign entity.