Deng v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations In Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fei Deng (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty and Associates
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11813, N.D. Ill., 11/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive commercial internet stores that directly target business activities and sell products to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell "knock-off" fidget keychains that infringe a U.S. design patent for a "Square Fidget Pop Keychain."
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of consumer novelty products and toys, specifically handheld sensory or "fidget" devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a large number of unidentified online sellers, listed in a sealed "Schedule A," who are alleged to be an interrelated group of infringers operating under fictitious names to conceal their identities. Plaintiff notes that authorized third-party stores exist, suggesting a controlled distribution network.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,032,188 S - "SQUARE FIDGET POP KEYCHAIN"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,032,188 S, "SQUARE FIDGET POP KEYCHAIN," issued June 25, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not explicitly state a technical problem but indicates the design was created to achieve "both aesthetic appeal and functionality" (Compl. ¶6).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a fidget keychain. The design, as illustrated in the patent’s figures, consists of a square body with rounded corners, divided into a two-by-two grid of four circular, poppable domes. A loop for keychain attachment extends from one of the upper corners (D'188 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The complaint notes that Plaintiff utilized 3D design software to create the product's industrial mold, aiming for "precision and high-quality manufacturing" (Compl. ¶6).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges Plaintiff established the product as "first to market, with a well-earned reputation for quality and innovation" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for a square fidget pop keychain, as shown and described" (D'188 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Knockoff products" described as "the same, knock-off product of the claimed design" sold by Defendants through various online storefronts (Compl. ¶1, 3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous "fully interactive, commercial Internet stores" to sell products that feature Plaintiff's patented design to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶2).
• It further alleges that the Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who use common tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple fictitious names, using the same product images, and copying text from Plaintiff's original product listings (Compl. ¶13, 16). The complaint states that images of the "respective knockoff products are shown in Exhibit C (Sealed)" (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe the D'188 Patent by making, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶24). The central test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

Because the complaint's exhibit containing images of the accused products (Exhibit C) is sealed, a direct visual comparison is not possible based on the public record. The infringement theory relies on the allegation that Defendants sell "Knockoff products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the U.S. Patent US D1,032,188 S" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint provides an image of the patented design itself as a reference for the court. This perspective view of the claimed design shows a square body with four circular domes and a keychain loop (Compl. ¶9, Image 1).

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This analysis will depend on the visual evidence of the accused products presented from the sealed Exhibit C.
• Scope Questions: A potential issue may arise concerning the scope of the design patent—specifically, which features are ornamental versus purely functional. However, the complaint focuses on the overall visual appearance as a "knock-off" rather than dissecting individual design elements.
• Evidentiary Questions: A primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence linking the various online storefronts listed in the sealed Schedule A, to prove they are an "interrelated group" properly joined as defendants in a single action (Compl. ¶13).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. Claim construction for design patents is determined by the drawings as a whole, and there are no disputed textual terms in the single claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• While not a separate count, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the Patented Design" (Compl. p. 8, ¶1(b)). The complaint's theory of an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" may also support a theory of joint or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶13).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" infringed the D'188 patent (Compl. ¶20), and specifically pleads that the "infringement... was willful" (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants sell "the same knockoff products," designed to appear as licensed goods (Compl. ¶3).

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

1. The Ordinary Observer Test: The case will ultimately turn on a visual comparison between the D'188 patent's drawings and the accused products. The dispositive question will be whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same, a determination that hinges on evidence currently filed under seal.
2. Joinder and Enforcement: A significant procedural question is whether the Plaintiff can successfully prove that the numerous, pseudonymous online sellers listed in Schedule A constitute an "interrelated group" whose operations arise "out of the same series of occurrences" (Compl. ¶3). The court's acceptance of this theory is critical for the case to proceed against the defendants as a collective entity.