Wang v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lucky Wang (individual)
  • Defendant: Whimsy Gifts; and the individual/entity operating Whimsy Gifts (allegedly based in the Peoples Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11983, N.D. Ill., 01/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant being a foreign entity that allegedly directs infringing activities into the U.S. and causes harm within the district by offering for sale and selling infringing products to residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce sale of certain door knockers infringes a U.S. design patent for a "bird shaped door knocker."
• Technical Context: This dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer home goods, a market where aesthetic distinctiveness can be a significant commercial driver, particularly on crowded e-commerce platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is part of a network of e-commerce operators using aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement of intellectual property rights. The complaint also notes that alleged infringement and resulting price erosion forced the Plaintiff to close his own Amazon store for the patented product.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,961 - "BIRD SHAPED DOOR KNOCKER"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,961, titled "BIRD SHAPED DOOR KNOCKER", issued on August 27, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than function. The patent addresses the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a door knocker (D1,039,961S Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a door knocker as illustrated in its figures (’961 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of a stylized, bird-shaped knocker element mounted on a rectangular base plate, with a dependent, curved pull-cord ending in a sphere (’961 Patent, Figs. 1, 5). The overall impression is created by the specific proportions, curvatures, and arrangement of these elements.
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the popularity of the patented design is commercially significant and has led to widespread infringement (Compl. ¶13). It is also alleged that the design is "broadly recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a bird shaped door knocker, as shown and described" (’961 Patent, CLAIM). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the door knocker as depicted in the patent’s eight figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "door knockers" sold by Defendant under one or more "Seller Alias" on e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed products" that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶1).
• Defendant allegedly operates e-commerce stores that target U.S. consumers and are designed to appear as if they are authorized retailers (Compl. ¶¶13, 15).
• The complaint alleges that Defendant's sales have caused Plaintiff significant economic harm, including price erosion and the loss of his own e-commerce business for the genuine product (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The infringement analysis is based on the complaint's narrative allegations. For design patents, infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer," where an accused design infringes if it is substantially the same as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

The complaint alleges that the accused products are not merely substantially similar, but are "the same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶1).

D1,039,961S Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central question will be factual: does the design of the accused door knocker appear substantially the same as the design shown in the '961 Patent's figures to an ordinary observer? Discovery will be required to obtain exemplars of the accused product for comparison.
  • Evidentiary Question: What evidence links the specific accused products to the entity or entities operating as "Whimsy Gifts"? The complaint's allegations of concealment suggest that proving this link may be a key challenge (Compl. ¶¶1, 12).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is typically defined by the drawings, and detailed verbal construction of claim terms is uncommon. However, the scope of the design's title may be relevant.

• The Term: "bird shaped door knocker"
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because, while the figures govern, the title provides context for the overall design. The interpretation of how broadly "bird shaped" applies could influence the scope of protection against variations of the depicted design.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the general phrase "bird shaped door knocker" in the title could be argued to encompass a range of designs that evoke the general appearance of a bird, not just the specific stylized depiction (’961 Patent, Title).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself is explicitly limited to the design "as shown and described" (’961 Patent, CLAIM). This language directs the court to the precise visual details in Figures 1-8, suggesting the scope is confined to the specific aesthetic choices and proportions illustrated, rather than a general concept of a bird-shaped knocker.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as knowledge and specific intent to cause infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has "knowingly, and willfully infringed the Asserted Patent" (Compl. ¶20). This allegation appears to be based on the asserted popularity of the patented design and the alleged business practice of using aliases and other tactics to conceal infringing activities, suggesting an intent to copy a known, valuable design (Compl. ¶¶1, 12, 13, 20). The complaint does not allege pre-suit notice was provided to the Defendant.

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity and evidence: can the Plaintiff produce evidence to prove its central allegation that the accused products are visually "the same" as the patented design, and can it link the sale of these products directly to the named Defendant? The outcome will depend heavily on the visual evidence presented, which is absent from the complaint itself.
• The case also presents a significant question of enforceability: assuming infringement is found, can the Plaintiff obtain and enforce a remedy against a Defendant alleged to be a foreign entity operating under aliases specifically to "circumvent and mitigate liability"? This highlights the practical challenges of litigating against sophisticated, international e-commerce networks.