DCT
1:24-cv-12594
Zhong v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Binglin Zhong (Guangdong, CHINA)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule “A” (Various Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|RM DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-12594, N.D. Ill., 03/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants purposefully direct business activities to Illinois residents by operating interactive commercial websites that offer to sell and ship infringing products to the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are infringing its U.S. design patent by marketing and selling "knock-off" electrical charge protectors that are substantially similar in appearance to the patented design.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design for a charge protector, an electrical device likely used for high-power applications such as recreational vehicles (RVs) or electric vehicle charging.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint in an action against a large number of unidentified online sellers, a procedural approach often used to combat the sale of counterfeit or infringing goods by entities that are difficult to identify and serve individually.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-10-01 | Plaintiff initiated design work on the product. |
| 2022-06-17 | '977 Patent application filed. |
| 2023-12-26 | U.S. Design Patent D1,008,977 S issued. |
| 2025-03-13 | Amended Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,008,977 S - "CHARGE PROTECTOR"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,008,977 S, "CHARGE PROTECTOR", issued December 26, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the design was developed to meet "both functional and aesthetic standards" (Compl. ¶8). Design patents protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article, addressing the need to create a unique and visually distinct product identity in the marketplace.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a "charge protector." The design is characterized by the combination of its overall configuration, including a main rectangular housing with a distinct offset section, a heavy-duty cable leading to a plug housing with an integrated handle, a hinged protective cover over the front socket, and ribbed textures along the sides of the main housing ('977 Patent, Figs. 1-9). The complaint alleges Plaintiff established the product embodying this design as "first to market" (Compl. ¶10).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design is tied to a "reputation for quality," suggesting its commercial importance lies in differentiating the Plaintiff's authorized product from unauthorized "knock-off" products in the online marketplace (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a charge protector, as shown and described." ('977 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's nine drawing sheets, which depict the following primary ornamental features:
- The overall visual appearance and configuration of the charge protector assembly.
- The specific shape of the main housing, including its proportions, offset section, and hinged front cover.
- The surface ornamentation, including the ribbed texture on the side surfaces of the main housing.
- The configuration of the plug housing at the end of the cable, including its handle-like feature.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "knock-off products" that allegedly infringe the '977 Patent, sold by Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants, an "interrelated group of infringers," sell "the same knock-off product" across numerous online storefronts (Compl. ¶15; p. 3). These stores are alleged to share common features, such as using the same product images, metadata, and pricing, and are targeted at consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 18). The complaint provides a perspective view of the patented design with its protective socket cover open to illustrate its features (Compl. ¶11, Image B).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Defendants' "knock-off products" infringe the single claim of the '977 Patent by reproducing its ornamental design. The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused article supposing it to be the patented design. The complaint's allegations are summarized below.
D1,008,977 S Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a charge protector, as shown and described, including the overall configuration of the housing, cable, and plug. | The accused "Knock-off products" are alleged to be "colorable imitation[s]" of the overall patented design. | Prayer ¶1(a) | Figs. 1-9 |
| The specific shape of the main housing, with its rectangular form, offset section, and hinged cover. | The complaint alleges Defendants sell products "featuring the Plaintiff's patented design." | ¶4 | Figs. 1, 4, 9 |
| The surface ornamentation, including the ribbed texture along the sides of the housing. | The accused products are alleged to be "the same knock-off product" that embodies the patented design. | ¶5 | Figs. 4-5 |
| The ornamental appearance of the plug housing and its integrated handle feature. | The complaint alleges the sale of products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design." | ¶26 | Figs. 2, 6, 7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the scope of the design claim. The '977 Patent uses broken lines to disclaim the specific internal configuration of the electrical socket and the metal prongs of the plug ('977 Patent, Description). The dispute may focus on whether the accused products are substantially similar to the claimed ornamental features shown in solid lines, even if functional elements like the plug type differ.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is whether the "knock-off products" sold by the various anonymous Defendants are, in fact, the "same" and whether they are substantially similar to the patented design as a whole. The complaint does not contain images of the accused products, which will be required to perform the infringement comparison.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the drawings rather than defining specific text. The central issue is the scope of the claimed design as a whole.
- The "Term": The overall ornamental design of the "charge protector."
- Context and Importance: The determination of infringement will depend entirely on a comparison between the overall appearance of the accused products and the scope of the '977 Patent's design. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing protected ornamental features from unprotected functional aspects, as functional elements are not given protection under a design patent and must be filtered out of the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the claim covers the holistic visual impression created by the unique combination of the housing shape, its offset section, the side grips, the distinct plug handle, and the covered socket. An interpretation could be advanced that any device capturing this overall aesthetic identity infringes, regardless of minor variations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that certain features are primarily functional and should be afforded little to no weight in the infringement analysis. For instance, the ribbed sides could be characterized as purely functional for gripping, the general rectangular shape as common to electrical housings, and the hinged cover as a standard functional solution. This would narrow the scope of protection to only the purely non-functional, ornamental aspects of the design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26). The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer ¶1(b)), but the complaint body does not plead specific facts to support a standalone claim for inducement or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" by marketing and selling what are described as "knock-off" products (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 22). The allegations that Defendants operate in concert and use tactics to conceal their identities, such as using fictitious names and creating new online accounts after notice, may be used to support the claim of willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 17-19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products sold by Defendants substantially the same as the holistic design claimed in the '977 Patent, such that a potential buyer would be deceived?
- A central question will be one of design scope: How will the court distinguish between the protected ornamental aspects of the design and any elements that might be deemed primarily functional (e.g., the ribbed grips)? The interpretation of the features shown in solid lines versus those disclaimed via broken lines will be critical to defining the boundaries of the patent's protection.
- A key evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be proving that the numerous, and often anonymous, "Schedule A" Defendants are an "interrelated group" and that each one has in fact sold a product that infringes the '977 Patent's design.