Shenzhen Century Rainbow Ind Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations In Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yifeng He (Guangzhou, China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty and Associates
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-12848, N.D. Ill., 12/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate commercial internet stores that target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online merchants are selling "knockoff" products that infringe a U.S. design patent. However, the complaint describes the accused products as "Foot Files" while the asserted patent is directed to the ornamental design for a "Phone Case."
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns design patent rights in the context of mass-marketed consumer products sold through online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: This action is brought against a sealed list of "Schedule A" defendants, a procedure often used against groups of online sellers whose identities are difficult to ascertain. The complaint notes that the "FOOT FILE invention" was the subject of international applications, but these appear unrelated to the asserted U.S. patent for a "Phone Case."

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2022-03-28	Priority Date (U.S. D'602 Patent)
2023-09-12	Issue Date (U.S. D'602 Patent)
2024-12-13	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D998,602 S - "PHONE CASE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D998,602 S, titled "PHONE CASE", issued September 12, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D'602 Patent, Claim). The complaint alleges the "FOOT FILE" design was refined for "aesthetic appeal and functionality," but this narrative is disconnected from the asserted patent's subject matter (Compl. ¶6).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a phone case, not a foot file. The design is characterized by its overall shape, including raised corner bumpers, beveled edges, specific cutout shapes for a camera array and ports, and the configuration of side buttons (D'602 Patent, Figs. 1-10). The claim protects the specific visual appearance of the phone case as shown and described in the patent's drawings (D'602 Patent, Claim).
• Technical Importance: The patent protects the unique ornamental design of the phone case, which serves as a visual differentiator in the competitive market for mobile device accessories.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a phone case, as shown and described" (D'602 Patent, Claim).
• This claim covers the overall visual appearance of the phone case as depicted in the patent's ten figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "Knockoff products" sold by Defendants via "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶13, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "FOOT FILE" devices used for personal care (Compl. ¶3, 6). It further alleges that Defendants sell these as "knockoff products" in a manner that establishes a logical relationship between their online stores, suggesting a concerted operation (Compl. ¶3). The complaint includes a visual, "Image 1," depicting the alleged infringing product as a pebble-shaped foot file, which is a different article of manufacture from the patented phone case design (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Knockoff products" infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '602 Patent (Compl. ¶24). However, the complaint's factual allegations and the asserted patent are directed to entirely different articles of manufacture. A direct comparison of claim elements to the accused product reveals a fundamental inconsistency in the pleading.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Mismatch of Article of Manufacture: The dispositive issue is the mismatch between the patented design and the accused product. The '602 Patent claims an ornamental design for a "PHONE CASE" (D'602 Patent, Claim). The complaint, however, accuses a "FOOT FILE" of infringement (Compl. ¶3, 6). In design patent law, the scope of the claim is limited to the article of manufacture specified. The question for the court will be whether infringement is plausible when the patented and accused articles are fundamentally different products.
  • Failure of the "Ordinary Observer" Test: Design patent infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Such an observer, familiar with the prior art, would be asked if the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design such that they would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. This raises the question of whether an ordinary observer could ever confuse a foot file, as depicted in the complaint's "Image 1" (Compl. ¶9), with the phone case design claimed in the '602 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "phone case"
• Context and Importance: The identity of the article of manufacture is a critical limitation on the scope of a design patent claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis cannot proceed if the accused product is not the same article of manufacture as that claimed in the patent. The dispute does not center on a nuanced interpretation of "phone case" but rather on the fact that the accused product is alleged to be a "foot file," a completely different article.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. The intrinsic evidence does not support an interpretation beyond a phone case.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides unambiguous evidence limiting the scope to a "phone case." This includes the patent's title (D'602 Patent, (54)), the explicit language of the single claim (D'602 Patent, Claim), the USPTO classification D14/250 for phone cases (D'602 Patent, (58)), and all ten figures, which exclusively depict a phone case (D'602 Patent, Figs. 1-10).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and aiding and abetting (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and specific intent to encourage infringement of the '602 Patent, particularly given that the alleged conduct relates to a different product.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was "knowingly and willfully" committed because Defendants are alleged to have created online stores to appear as if they were selling licensed products (Compl. ¶3, 20-21). This allegation of knowledge is tied to the sale of "knockoff" foot files, not the patented phone case.

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

• A core issue will be one of subject matter mismatch: can the complaint survive a motion to dismiss when it asserts a design patent for a "phone case" but directs all of its infringement allegations and evidence toward a "foot file"?
• A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, as filed, state a plausible claim for relief where the asserted legal right (the '602 Patent) is entirely disconnected from the alleged factual wrongdoing (the sale of foot files)?
• The immediate future of the case will likely depend on remedial action: whether the Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to correct what appears to be a dispositive clerical error, or if the court dismisses the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.