1:24-cv-13140
Chen v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xueyuan Chen (Chongqing, China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A (alleged to be located in the People's Republic of China and other jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DeWitty and Associates
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-13140, N.D. Ill., 12/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive, commercial internet stores that target and sell products to consumers throughout the United States, including in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling "knock-off" products that infringe its U.S. design patent for a stainless steel cleaning rag.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a common household cleaning product, a stainless steel rag, sold through online marketplaces.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a sealed list of defendants ("Schedule A"), a common procedure in this district for targeting large numbers of alleged online counterfeiters. The complaint alleges these defendants use alias store names and other tactics to conceal their identities, which may present procedural challenges for identification and enforcement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-08-07 | D1,051,537 Patent Priority/Filing Date |
| 2024-11-12 | D1,051,537 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-12-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,051,537 - "STAINLESS STEEL RAG"
The Invention Explained
The complaint alleges the plaintiff was the "first to market" with its product embodying the claimed design and has an "established reputation for quality" (Compl. ¶5).
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem in the manner of utility patents; rather, they protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The goal is to provide a unique aesthetic appearance for the product.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a "stainless steel rag" (D'537 Patent, Title). The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a rectangular cloth-like object with a distinct, uniform pattern of small, circular openings distributed across its surface and a finished border (D'537 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The complaint describes the design as including "a flexible rectangular stainless steel rag covered with small round holes," a "rounded border design," and holes that are "evenly and densely distributed across the entire surface" (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a stainless steel rag, as shown and described" (D'537 Patent, CLAIM).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "unlicensed," "knock-off" stainless steel rags sold by Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that "each defendant sells the same product as the claimed design" (Compl. ¶3). These products are marketed for cleaning purposes to "remove stains and impurities from the surface of objects" (Compl. ¶5). The complaint alleges Defendants operate a network of online stores that use common tactics, including copying product images and text from Plaintiff's own listings, to sell the allegedly infringing products (Compl. ¶12). An image of the claimed design is provided in the complaint (Image 1, Compl. p. 4). The complaint does not contain images of the accused products themselves for a direct visual comparison.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Infringement occurs if, in the eye of an ordinary observer giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused product is such as to deceive the observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The complaint alleges that Defendants are selling products that create this impression.
D'537 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a stainless steel rag, as shown and described. | Defendants are alleged to offer for sale, sell, and/or import "knock-off product[s]" that are the "same product as the claimed design" and embody a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design." | ¶3, ¶21; p. 8 | D'537 Patent, CLAIM; FIGS. 1-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint does not include images of the accused products. A central question for the court will be a direct visual comparison between the patented design and the accused products once they are identified and produced.
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is the distinction between ornamental and functional features of the design. A defense could be that the overall appearance of the accused products is dictated by functional considerations (e.g., the material or the need for abrasive holes) and that any resemblance to the patented design is therefore not an infringement of its protected ornamental aspects.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction is typically not a central issue in design patent cases, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by words. The analysis instead focuses on a comparison of the accused design to the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The scope of the claim is understood by viewing the patent's figures as a whole.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes passing allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶16, ¶21) and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. p. 8). However, the factual allegations in the complaint focus on Defendants' own direct infringement through offering for sale and selling the accused products.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that infringement was willful (Compl. ¶17). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants "knowingly" sold a "knock-off product" (Compl. ¶3) and used content "copied from Plaintiff's original product listings" (Compl. ¶12), which suggests Defendants may have been aware of Plaintiff and its patented product design.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of visual comparison: As the complaint lacks images of the accused products, the case will depend on an evidentiary showing that the products sold by the identified Defendants are, in the eye of an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the D'537 patent.
- A second key question will involve the ornamental versus functional scope of the patent. The dispute may turn on whether the overall visual appearance of the patented design is primarily ornamental, or whether the features that resemble the accused products are dictated by the article's function as a cleaning rag, which would place them outside the scope of design patent protection.
- Finally, the case presents a significant procedural and enforcement challenge: Given the large number of anonymous, foreign-based online sellers alleged, a central difficulty for the Plaintiff will be successfully identifying the proper defendants, effecting service, and ultimately enforcing any potential judgment against entities allegedly designed to evade such actions.