Pang v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations In Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xiaogang Pang (Guangdong, China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule “A” (allegedly based in the People's Republic of China and other jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|R.M. DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-13141, N.D. Ill., 03/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive, commercial internet stores that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including sales made to residents of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sale of "knock-off" adjustable bike wall hangers infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a device.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods sector, specifically for bicycle storage accessories, a market segment where e-commerce platforms serve as a primary sales channel.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint follows a successful ex parte reexamination of the asserted patent, which was requested on February 8, 2024, and resulted in a certificate issued on December 10, 2024, confirming the patentability of the design claim. The complaint targets a large, unidentified group of online sellers, a common strategy in cases involving alleged widespread infringement on e-commerce platforms.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2022-10-21	U.S. Patent No. D982,486 Filing Date
2023-04-04	U.S. Patent No. D982,486 Issue Date
2024-02-08	Ex Parte Reexamination Requested for D'486 Patent
2024-12-10	Reexamination Certificate Issued, Confirming Patentability
2025-03-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D982,486 S, “ADJUSTABLE BIKE WALL HANGER,” issued April 4, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article, not its utility. The patent does not describe a technical problem, but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for an adjustable bike wall hanger (D’486 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of the bike hanger as depicted in its nine figures (D’486 Patent, FIGS. 1-9). The complaint describes the design's key features as "arms connected to a stem, that can change its length, with a four-sided polygon at the end, allowing the design to be mounted on a surface" (Compl. ¶5). The claimed design includes a telescoping central arm, a wall-mounting bracket with a distinct scalloped shape, and two curved, upturned arms for holding a bicycle frame (D’486 Patent, FIG. 3). The patent explicitly disclaims the functional aspects shown in broken lines, limiting the claim to the ornamental features shown in solid lines (D’486 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's product, embodying the patented design, was "first to market" and has established a "reputation for quality," suggesting the design's commercial significance is tied to its unique appearance in the marketplace (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for an adjustable bike wall hanger, as shown and described" (D’486 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
• The elements of the claim are the visual characteristics of the hanger as depicted in solid lines in Figures 1 through 9 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "knock-off products" described as the "same product as the claimed design" (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly sold by Defendants through various online stores operating under fictitious names (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are adjustable bike wall hangers sold to consumers in the United States via e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶¶2, 8). The complaint alleges Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who use tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple store names and using product images "copied from Plaintiff's original product listings" (Compl. ¶¶9, 12). The complaint states that images of the "respective knock-off products are shown in Exhibit B," though this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint alleges direct visual identity rather than mere similarity. The complaint includes an image of the patented design to illustrate the subject matter of the dispute (Compl. ¶5). This image, labeled "Image 1" in the complaint, is a reproduction of Figure 2 from the D'486 Patent (Compl., p. 4).

Claim Element (from Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for an adjustable bike wall hanger, as shown and described.	Defendants are alleged to market, sell, and distribute an "unlicensed product" that is the "same product as the claimed design" and constitutes a "knock-off product."	¶¶3, 21	col. 1:57-59; FIGS. 1-9

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be the scope of the patented design. The patent disclaims certain functional elements by rendering them in broken lines (D'486 Patent, col. 1:63-65). The infringement analysis will focus only on the overall visual impression created by the solid-line features.
  • Technical Questions: The primary question is factual, not technical: does the accused product design appear "substantially the same" as the patented design to an ordinary observer? The complaint's allegation that Defendants sell the "same product" (Compl. ¶3) and use Plaintiff's own images (Compl. ¶12) suggests Plaintiff's infringement theory is based on direct copying, which, if proven, would strongly support a finding of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal claim construction of words is generally not performed in design patent cases. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings. The key interpretive issue is not the meaning of a word, but the scope of the protected design.

• The "Claim": The visual design embodied in the patent figures.
• Context and Importance: The scope of the protected design is defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings. The patent explicitly states that "The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of the adjustable bike wall hanger that form no part of the claimed design" (D'486 Patent, col. 1:63-65). This distinction is critical because the infringement analysis must compare the accused product to the claimed ornamental features (solid lines), not to the unclaimed functional context (broken lines). Practitioners will focus on this distinction to define the boundaries of the asserted intellectual property right.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶21) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the complaint's factual allegations focus exclusively on Defendants' own acts of making, using, and selling, which constitute direct infringement, and do not plead specific facts to support a separate claim for indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowingly and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶¶9, 16). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants intentionally created online stores to sell a "knock-off product" designed to appear licensed (Compl. ¶3) and used tactics to conceal their infringing operation (Compl. ¶9). Plaintiff seeks treble damages as a result (Prayer ¶4).

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

• Identity and Evidence: A primary issue will be one of evidence and identity: can Plaintiff demonstrate, likely through evidence from the un-provided Exhibit B, that the products sold by the "Schedule A" defendants are, in fact, "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The complaint's assertion of direct copying, if proven, would simplify the infringement analysis.
• Enforceability: A significant practical question will be one of jurisdiction and enforcement: given that Defendants are alleged to be a network of foreign entities operating under fictitious names, the case may turn on the court's ability to exercise jurisdiction, effect service, and enforce any resulting injunction against the online marketplace platforms and payment processors that facilitate Defendants' sales.
• Impact of Reexamination: A key legal question is the strategic impact of the successful reexamination: while the reexamination certificate strengthens the patent's presumption of validity against prior art challenges (US D982,486 C1), it does not address infringement. Its main effect may be to streamline the litigation by discouraging the defendants, should they appear, from mounting an invalidity defense.