DCT

1:25-cv-01573

Yipu v. Schedule A

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01573, N.D. Ill., 02/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendants are foreign entities, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous foreign-based e-commerce storefronts on platforms such as Amazon are selling electric bicycles that infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of an electric bicycle, a product in a competitive consumer market characterized by a wide variety of aesthetic styles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent issued in March 2024 from an application filed in August 2022. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings, are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-08-03 D'678 Patent Application Filing Date
2024-03-05 U.S. Patent No. D1,016,678 S Issue Date
2025-02-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,016,678 S - "Electric Bicycle", issued March 5, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the patent does not describe a technical problem but instead seeks to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, an electric bicycle (D'678 Patent, p. 3, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the electric bicycle depicted in its seven figures (D'678 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The design’s overall impression is that of a retro, moped-style vehicle, characterized by a frame with a prominent, externally-mounted battery pack, a long and relatively flat "banana" style seat, a large circular headlight, and thick tires. The scope of the protected design is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings (D'678 Patent, p. 3, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is distinctive and has become "instantly recognizable" to consumers, creating valuable goodwill for the Plaintiff in the e-bike market (Compl. ¶8, ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle, as shown and described" (D'678 Patent, p. 3, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined entirely by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are electric bicycles ("Infringing Products") sold by the numerous defendants listed on Schedule A through their e-commerce stores on the Amazon platform (Compl. ¶2, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as "counterfeit" and "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's patented products (Compl. ¶2, ¶24). It alleges that the defendants operate a "massive infringing operation" through a network of online stores that target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois (Compl. ¶12, ¶18). The complaint further alleges that the defendants use tactics to conceal their identities and interrelationships, such as using fictitious names and creating new storefronts to evade enforcement (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement. It alleges that the defendants are selling products that are "slavish copy[ies]" of the patented design (Compl. ¶10). The central allegation is that the visual appearance of the accused products is so similar to the design claimed in the D'678 Patent that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing an accused product, believing it to be the Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶10). The complaint states that a direct comparison between the accused products and the patented design is provided in Exhibit C, which was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The primary issue is factual: Does the overall ornamental appearance of each of the accused products create substantially the same visual impression as the design claimed in the D'678 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary purchaser of electric bicycles?
    • Scope Question: A secondary question relates to the scope of the design. The dispute may focus on whether infringement requires similarity in the overall impression alone or similarity in the specific, detailed features shown in the patent's drawings.
    • Evidentiary Question: Given the large number of anonymous defendants, a central challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the specific products sold by each distinct defendant entity are, in fact, infringing. The complaint's allegation that the products originate from a "common source" appears intended to address this potential hurdle (Compl. ¶19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, there are typically no literal "terms" for construction. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, which is defined by the patent's drawings.

  • The "Term": The Overall Ornamental Design
  • Context and Importance: The entire case hinges on a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the accused products to the patented design. The perceived scope of the design—whether it covers the general "look and feel" or is limited to the exact details shown—will be determinative of infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope may emphasize the overall visual impression and general configuration created by the combination of the retro frame, long flat seat, prominent headlight, and specific battery placement, as shown in Figure 1 (D'678 Patent, Fig. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope may point to the precise shapes and proportions of individual elements as depicted in all seven figures, such as the specific geometry of the frame tubes, the design of the suspension components, and the contours of the fenders (D'678 Patent, Figs. 2-7). Any deviation in these specific details could be argued to distinguish the accused product from the patented design.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶28). The prayer for relief further requests an injunction against "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off" infringing products (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)). The factual basis appears to be the act of offering the allegedly infringing products for sale on e-commerce platforms.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants have "knowingly and willfully" infringed by using the patented design (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by claims that the defendants engaged in "slavish copying" of a successful design and have taken active measures to conceal their identities and evade enforcement efforts, suggesting knowledge of their conduct's wrongful nature (Compl. ¶10, ¶18, ¶20).

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

  • A core issue will be evidentiary: Can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove that the products sold by a large and diffuse network of anonymous "Schedule A" defendants are, in fact, visually and substantially the same as the specific design protected by the D'678 patent?
  • A key procedural question is one of enforcement: Assuming infringement is found, can the plaintiff obtain and enforce a meaningful remedy against numerous foreign-based sellers who are alleged to systematically use concealed identities, offshore accounts, and shifting online presences to evade legal judgments? (Compl. ¶18, ¶21).
  • A final question will concern damages: The case raises the question of whether the plaintiff can prove defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the standard remedy for design patent infringement, given the practical difficulties of obtaining reliable financial data from the alleged network of infringers.