DCT
1:25-cv-01574
Yipu Tianjin Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yipu (Tianjin) Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01574, N.D. Ill., 02/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are foreign entities and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce stores operated by Defendants sell counterfeit electric bicycles that infringe its U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of electric bicycles, a product category with significant consumer market growth.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a "Schedule A" list of defendants, a common procedure in cases targeting numerous, often anonymous, online sellers of allegedly infringing goods. Plaintiff alleges these sellers are interrelated and use tactics to conceal their identities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-08-03 | Priority Date for D'678 Patent (Application Filing) |
| 2024-03-05 | D'678 Patent Issued |
| 2025-02-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,016,678 - "Electric Bicycle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,016,678 ("Electric Bicycle"), issued March 5, 2024 (the "D'678 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to protect a unique aesthetic that distinguishes a product in the marketplace (Compl. ¶8, ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The D'678 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for an electric bicycle. Key visual features depicted in the patent's figures include a frame with a prominent, angular central member housing the battery, a flat, elongated "cafe racer" style seat, a large circular headlight, and wide tires (D'678 Patent, FIG. 1). The single claim of the patent is for "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle, as shown and described" (D'678 Patent, p.3, CLAIM).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a distinctive, retro-inspired appearance that Plaintiff alleges is recognizable to consumers and associated with its brand (Compl. ¶8, ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is pictorial in nature.
- Claim 1: "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle, as shown and described." This claim incorporates all seven figures of the patent by reference (D'678 Patent, p.3).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "counterfeit products" and "Infringing Products," specifically electric bicycles sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores, including on the Amazon platform (Compl. ¶2, ¶13, ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's authorized products that copy the patented design (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that Defendants' e-commerce stores are designed to appear as if they are selling genuine products from the Plaintiff, contributing to consumer confusion (Compl. ¶15). The complaint contends that the infringing products from each Defendant are compared directly with the claimed design in an attached "Exhibit C" (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for infringement of a design patent is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, in the context of the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendants' "slavish copying of that design is likely to cause confusion to an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶10).
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for an electric bicycle, as shown and described. | Defendants are alleged to be making, using, offering for sale, and selling electric bicycles that are "colorable imitations" and "copycat product[s]" incorporating the overall visual appearance of the design claimed in the D'678 Patent. | ¶10, ¶28 | p.3, CLAIM; FIG. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the Defendants' accused products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'678 Patent. The analysis will focus on the design as a whole, not on a comparison of individual features.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be the side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused products. The complaint states this comparison is provided in Exhibit C, but the exhibit itself is not included in the filed document (Compl. ¶12). The court's analysis will depend on the evidence ultimately produced to demonstrate the similarity in appearance.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction is a matter of law, but it is typically focused on the scope of the design as a whole as depicted in the patent's drawings, rather than construing specific text-based terms.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the scope of the claimed design. The court will determine the overall visual impression of the design to serve as the benchmark for the "ordinary observer" test. Practitioners may focus on which specific features create the overall visual impression that is protectable, distinguishing it from prior art designs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A court may determine that the overall impression is created by the combination of the retro-style frame, flat seat, and large headlight, allowing for minor variations in other, less significant features. The claim is for the design "as shown and described," which encompasses all solid-line features in the drawings (D'678 Patent, FIG. 1-7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the design is a specific combination of all depicted elements and that any significant deviation in the shape or proportion of any single element (e.g., the frame geometry, seat shape, or tire width) is sufficient to distinguish the accused product from the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a boilerplate allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing conduct (Compl. ¶28). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed others to infringe or supplied a non-staple component for infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully used" the D'678 Patent (Compl. ¶22). The basis appears to be the allegation of "slavish copying" (Compl. ¶10) and the operation of a network of stores selling "counterfeit products" (Compl. ¶2). Plaintiff seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement (Prayer ¶5).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Infringement under the Ordinary Observer Test: The central legal question will be one of visual similarity: is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'678 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be confused? The outcome will depend entirely on the visual evidence presented to the court.
- Evidentiary Linkage of Defendants: A critical procedural and factual question, common in "Schedule A" cases, will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the numerous, nominally distinct e-commerce stores are in fact interrelated and controlled by a common enterprise, as alleged (Compl. ¶19, ¶24). Proving this linkage is essential for the case to proceed efficiently against the group of defendants.
- Damages and Enforcement: Assuming infringement is found, a key practical issue will be quantifying damages. The complaint seeks both damages and Defendants' total profits (Prayer ¶5, ¶6). Given the alleged use of offshore accounts and tactics to conceal identities (Compl. ¶18, ¶21), locating the defendants and enforcing any monetary or injunctive relief may present a significant challenge.