Zhihua Wu v. Fujianshengfusixianshangmaoyouxiangongsi

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zhihua Wu (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: fujianshengfusixianshangmaoyouxiangongsi, quanzhounuodaodianzishangwuhehuoqiye (youxianhehuo), and fujianprovance 9457trading co. ltd.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law Group
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01644, N.D. Ill., 03/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are not residents of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges Defendants have targeted sales to residents of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain work shoes on e-commerce platforms infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a shoe.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of footwear, specifically steel-toe work shoes marketed and sold online.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is an Amended Complaint filed per a court order. It alleges a complex, cross-owned structure among the foreign defendants, who allegedly use various aliases to operate e-commerce stores and conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,024,494 S - "SHOE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,024,494 S, "SHOE", issued April 30, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent itself, as a design patent, does not articulate a technical problem. The complaint alleges the patented design was developed to provide a "uniquely styled stripe design" for steel-toe work shoes, intended for high-intensity labor (Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional ornamental appearance of a shoe. The claimed design features a prominent, wavy, cage-like overlay extending along the sides of the shoe from the toe to the heel, a distinctively shaped toe cap, and a segmented sole structure with visible breaks ('494 Patent, FIGS. 1, 5, 6). The description explicitly states that the broken lines illustrating the tread pattern on the sole are not part of the claimed design ('494 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "uniquely styled" design made the shoe "highly popular in the market" (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a shoe, as shown and described" ('494 Patent, CLAIM).
• This claim protects the overall visual impression created by the combination of all features depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," identified as steel-toe work shoes that "look almost identical to the products sold by Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶¶4, 10, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants market, sell, and import these shoes through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶4). The complaint identifies specific store names such as "NIFOFISE" and "iam9457" and alleges they are operated by the named Defendants (Compl. ¶12). The core of the allegation is that these products appropriate the specific ornamental design covered by the ’494 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants are interrelated, share a common origin for their products, and are coordinated to infringe (Compl. ¶¶12, 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design. The complaint's allegations are based on the assertion that the accused shoes "look almost identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶4).

’494 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central factual question will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused products and the design claimed in the ’494 Patent. The analysis will depend on a side-by-side comparison to determine if an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same.
• Scope Questions: A key legal question relates to the scope of the claimed design. The patent explicitly disclaims the tread pattern on the sole by depicting it in broken lines ('494 Patent, DESCRIPTION, FIG. 4). The infringement analysis must therefore ignore the tread pattern and focus only on the elements shown in solid lines. The court may also need to consider whether any of the claimed features are dictated primarily by function, which would place them outside the scope of design patent protection.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the drawings themselves, and formal construction of text-based terms is rare. The central issue is the interpretation of the design's overall visual scope.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a shoe"
• Context and Importance: The scope of what this "design" covers is the core of the case. The infringement analysis depends entirely on what visual features are included within the boundaries of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the distinction between protected ornamental features and unprotected functional elements or disclaimed subject matter is dispositive.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the "design for a shoe, as shown and described," suggesting the protected right is the overall visual impression created by the novel combination of all depicted solid-line elements viewed as a whole ('494 Patent, CLAIM).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contains an explicit disclaimer: "The broken lines illustrating the tread form no part of the claim" ('494 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This statement definitively limits the scope of protection by excluding the sole's tread pattern from the infringement analysis, forcing reliance only on the remaining ornamental features.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringement (Compl. ¶16). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed third parties on how to infringe or provided a component with no substantial non-infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowingly and willfully" and "at all times been willful, intentional, purposeful, and in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶¶16, 24). The complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’494 Patent, such as through a notification letter from the Plaintiff. The willfulness allegation appears to be based on the alleged identical nature of the accused products.

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

1. Visual Comparison and the Ordinary Observer: The case will fundamentally depend on a factual comparison. The central question is whether an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would find the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused shoes to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '494 Patent.
2. Impact of Disclaimed Subject Matter: A key legal and factual question will be how the explicit disclaimer of the sole's tread pattern affects the infringement analysis. The court must determine if, without considering the tread, the remaining claimed features (such as the side overlays and toe cap) are sufficiently similar to the accused products to support a finding of infringement.
3. Liability and Joinder: A significant procedural issue will be whether Plaintiff can successfully prove its allegations that the multiple named Defendants operate as a single, coordinated enterprise. Proving the alleged interrelationships and use of aliases will be critical to establishing liability across all named parties (Compl. ¶¶12, 15).