1:25-cv-01944
Peixian JiYi Cat Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Peixian JiYi Cat Trading Co. Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01944, N.D. Ill., 02/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial websites and shipping products to residents of the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of a "wooden toy apparatus" infringe a U.S. design patent covering the toy's ornamental appearance.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer products sector, specifically concerning the design of wooden toys sold through online marketplaces.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the case as being related to a prior case, 2024-cv-12377, which involved some of the same intellectual property. The complaint frames the action as a response to a network of online sellers who allegedly operate under multiple aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-12-27 | '258 Patent Foreign Priority Date |
| 2024-02-18 | Earliest online review date for similar product cited in patent file history |
| 2024-08-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,038,258 S Issued |
| 2025-02-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,038,258 S - "Wooden Toy"
- Issued: August 6, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect an article's ornamental appearance rather than its function. The patent sought to secure rights to a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a toy (D'258 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific visual design for a wooden toy. The design consists of a platform base upon which two puppet-like figures are mounted, each controlled by a lever mechanism. Key ornamental features include the figures' rounded heads, segmented bodies, and pole-like implements, creating the appearance of a battling or fencing game (D'258 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The overall configuration and the specific styling of the components constitute the patented design.
- Technical Importance: The design creates a distinctive visual identity for a wooden toy, which the complaint alleges has become associated with the Plaintiff's brand and quality (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a wooden toy, as shown and described" (D'258 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings. The essential elements are the overall visual impression created by the combination of:
- The configuration of two opposing figures on a shared base.
- The specific appearance of the puppet figures, including their rounded heads, torsos, and limbs.
- The visual characteristics of the lever-and-rod control mechanism.
- The design of the rectangular base with angled line shading on its surface.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as "Infringing Products," specifically a "wooden toy apparatus" sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others, to sell products that copy the Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 12). These online stores allegedly use tactics such as multiple aliases and false registration information to conceal the operators' identities and make it difficult for consumers to distinguish the accused products from genuine articles (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16). The complaint provides a representative image of an accused "wooden toy apparatus" in its Exhibit 1 (Compl. ¶5, Ex. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement 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 analysis focuses on the overall visual similarity of the designs, not a functional, element-by-element comparison.
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint does not provide a formal claim chart but alleges that the "Infringing Products" are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that "infringes Peixian JiYi's patented design" (Compl. ¶5). The infringement theory rests on the substantial visual similarity between the accused products and the patented design.
| Key Ornamental Feature (from D'258 Patent, as shown in Figs. 1-7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a wooden toy | The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import a "wooden toy apparatus" that embodies the patented design, as depicted in a representative image in the complaint's Exhibit 1 (Compl. ¶5). | ¶¶5, 25 | Figs. 1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '258 Patent. This analysis will depend on a visual comparison of the products sold by Defendants with the drawings in the patent. The complaint’s Exhibit 1, showing an allegedly infringing product, will be a key piece of evidence for this comparison (Compl. ¶5, Ex. 1).
- Role of Prior Art: The infringement test is performed through the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. The degree of similarity required for a finding of infringement may depend on how different the patented design is from prior art designs for similar toys. The '258 Patent itself cites several prior art references, which could become relevant in defining the scope of the patented design (D'258 Patent, p. 1).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction for design patents is tied to the drawings rather than textual terms. Therefore, a formal claim construction analysis of specific terms is not applicable to this dispute.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶25) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). The factual basis for these allegations appears to be the claim that Defendants operate as a coordinated network, working in "active concert" and sharing tactics for evading detection (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" and engage in conduct designed to conceal their infringing activities, such as using multiple storefronts, providing false registration information, and operating from jurisdictions with lax enforcement (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 16, 17, 21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused wooden toys "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '258 Patent, particularly when viewed in the context of the relevant prior art?
- A second key issue will concern liability and remedies: If infringement is found, do the allegations of a coordinated, multi-alias e-commerce network operating to deliberately evade enforcement, if proven, support a finding of willful infringement that would justify enhanced damages or an award of the Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289?