DCT

1:25-cv-02144

Peixian JiYi Cat Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02144, N.D. Ill., 02/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores and shipping products to Illinois residents.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are selling a "wooden toy apparatus" that infringes the ornamental design protected by Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer products sector, specifically concerning the ornamental design of wooden toys sold through online marketplaces.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the case is related to two earlier cases, 2024-cv-12377 and 2025-cv-1944, which are said to involve "some of the same intellectual property," suggesting a pattern of enforcement actions by the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-12-27 ’258 Patent Priority Date
2024-01-01 Plaintiff began selling its products in the U.S. (on or after this date)
2024-08-06 ’258 Patent Issue Date
2025-02-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,038,258 S - “Wooden Toy”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,038,258 S (“’258 Patent”), “Wooden Toy,” issued August 6, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not frame the invention in terms of a technical problem, but rather as an effort to protect a "unique and innovative design" in the crowded field of consumer toys (Compl. ¶7). Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not its utility.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental design for a wooden toy as illustrated in the patent's seven figures (’258 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design features two stylized figures with round heads mounted on a base, holding long implements, suggesting an interactive fencing or dueling toy (’258 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design has become "instantly recognizable" to consumers and is associated with "high quality wooden toys" (Compl. ¶7).

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" (’258 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings, which depict the article from perspective, front, back, left, right, top, and bottom views (’258 Patent, Figs. 1-7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are referred to as the "Infringing Products," further described as a "wooden toy apparatus" (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants, operating under various "Seller Aliases," offer for sale, sell, and/or import these wooden toys through e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶12). The complaint asserts that the Infringing Products sold by the various Defendants are, "on information and belief, the same product" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that a visual representation of an infringing "wooden toy apparatus" is provided in its Exhibit 1 (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' products meet this test.

D1,038,258 S Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a wooden toy, as shown and described. Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, and/or importing a "wooden toy apparatus" whose ornamental design is alleged to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’258 Patent. ¶5, ¶25 Figs. 1-7

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question is one of visual similarity. The court will need to compare the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products with the design shown in the ’258 Patent's drawings to determine if they are substantially the same.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be establishing that the products sold by the numerous, disparate "Seller Aliases" are indeed the "same product" as alleged (Compl. ¶12) and that the design of that product is the one represented in the complaint's exhibits.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction rarely involves textual disputes. Instead, it focuses on the visual scope of the design as depicted in the patent drawings.

  • The "Term": The overall "ornamental design for a wooden toy."
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the scope of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on this "term" because the comparison between the patented design and the accused product is a comparison of visual wholes, not a list of features. The scope of protection is defined by what is shown in solid lines in the patent figures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described," which encompasses the overall visual impression created by the combination of all illustrated elements (’258 Patent, Claim). The Plaintiff may argue the design's novelty lies in its overall configuration, affording it a broader scope against similar-looking toys.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's front page cites several prior art references, including other design patents and a product titled “Balloon Bamboo Man Battle” (’258 Patent, p. 3, "Other Publications"). A defendant could argue that these references narrow the scope of the ’258 Patent's protectable design to only those aspects that are distinct from this prior art. The court's construction would therefore focus on the specific visual details that differentiate the ’258 Patent design from what came before.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "indirectly" infringe the ’258 Patent (Compl. ¶25). It further alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell the accused products (Compl. ¶21). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin aiding and abetting (Prayer for Relief ¶1.b).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that the infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on the claim that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale, sold, and/or imported the infringing products (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual scope and similarity: Applying the ordinary observer test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused products substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’258 Patent, particularly in light of the prior art cited on the patent's face?
  • A central procedural question will be one of jurisdiction and enforcement: The complaint is structured as an enforcement action against a large number of unidentified e-commerce sellers. A key challenge for the Plaintiff will be successfully identifying, serving, and obtaining and enforcing a judgment against these allegedly foreign-based and anonymous entities.
  • A key damages question will be the applicability of infringer's profits: The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded for the recovery of the Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy unique to design patents (Compl. ¶27, ¶ Prayer for Relief 5). The viability and calculation of this remedy will likely be a significant issue if infringement is found.