DCT
1:25-cv-02278
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. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (People's Republic of China, on information and belief)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02278, N.D. Ill., 03/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target business activities toward and ship products to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of a "wooden toy apparatus" via online marketplaces infringes its U.S. design patent for a wooden toy.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer products sector, specifically concerning the ornamental design of wooden toys sold through e-commerce channels.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies this case as being related to three prior cases (2024-cv-12377, 2025-cv-1944, and 25-CV-2144) that involve "some of the same intellectual property," suggesting an ongoing enforcement campaign against various alleged infringers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-12-27 | '258 Patent Foreign Priority Date (China) |
| 2024-01-01 | Plaintiff began selling its products in the U.S. (on or before this date) |
| 2024-08-06 | '258 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-03-04 | 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, "Wooden Toy," issued August 6, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem; as a design patent, it addresses the challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a wooden toy (Compl. ¶8; ’258 Patent, p. 1).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a wooden toy apparatus. The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of two stylized, opposing humanoid figures mounted on a shared rectangular base, each appearing to hold a long pole or weapon (’258 Patent, FIG. 1). The claim protects the overall ornamental look of this configuration rather than any functional aspect (’258 Patent, p. 3, "CLAIM").
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive patented design has become popular and is "instantly recognizable" by the purchasing public, symbolizing "high quality wooden toys" (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the patent's single claim (Compl. ¶25).
- The claim covers "The ornamental design for a wooden toy, as shown and described" (’258 Patent, p. 3). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-7 of the patent, which depict the toy from perspective, front, back, side, top, and bottom views.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as "Infringing Products," specifically a "wooden toy apparatus" (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants sell these wooden toys through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, and eBay (Compl. ¶12). The complaint states that an example of the accused "wooden toy apparatus" is depicted in its Exhibit 1 (Compl. ¶5). It is alleged that Defendants are part of an interrelated network that uses tactics to conceal their identities and appear to be authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 11, 15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element breakdown or claim chart, which is typical for a design patent case where the infringement analysis is holistic.
U.S. Design Patent D1,038,258 S Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegation for the ’258 Patent rests on 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's central theory is that the "wooden toy apparatus" made, used, and sold by Defendants is substantially the same in its overall visual appearance as the ornamental design claimed in the ’258 Patent (Compl. ¶25). The infringement claim is based on a direct comparison between the accused products and the design shown in the patent's figures.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The primary question for the court will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This will involve a direct visual comparison of the accused toys with the drawings in the ’258 Patent.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about which specific features of the design are ornamental and non-functional. The comparison must focus on the ornamental aspects of the design as a whole, rather than any features dictated solely by the toy's function. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by verbal descriptions. Consequently, formal construction of terms is rare. The central analysis will likely focus on the visual comparison required by the "ordinary observer" test, not on the definition of a specific term within the single claim, "The ornamental design for a wooden toy, as shown and described" (’258 Patent, p. 3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶25). The prayer for relief also requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. p. 11, ¶1(b)). The factual basis for these allegations appears to be the assertion that Defendants operate in "active concert" and that the infringing products come from a "common source" (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on the claim that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in concert to manufacture and sell the infringing products without authorization from the plaintiff (Compl. ¶21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: under the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' accused "wooden toy apparatus" substantially the same as the design claimed in the '258 Patent?
- A key procedural and evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can successfully establish that the various unnamed e-commerce storefronts listed in Schedule A are legally interrelated and can be treated as a single enterprise for purposes of jurisdiction, liability, and enforcement, as alleged in the complaint.
- The case will also turn on a jurisdictional question: does the alleged targeting of sales to Illinois residents through interactive websites provide a sufficient basis for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the foreign-based, unidentified Defendants?