DCT

1:25-cv-02646

Wu v. Jinjiangshizimaozhenliuqianbingxiefushangdian

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02646, N.D. Ill., 03/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in any U.S. judicial district because the Defendant is not a resident of the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce sales of work shoes infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a shoe.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of footwear, a product category where visual appearance is a significant driver of consumer choice, particularly in online marketplaces.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-01-01 Plaintiff allegedly began selling products with the patented design
2022-12-06 Priority and Filing Date for '494 Patent
2024-04-30 '494 Patent Issue Date
2025-03-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,024,494 S - "SHOE", issued April 30, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶ 9; '494 Patent, Claim). The patent claims rights to a specific visual design for a shoe.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design of a shoe as depicted in its eight figures ('494 Patent, Figs. 1-8). Key visual features include a series of raised, wavy, horizontal stripes along the shoe's side, a distinct pattern on the toe cap, and the overall shape and proportions of the upper and midsole ('494 Patent, Fig. 1, 5, 6). The patent explicitly disclaims the tread pattern on the bottom of the sole, which is shown in broken lines ('494 Patent, col. 1:66-68).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design is "uniquely styled" and has become "highly popular in the market," suggesting its aesthetic qualities are a key commercial feature (Compl. ¶ 9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a shoe, as shown and described." ('494 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the shoe as illustrated in the solid lines of the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint refers to the accused products generally as "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶ 10). It does not identify specific product names or model numbers.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Defendant operates e-commerce stores on online platforms, through which it makes, markets, offers for sale, and sells the accused products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶ 3, 4).
  • The accused products are described as unauthorized items that "look almost identical to the products sold by Plaintiff" and "utilize Plaintiff's federally registered patent work" (Compl. ¶ 4, 10).
  • The complaint describes the product category as "steel-toe work shoe[s]" (Compl. ¶ 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "almost identical" to the patented design, which is the basis for the design patent infringement claim (Compl. ¶ 4). The legal test 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 design. The complaint does not provide specific visual comparisons or detailed claim charts. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific infringing elements in a chart format. The infringement theory is based on a general allegation that the Defendant's products look "almost identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶ 4, 10).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: A central question will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the figures in the '494 Patent. The dispute will turn on whether the overall visual impression of the two designs is substantially the same from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
    • Prior Art: The scope of the '494 Patent and the infringement analysis will depend on the prior art for shoe designs. The closer the patented design is to the prior art, the smaller the differences need to be for an accused product to be found non-infringing.
    • Functionality: A potential point of contention is the extent to which the design is dictated by its function as a "work shoe" (Compl. ¶ 9). A defendant may argue that certain features (e.g., a bulky sole or reinforced toe) are functional and should be excluded from the infringement analysis, thereby narrowing the scope of the protected design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the drawings largely define the claim scope. However, the boundary between ornamental and functional features can be a critical issue for the court to determine.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a shoe"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint identifies the product as a "steel-toe work shoe" (Compl. ¶ 9), raising the question of which design elements are purely ornamental (and protected) versus which are dictated by function (and unprotected). The outcome of this analysis directly impacts the scope of the patent's protection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual appearance of the shoe as a whole, as depicted in the patent's figures ('494 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-8). The aesthetic impression is created by the combination of all claimed features, not just individual elements.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent itself provides an explicit limitation by disclaiming the sole's tread pattern ("The broken lines illustrating the tread form no part of the claim") ('494 Patent, col. 1:66-68). A defendant could argue that other features necessary for the shoe's function as a "work shoe" should similarly be filtered out of the infringement analysis, limiting the comparison to purely stylistic elements like the "uniquely styled stripe design" (Compl. ¶ 9).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as knowledge of the patent and specific actions intended to encourage infringement by others (Compl. p. 5, ¶(1)(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's conduct has been "willful, intentional, purposeful, and in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶ 18). It does not, however, allege any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the '494 Patent or deliberate copying.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of visual comparison: will an ordinary observer, viewing the accused shoe and the '494 Patent's design in the context of the relevant prior art, find the two designs to be substantially the same? The case will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent figures.
  2. A key legal question will be the scope of protection: to what extent are the visual elements of the patented design dictated by its function as a "work shoe"? The court's determination of which features are ornamental versus functional will be critical in defining the scope of the patent right and the ultimate infringement analysis.