DCT

1:25-cv-02805

Shenzhenshi Sichuangtiancheng Dianzishangwu Youxiangongsi v. Hong Kong Maysee Trading Co Ltmited

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02805, N.D. Ill., 03/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a non-U.S. resident who may be sued in any judicial district and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district due to its patent infringement notifications sent to Amazon, which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff's products and caused harm within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Momcozy" brand maternity body pillows do not infringe Defendant's U.S. Design Patent No. D923,971, and further contends that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of maternity body pillows, a consumer product category where specific shapes and contours are key features for marketing and sales, particularly in online marketplaces like Amazon.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by infringement notifications Defendant sent to Amazon on or about March 10, 2025, which caused Plaintiff's products to be removed from sale. The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of materially similar prior art during the patent's prosecution, a fact Plaintiff leverages to support its claims of invalidity and to argue the case is exceptional.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-04-16 Prior art pillow (ASIN B0CNVQDFNF) first available on Amazon.
2020-04-19 Prior art Elover pillow (ASIN B0C4PQ55G9) first available on Amazon.
2020-06-11 Customer review published for prior art Elover pillow.
2020-08-28 Prior art pillow (ASIN B08P457TLT) first available on Amazon.
2020-09-17 ’971 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date).
2021-03-02 Examiner cites references during '971 patent prosecution.
2021-07-06 U.S. Patent No. D923,971 Issued.
2025-03-10 Amazon sends infringement notice to Plaintiff.
2025-03-17 Complaint Filing Date.

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

U.S. Patent No. D923,971 - "Pillow", Issued July 6, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The patent protects a specific aesthetic design for a pillow intended for the consumer body pillow market (Compl. ¶5).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described" ('971 Patent, Claim). The design, depicted across seven figures, is for a large, generally J-shaped pillow. Its notable features include a long straight arm, a curved bottom and top, and a contoured inner edge with a distinct inward curve or "bump" partway down the straight arm, creating a continuous open space ('971 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer goods market for products like body pillows, ornamental design is a critical differentiator that drives purchasing decisions, particularly in visually-driven online marketplaces (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described." ('971 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings. Infringement is assessed using the "ordinary observer" test, which compares the patented design to the accused product's design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Momcozy" brand maternity body pillows, sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com under various ASINs, including B0DT15Q3HV and B0DT3TD998 (the "Accused Pillows") (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 9, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Pillows are large, J-shaped pillows intended to provide body support for consumers (Compl. ¶5). The complaint includes a photograph of an Accused Pillow, showing its overall shape and contours (Compl. p. 5, "Maternity Body Pillows"). The commercial context is centered on the Amazon e-commerce platform, where Defendant's infringement assertions led to the delisting of Plaintiff's products, thereby creating the justiciable controversy that forms the basis of this declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint argues for a judgment of non-infringement by highlighting alleged visual differences between the patented design and the Accused Pillows. The side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint shows the Accused Pillow next to a figure from the patent. (Compl. p. 5). Another visual uses arrows to draw attention to specific proportional differences between the designs. (Compl. p. 6).

'971 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature (from '971 Patent) Alleged Distinguishing Feature of Accused Pillow Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a pillow where the elongated section extends over the curved bottom section. The Accused Pillow is designed with the curved bottom section extending over the elongated section. ¶19; p. 5 Fig. 3, 6
The ornamental design for a pillow having internal openings of a specific proportion and shape. The Accused Pillow has smaller internal openings relative to its overall size. ¶20; p. 6 Fig. 3
The ornamental design for a pillow where the elongated section maintains a substantially constant width. The elongated section of the Accused Pillow gradually widens from top to bottom. ¶21 Fig. 3
The ornamental design for a pillow where the inner curved "bump" is positioned relatively low on the elongated section. The inner curved "bump" on the Accused Pillow is positioned much closer to the top end. ¶21; p. 6 Fig. 3

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The core issue for infringement is whether the differences articulated by Plaintiff are sufficient to lead an ordinary observer to believe the patented and accused designs are not substantially the same. The dispute will likely focus on whether the '971 patent protects the general J-shape concept with an inner contour, or if its scope is limited to the specific proportions and arrangements shown in the drawings.
  • Design Questions: A key question is whether the overall visual impression is dictated by the general shared shape or by the specific differences in proportions, curve placement, and sectional overlap that Plaintiff highlights (Compl. ¶¶ 19-21). The complaint's visual aids, such as colored lines and arrows, attempt to frame this comparison by directing the observer's attention to these alleged distinctions (Compl. pp. 5-6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For a design patent, there are no traditional claim terms to construe. The analysis centers on the scope of the design as depicted in the drawings.

  • The "Term": The scope of "the ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The resolution of the case depends on the visual scope afforded to the patent's drawings under the "ordinary observer" test. Practitioners may focus on this issue because Plaintiff's non-infringement case relies on a narrow interpretation of the design's specific proportions, while Defendant's infringement claim would require a broader interpretation that captures similar, but not identical, shapes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the overall visual impression of the '971 patent is of a J-shaped body pillow with a contoured inner edge, and that minor variations in proportion or curve placement do not change this fundamental design concept. The seven figures collectively define a complete three-dimensional appearance that could be seen as encompassing products with slight variations ('971 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that specific, consistently depicted features—such as the constant width of the long arm, the precise location of the inner "bump," and the manner in which the bottom section tucks under the side arm—are defining characteristics of the patented design, not mere incidental details ('971 Patent, Fig. 3, 6). The complaint adopts this view, arguing these specific features distinguish its product from the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21).

VI. Allegations of Bad Faith / Exceptional Case

  • Exceptional Case: Plaintiff seeks a declaration that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle it to attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 37).
  • Basis for Allegations: The claim is premised on the allegation that Defendant's infringement notifications to Amazon were "frivolous" and "objectively baseless" (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 45). Plaintiff alleges Defendant had actual knowledge of both non-infringement and the patent's invalidity.
    • Alleged Knowledge of Invalidity: Plaintiff contends that Defendant knew or should have known the '971 patent was invalid because the patent's prosecution file shows the examiner cited prior art ("Elover Pregnancy Pillow U-Shaped") that is "materially the same as the Accused Pillows" (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 42). Plaintiff further argues that by accusing its pillows, Defendant "effectively accuse[d] prior art of infringement, which necessarily invalidates the '971 patent" (Compl. ¶35). The complaint provides visual evidence comparing the Accused Pillow to allegedly invalidating prior art sold on Amazon before the patent's priority date (Compl. pp. 8-10).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Under the "ordinary observer" test, are the alleged differences in proportion, contour placement, and sectional overlap between the Accused Pillow and the '971 patent's drawings significant enough to create a distinct overall visual impression, or are they minor variations of the same essential design?
  • A dispositive question will be one of validity: Does the prior art identified by the Plaintiff, particularly the pillows allegedly sold on Amazon before the '971 patent's September 2020 priority date, anticipate or render obvious the claimed design, thereby invalidating the patent?
  • A key question regarding damages and fees will be the patent holder's conduct: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant's infringement notifications to Amazon were objectively baseless, especially given the allegation that Defendant was aware of highly similar prior art during prosecution, potentially making this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285?