1:25-cv-02973
Zhong v. Shanghai Jingsun Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Binglin Zhong (Guangdong, China)
- Defendant: Shanghai Jingsun Technology Co. LTD aka 'Millionhom' (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|RM DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02973, N.D. Ill., 03/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's operation of a commercial internet store that directly targets and sells products to consumers in the United States, including the state of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s charge protector product infringes a U.S. design patent for a "CHARGE PROTECTOR."
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the ornamental design for electrical charge protectors, a product category where aesthetic appearance can serve as a key market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's product embodying the patented design was "first to market" and that Plaintiff has engaged in prior enforcement efforts, such as sending "take down notices."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-10-01 | Plaintiff initiated design work on the product. |
| 2022-06-17 | Application filed for U.S. Patent No. D1,008,977. |
| 2023-12-26 | U.S. Patent No. D1,008,977 issued. |
| 2025-03-20 | Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,008,977 - "CHARGE PROTECTOR"
- Issued: December 26, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific functional problem. Instead, it details a "meticulous" development process aimed at creating a "unique and proprietary design" with both "functional and aesthetic standards" to produce a "high-quality final product" (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a charge protector as depicted in its figures ('977 Patent, Claim). The design consists of the visual characteristics of the article, including a main rectangular housing with rounded corners and ribbed side grips, a hinged and apparently transparent cover on the face, a flexible cord, and a distinctively shaped plug handle ('977 Patent, Figs. 1-9).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design enabled the Plaintiff to establish its product as "first to market" and build an "established reputation for quality," suggesting the design's importance relates to brand identity and market distinction (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "the ornamental design for a charge protector, as shown and described" ('977 Patent, Claim).
- The claimed design is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which show the overall shape and surface ornamentation of the device, including:
- The configuration of the main rectangular body.
- A hinged front cover over the receptacle area.
- A pattern of vertical ribs on the side surfaces.
- The shape of the plug and its integrated handle.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "CHARGE PROTECTOR" products sold by Defendant Shanghai Jingsun Technology Co. LTD through its online "Millionhom" store (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4). The complaint characterizes the products as a "knock-off" of the patented design (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are "the same infringing product" as Plaintiff's and are marketed and sold through an interactive commercial website that targets consumers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 12). The complaint includes an image of the patented design with its front cover open, intended to represent the product at issue. (Compl. ¶9, Image B). This image shows a perspective view of the charge protector, highlighting the hinged cover and the receptacle underneath (Compl. ¶9, Image B).
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 design. The complaint alleges that the accused product is a direct "knock-off" that is "substantially the same" as the patented design.
D1,008,977 Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Infringing Design Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of the charge protector. | The accused product is alleged to be a "knock-off" and a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed." | ¶¶ 1, 13, 23 | '977 Patent, Figs. 1-9 |
| A main rectangular housing with a hinged, transparent front cover. | The complaint alleges wholesale copying of the design, which includes these features as depicted in the patent's figures. | ¶¶ 4, 13 | '977 Patent, Figs. 1, 9 |
| A pattern of vertical ribs on the side surfaces of the housing. | The accused product is alleged to embody the patented design, which includes ribbed side grips. | ¶¶ 1, 13 | '977 Patent, Figs. 4, 5 |
| A distinctly shaped plug with an integrated handle. | The infringement allegation encompasses the entire claimed design, including the plug assembly. | ¶¶ 1, 13 | '977 Patent, Figs. 1, 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question: The central issue will be a factual comparison. The court will need to apply the "ordinary observer" test by comparing the Defendant's actual product with the drawings in the '977 Patent. The outcome will depend on whether the overall visual impressions of the two designs are "substantially the same."
- Scope Question: The patent disclaims certain features shown in broken lines, stating they "form no part of the claimed design" ('977 Patent, Description). This includes the electrical prongs and internal receptacle configuration. A potential point of contention may arise if the Defendant's product differs from the patent drawings in these unclaimed areas, which would raise the question of whether such differences are legally relevant to the infringement analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on specific text. The title of the article of manufacture is, however, a relevant consideration.
- The Term: "charge protector"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Practitioners may focus on this term to establish the proper context for the "ordinary observer" test and to determine if the accused product is the same type of article as that claimed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides no explicit definition or limitation for "charge protector" beyond the title and the claim itself ('977 Patent, (54), Claim). This lack of specific definition could support an interpretation covering a range of electrical protection devices.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent depict a specific embodiment: a portable electrical device with a particular style of plug and receptacle, often associated with applications like recreational vehicles ('977 Patent, Figs. 1-9). An argument could be made that the scope of the design is limited to articles having this general form and function. The patent's front page also cites as a reference an "RV Surge... Protector," which, while extrinsic, may inform the understanding of the article of manufacture ('977 Patent, Other Publications).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of direct "and/or" indirect infringement (Compl. ¶19) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the pleading does not set forth specific facts to support the elements of a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as specific acts intended to encourage infringement by third parties.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶13, 20). The factual basis cited is the allegation that Defendant intentionally sold a "knock-off product" and designed its online store to mimic an authorized seller (Compl. ¶4). The allegations appear to be based on purported deliberate copying of the product's design, rather than on pre-suit knowledge of the '977 Patent itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The "Ordinary Observer" Test: A core issue will be the direct application of the ordinary observer test. The case will likely depend on a side-by-side visual comparison of the Defendant's product and the '977 Patent's drawings to determine if the designs are "substantially the same" to the eye of an ordinary purchaser.
- Basis for Willfulness: A key question will be whether Plaintiff can prove that the alleged copying rises to the level of egregious conduct required for a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages, particularly where the complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the recently issued patent.
- Jurisdiction and Enforceability: Given the Defendant is a foreign entity allegedly operating under concealable online identities (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16), a threshold issue will be the court's ability to establish personal jurisdiction and, ultimately, to enforce any resulting judgment or injunction.