Wu v. Partnership Unincorp Associates

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: Yongjie Wu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yongjie Wu (Zhejiang, CHINA)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (jurisdictions filed under seal)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|R.M. DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02995, N.D. Ill., 03/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate commercial internet stores that target and sell products to consumers in Illinois, constituting tortious acts within the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing a U.S. design patent by selling "knock-off" portable pizza stoves that are visually identical to the patented design.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the ornamental design of portable, wood-fired pizza ovens, a product category within the competitive consumer market for outdoor cooking appliances.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. It frames the action as an effort to combat a network of online infringers who allegedly operate under fictitious names to conceal their identities and interrelationships.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D845,695 - "PIZZA STOVE"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the market for consumer goods like portable pizza ovens, establishing a distinct and recognizable product appearance is a key challenge. The patent addresses the need for a unique ornamental design to differentiate a product from competitors.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a pizza stove. The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a horizontal, barrel-shaped main body supported by four splayed, angled legs. A tall, vertical chimney stack rises from the top surface of the body, and a rear-mounted hopper for fuel is integrated into the back of the unit (’695 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The claim is for the overall visual impression created by this specific combination of shapes and configurations (’695 Patent, Claim).
• Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific aesthetic identity for a product in the competitive outdoor appliance market, which the plaintiff alleges was "first to market" and established a "well-earned reputation for quality and innovation" (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pizza stove, as shown and described" (’695 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The key visual features comprising the claimed design, shown in solid lines, include:
  • The overall configuration of a horizontal barrel-like body on four angled legs.
  • A vertical chimney extending from the top of the body.
  • A hopper assembly at the rear of the body.
  • The specific proportions and arrangement of these components.
• The patent explicitly disclaims subject matter shown in broken lines, such as a temperature gauge and logo plate on the front of the oven, which therefore form no part of the claimed design (’695 Patent, p. 1, "Description"; Fig. 2).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Knockoff products" are portable pizza stoves sold by Defendants through various online storefronts (Compl. ¶¶4, 12). Specific examples of the accused products and the sellers are detailed in exhibits filed under seal (Compl. ¶12, Ex. C).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are the "same knockoff product" sold by a coordinated network of infringers who use multiple fictitious names and online stores on platforms such as Amazon, Alibaba, Walmart, and eBay (Compl. ¶¶4, 16, 19). The complaint alleges these products are marketed and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶20). The complaint includes an image of the patented design that serves as the basis for comparison. This image shows a portable pizza oven with a distinctive barrel shape, splayed legs, and a vertical chimney (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

For a design patent, infringement is assessed by comparing the patented design to the accused product from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The following table outlines the alleged correspondence between the key features of the patented design and the accused products.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Question: The central issue will be a factual comparison. Does the overall visual appearance of the accused "Knockoff products" deceive an ordinary observer into believing they are purchasing the product embodying the patented design? This analysis will depend on evidence presented from the sealed Exhibit C.
• Scope Question: A question may arise regarding the impact of any minor differences between the accused products and the claimed design. The analysis will focus on whether such differences are sufficient to alter the overall visual impression in the eyes of an ordinary observer, particularly in light of the prior art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"The ornamental design for a pizza stove, as shown and described."

Context and Importance

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is not construed through its words but is defined by the patent's drawings as a whole. The entire case hinges on the visual comparison between the accused product and these drawings. Practitioners will focus on the overall visual effect of the design, rather than on discrete verbal elements. The explicit disclaimer of matter shown in broken lines will be a critical factor in defining the design's scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim protects the overall visual impression created by the novel combination of elements (body, legs, chimney, hopper). An argument may be made that any product capturing this same overall aesthetic gestalt, even with minor variations in unclaimed features or surface finish, falls within the scope of the design.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope is strictly limited to what is shown in solid lines (’695 Patent, p. 1, "Description"). The patent disclaims the temperature gauge and front-mounted logo plate by rendering them in broken lines (’695 Patent, Fig. 2). This provides clear intrinsic evidence that the patented design is independent of these specific features, focusing the infringement inquiry on the product's core shape and configuration.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes passing reference to "indirect" infringement (Compl. ¶¶20, 24). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed others to infringe or sold a material component with no substantial non-infringing use.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶¶20, 21). This allegation is primarily based on the assertion that Defendants sell "knock-off" products, which implies intentional copying of Plaintiff's established design (Compl. ¶4).

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

1. The Ordinary Observer Test: The case's outcome will depend on the application of the ordinary observer test. A core question for the court will be whether the accused products, when compared to the ’695 Patent's drawings, are substantially the same in overall visual appearance such that an ordinary observer would be deceived.
2. Scope of Protection: A key issue will be the precise scope of the patented design. The analysis will focus on the overall shape and configuration of the elements shown in solid lines, and the court will have to determine whether any differences in the accused products are significant enough to avoid infringement or are merely minor variations that do not change the overall visual impression.
3. Defendant Identification and Liability: A significant procedural hurdle will be resolving the identity and interrelation of the numerous, pseudonymous defendants. The plaintiff’s ability to prove its theory that the defendants constitute an interrelated group of infringers selling the "same knockoff product" will be critical to the case's efficient resolution.