DCT

1:25-cv-03316

Deng v. Mozaci

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03316, N.D. Ill., 03/27/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly targeting business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through a commercial internet store that accepts U.S. currency and ships products to the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SQUARE FIDGET POP KEYCHAIN" products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such an item.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer products sector, specifically concerning handheld fidget toys, which are popular novelty items.
  • Key Procedural History: The face of the asserted patent indicates that it is subject to a terminal disclaimer and that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was filed during prosecution. The declaration may have been used to disqualify certain prior art references, and the terminal disclaimer may be relevant to any future validity challenges based on double patenting.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-04-20 D'188 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2024-06-25 D'188 Patent Issue Date
2025-03-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,032,188 - "SQUARE FIDGET POP KEYCHAIN"

The asserted patent is U.S. Design Patent No. D1,032,188, issued June 25, 2024 (the “D’188 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the design was created to achieve a unique combination of "aesthetic appeal and functionality" in the field of fidget toys (Compl. ¶6). The goal of a design patent is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The D'188 Patent protects the specific visual appearance of a fidget keychain. The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a square body with rounded corners, a top surface divided into four quadrants each containing a circular "pop" bubble, and an integrated keychain loop at one of the top corners (D’188 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The claim covers the ornamental design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings (D’188 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the design was "first to market, with a well-earned reputation for quality and innovation" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The D'188 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a square fidget pop keychain, as shown and described" (D’188 Patent, Claim).
  • The claimed ornamental design is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's drawings, including:
    • The overall configuration of a square body with four circular bubbles and a corner-mounted loop.
    • The specific proportions and rounded curvature of the main body.
    • The two-by-two grid layout of the circular bubbles.
    • The shape and placement of the keychain loop integral to a corner of the square body.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Knockoff products" that infringe the D'188 Patent, sold by Defendant through online store links operating under the name "MOZACI" (Compl. ¶3, ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are the "same, knock-off product of the claimed design" (Compl. ¶1, ¶14). These products are allegedly marketed, sold, and shipped to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through Defendant's e-commerce operations (Compl. ¶2, ¶13). The complaint alleges that Defendant uses tactics such as fictitious names to conceal its identity and avoid enforcement (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's products infringe the D'188 Patent because an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same (Compl. ¶24). The legal test for design patent infringement asks whether "an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device supposing it to be the patented one." The complaint alleges that Defendant sells "knockoff products" that are a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)).

To illustrate the design at issue, the complaint provides a line drawing from the patent itself, showing the square, four-bubble fidget toy with a corner keychain loop (Compl. ¶9, Image 1). The complaint references Exhibits C and D, which purportedly show the accused products, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document. A direct comparison between the patented design and the accused product's design is therefore not possible from the provided documents.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused MOZACI keychain is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'188 Patent. This analysis will involve comparing the accused product to the figures in the D'188 Patent.
  • Role of Prior Art: The infringement analysis is performed from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. The D'188 Patent's prosecution history and the broader landscape of existing fidget toy designs may become relevant. A key question could be whether any similarities between the accused product and the patented design are attributable to functional elements or ornamental features that were already common in the prior art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically focused on the scope of the design as a whole, as depicted in the patent figures, rather than the construction of specific verbal terms.

The Term

"The ornamental design for a square fidget pop keychain, as shown and described."

Context and Importance

The scope of patent protection is defined by the solid lines in the drawings of the D'188 Patent. The interpretation of what these drawings convey as an overall visual impression will be dispositive for the infringement analysis.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may argue the claim covers the general configuration of a square, four-bubble keychain with a corner-mounted loop, focusing on the overall concept shown in the perspective views (D'188 Patent, Figs. 1-2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Parties may argue the claim is limited to the precise visual details shown in the drawings, including the specific corner radii, the proportions of the body to the bubbles, the shape of the loop, and the profile of the bubbles as shown in the elevation and cross-section views (D'188 Patent, Figs. 3-9).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement and aiding and abetting (Compl. ¶20, ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus on Defendant's own alleged making, offering for sale, and selling of the accused products, which constitutes a claim for direct infringement. The complaint does not provide specific facts to support a separate theory of indirect infringement, such as inducing customers or distributors.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "knowingly and willfully" done (Compl. ¶14, ¶20, ¶21). This allegation is based on claims that the accused products are "knock-off" versions of Plaintiff's design and that Defendant uses "tactics...to conceal its identity" and evade enforcement, suggesting knowledge of wrongdoing (Compl. ¶3, ¶14, ¶16). The complaint also asserts that ongoing infringement after the filing of the suit is irreparably harming the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶22).

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

  1. The Core Infringement Question: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused MOZACI product substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'188 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
  2. The Impact of Prior Art: To what extent does the prior art for fidget keychains limit the scope of the D'188 Patent? A key issue may be whether the similarities between the patented design and the accused product are found only in features that were already prevalent in the market, thereby narrowing the protectable scope of the patent's novel design.
  3. Enforcement and Jurisdiction: Given the allegations that the Defendant is a foreign entity operating through transient online storefronts (Compl. ¶12, ¶16), a central practical challenge will concern establishing personal jurisdiction and the ultimate enforceability of any potential injunction or damages award.