DCT

1:25-cv-03319

Shenzhen Huachuang Shangpin Technology Co Ltd v. Tthe Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03319, N.D. Ill., 03/27/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce merchants are selling hand-held fans that infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of personal consumer electronics, specifically portable fans, a highly competitive category on global e-commerce platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: This action is a "Schedule A" case, a procedural approach often used to target a large number of anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers, who are alleged to be interrelated and selling identical infringing products. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-02-23 D'359 Patent Priority Date
2022-04-20 D'359 Patent Application Filing Date
2024-08-06 D'359 Patent Issue Date
2025-03-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,038,359 - "Hand-Held Fan"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,038,359, titled "Hand-Held Fan", issued on August 6, 2024 (the “D’359 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D’359 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Its purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture—in this case, a hand-held fan (’359 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the hand-held fan depicted in its figures. The design's overall aesthetic is defined by the combination of its features, including a circular fan head with a distinctive radial grille pattern, a simple cylindrical handle, and an integrated, L-shaped base that allows the fan to be self-standing (’359 Patent, Fig. 1, 4). The patent provides multiple views to fully disclose the three-dimensional appearance of the design (’359 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "distinctive" and "instantly recognizable" to consumers, giving products embodying it a unique appearance in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a hand-held fan, as shown and described" (’359 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings, the key elements of which include:
    • A circular fan head with a multi-spoke radial grille and a solid central hub.
    • A generally cylindrical handle portion connected to the fan head.
    • An L-shaped base integrated into the bottom of the handle.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint targets "Infringing Products" and "Unauthorized Products," which are described as counterfeit or copycat hand-held fans sold by the Schedule A Defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 10).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused instrumentalities are hand-held fans offered for sale and sold through interactive e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, Alibaba, eBay, Shein, Temu, and Walmart (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges these are "inferior imitations" (Compl. ¶24) and "slavish copy[ies]" (Compl. ¶10) of Plaintiff's products that embody the patented design. The complaint further alleges that the Defendants are based in China or other foreign jurisdictions and operate under multiple aliases to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The complaint's infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison between the Defendants' products and the design claimed in the D’359 Patent.

The complaint alleges that the accused products sold by Defendants incorporate the ornamental design of the ’359 Patent and that this copying is "slavish" (Compl. ¶10). The core of the infringement allegation is that the visual appearance of the accused fans is so similar to the patented design that it would confuse an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶10). The complaint states that a direct visual comparison of the accused products and the patented design is provided in an exhibit. This exhibit shows side-by-side images of the accused products and figures from the ’359 Patent (Compl. ¶12, Ex. C). Because the complaint references but does not attach this claim chart exhibit, a detailed element-by-element comparison cannot be constructed from the pleading alone. The narrative infringement theory rests on the assertion that the accused products are "copycat" versions of the patented design (Compl. ¶10, ¶29).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central issue for infringement will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the overall ornamental design shown in the ’359 Patent. This analysis will depend on a visual comparison of the accused products against the patent figures from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
    • Evidentiary Questions: A threshold question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to prove that each of the numerous Schedule A defendants is, in fact, selling products that possess the specific visual features of the accused design as alleged in the complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings, not by words. Consequently, claim construction of specific terms is generally not a central issue. The dispute will likely focus on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the overall visual appearance of the accused products as compared to the patent's drawings, rather than a debate over the meaning of any particular textual limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate allegation of direct "and/or indirect" infringement (Compl. ¶29). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed third parties on how to infringe or provided a component with no substantial non-infringing use. The factual allegations focus exclusively on direct infringement through the making, using, offering for sale, and selling of the accused products.
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶30). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that Defendants engaged in "slavish copying" of a "distinctive ornamental design," which suggests an intentional decision to copy rather than independent creation (Compl. ¶10).

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

  1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case will fundamentally turn on a question of visual comparison: are the accused fans sold by the Defendants "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D’359 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The outcome will depend on the visual evidence presented, including the comparisons purportedly contained in Complaint Exhibit C.
  2. Evidentiary Linkage: A key practical and evidentiary challenge will be for the Plaintiff to connect each of the numerous, pseudonymous "Schedule A" defendants to the sale of specific, infringing products. The complaint alleges the defendants are an interrelated network (Compl. ¶19), a claim that will require factual support.
  3. Enforceability of Relief: Given that the Defendants are alleged to be foreign entities operating through online marketplaces (Compl. ¶12), a central question will be the practical effectiveness of any potential remedy. The Plaintiff's request for orders directed at third-party e-commerce platforms and payment processors (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 3, 4) highlights that the ability to enforce an injunction or damages award against the online infrastructure itself, rather than just the named defendants, will be critical.