DCT

1:25-cv-04146

Zheng v. Corps Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:

    • Plaintiff: Zhencai Zheng (China)
    • Defendant: The Corporations, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law

  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04146, N.D. Ill., 04/17/2025

  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendants, operating through online storefronts, target and sell products to consumers in Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have caused substantial injury to the Plaintiff in the state.

  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce sellers on platforms like Amazon.com are infringing a U.S. Design Patent by selling snack boxes with an ornamental design that is "almost identical" to the patented design.

  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a consumer product—a portable, compartmentalized container for carrying snacks.

  • Key Procedural History: The complaint emphasizes the difficulty of suing the named Defendants, who are alleged to be unknown individuals and entities operating under aliases on e-commerce platforms to conceal their identities and evade enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-08-29 U.S. Patent No. D1,054,809 Application Filing Date
2024-12-24 U.S. Patent No. D1,054,809 Issue Date
2025-04-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,054,809 S - "Snacks box"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,054,809 S, titled “Snacks box,” issued December 24, 2024 (the “’809 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the commercial embodiment of the patent as a "unique and original design, a portable container specifically created for conveniently separating and carrying multiple types of snacks" (Compl. ¶13). The patent itself, as a design patent, addresses the challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental appearance for such an article of manufacture.

  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual and ornamental characteristics of the snacks box as depicted in its figures (’809 Patent, Figs. 1-9). The design features a rectangular container base with multiple internal compartments and a corresponding lid. Key ornamental features include the specific proportions of the box, the arrangement and shape of the internal compartments, the design of the lid with a central circular element and side clasps, and the overall aesthetic appearance when viewed from various perspectives, including in an exploded view ( Compl. Ex. 1, p. 24, FIG. 1; ’809 Patent, FIG. 9).

  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the design is "unique and original" and that the consuming public recognizes products with this design as originating from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶13-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim.
  • The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a snacks box as shown and described" (’809 Patent, CLAIM).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Snack box" products sold by the numerous Defendants identified in Schedule A of the complaint (Compl. ¶1, Schedule A).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon.com, AliExpress, Temu, and Walmart to market and sell the accused products (Compl. ¶6, ¶10). Representative product descriptions from these stores characterize the products as a "Divided Serving Tray with Lid and Handle," a "Snackle Box Charcuterie Platter," and a "Container with 8 Removable Compartments" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges these are "substandard copies" of Plaintiff's products that look "almost identical" to the products sold by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶1, ¶11). The table of product descriptions from various sellers is presented as evidence that Defendants are related and operating in coordination (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants have infringed the ’809 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, and selling products that incorporate the patented ornamental design (Compl. ¶34). The legal standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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 asserts that the accused "Snack box" products are "almost identical" to the products sold by the Plaintiff which embody the patented design (Compl. ¶1). However, the complaint does not include any photographs, screenshots, or other visual evidence depicting the accused products themselves. This absence of a side-by-side visual comparison between the patented design figures and the accused products means the infringement allegation rests on narrative description.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: The central issue will be evidentiary. Can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the ornamental designs of the various accused products sold by the numerous Defendants are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’809 Patent? Without visual evidence in the pleadings, this comparison cannot be made.
    • Scope Questions: In a design patent case, the scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings. A key question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as that created by the patented design, considering features such as the container's proportions, the lid's clasp and handle design, and the specific layout of the internal compartments.

V. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶34). It also alleges Defendants are "contributing to, inducing, and engaging in the sale" of infringing products (Compl. ¶7). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the requisite elements of knowledge and intent for a claim of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement.

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶36). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the Asserted Patent" and that the infringement is "obvious, notorious, [and] purposeful" (Compl. ¶16, ¶36). The complaint does not specify the basis for this alleged knowledge, such as pre-suit notice.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidence: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, obtain and present sufficient visual evidence to demonstrate to the court that the accused products sold by the Defendants are ornamentally and visually "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’809 Patent, thereby meeting the "ordinary observer" test for infringement?

  • A second core issue will be procedural: The case involves the joinder of a large number of unidentified online sellers. A key question will be whether the Plaintiff's allegations—that Defendants use similar marketing tactics and product descriptions—are sufficient to persuade the court that they are part of the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" required for proper joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.