1:25-cv-04241
Fuzhou Youda Clothing Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Bi Luo Fu Guang Wai Trading Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fuzhou Youda Clothing Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Bi Luo Fu Guang Wai Trading Co., Ltd (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04241, N.D. Ill., 04/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue in the Northern District of Illinois is alleged based on Defendant’s interactive e-commerce storefront targeting and selling products to consumers in the district, as well as on Defendant’s status as a foreign entity, which permits suit in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s children's table, sold via an Amazon storefront, infringes a design patent for a table.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the children's furniture market, where distinctive, ornamental product appearance can be a significant commercial differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-07-11 | D'860,697 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2019-09-24 | D'860,697 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-04-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D860,697 - “TABLE”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As is typical for design patents, the patent does not articulate a technical problem. The implicit objective is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a table (D’697 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual and ornamental characteristics of a table as depicted in its six figures (D’697 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The design features a rectangular top, four straight square-profile legs, and a distinctive apron. Key ornamental aspects include two large, recessed cut-outs on the side aprons containing what appear to be fabric storage bins, and a long, narrow horizontal slot on the front and back aprons (D’697 Patent, Figs. 2, 4, 6). The design also includes handle-like cut-outs on the left and right sides of the tabletop frame (D’697 Patent, Fig. 1). The claim covers the overall visual appearance resulting from this combination of features (D’697 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying the patented design have become popular and widely known due to their distinctive appearance, leading to consumer recognition (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a table, as shown and described" (D’697 Patent, Claim). In design patent cases, the claim scope is defined by the drawings as a whole, rather than by a series of text-based limitations.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Unauthorized and unlicensed children's tables sold through Defendant’s e-commerce storefront operating under the alias "ONIRW" (Compl. ¶¶7, 8).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are tables sold to U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, via an online retail platform (Compl. ¶¶3, 8). The complaint alleges that these products incorporate an ornamental design that is "virtually identical" to the design protected by the ’697 Patent and that they are unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s product (Compl. ¶¶7, 16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
In design patent cases, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which compares the overall appearance of the accused product to the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products are "identical or substantially similar" to the claimed design.
| Claim Element (from the Single Design Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a table, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that Defendant sells products incorporating an ornamental design that is "virtually identical" to the claimed design of the '697 Patent. | ¶16, ¶23 | Figs. 1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
The central dispute will be a visual one, focusing on the application of the ordinary observer test.
- Scope Questions: The primary legal question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. This involves comparing the overall visual impression of the designs, not a side-by-side analysis of minute differences.
- Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be how closely the accused product's design mirrors the novel ornamental features of the ’697 Patent, such as the specific configuration of the apron cut-outs and storage bins. The complaint’s allegation of a "virtually identical" design suggests Plaintiff believes the comparison will be straightforward (Compl. ¶16).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the patent's drawings, and formal construction of verbal terms is generally not a central issue. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole as depicted in the figures, rather than the definition of specific terms. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an analysis of claim construction.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement and a corresponding request for relief (Compl. ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶2). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as allegations of active encouragement or provision of components with knowledge and intent.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s "anonymity and virtually identical infringement," which suggests an inference of deliberate copying is the foundation for the claim (Compl. ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, familiar with any relevant prior art, find the accused table's design to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’697 Patent? The resolution will depend on a holistic comparison of the designs' overall visual effects.
- A key evidentiary and procedural question will be the identity and operations of the Defendant. The complaint alleges the Defendant is an anonymous or pseudonymous entity operating through an e-commerce storefront, which could present challenges for service of process, discovery, and ultimate enforcement of any judgment (Compl. ¶¶8, 18, 20).
- A third question relates to culpability and damages: If infringement is found, can the Plaintiff establish that the infringement was willful? The court will have to determine whether the asserted grounds—the "virtually identical" nature of the design and the Defendant's alleged anonymity—are sufficient to prove the subjective willfulness required for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶26).