Guangzhou Mibo Zhilian Technology Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Jing Hong Tech Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guangzhou Mibo Zhilian Technology Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Jing Hong Tech Co., Ltd (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05004, N.D. Ill., 05/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant, a foreign entity, offers to sell, sells, and ships the accused products to consumers within the district through an interactive e-commerce storefront.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of a "metal rod" through its Amazon storefront infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for such an article.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the specific ornamental appearance of a metal rod, a common article of manufacture, in the context of e-commerce sales where visual appearance is a primary driver of consumer choice.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant is an anonymous or pseudonymous entity operating an e-commerce store, using tactics to obscure its true identity and location. This procedural posture suggests that service of process and enforcement may be central challenges in the litigation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,260 - "Metal rod," Issued November 28, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian function. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a metal rod (D1,006,260 Patent, Claim 1).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a metal rod. The design features a long, slender shaft with a pointed bottom tip and a spherical head at the top (D1,006,260 Patent, FIG. 1). The shaft appears to be segmented or feature subtle circumferential indentations at various points along its length (D1,006,260 Patent, FIG. 2-5). The top and bottom views show a circular profile (D1,006,260 Patent, FIG. 6-7). The patent disclaims the portions of the rod illustrated in dashed lines, meaning the claim covers only the ornamental features shown in solid lines.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a metal rod, as shown and described" (D1,006,260 Patent, Claim 1).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's eight figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products" sold by Defendant through its "CLEASO" e-commerce storefront (Compl. ¶7, ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant advertises, offers for sale, and sells products that incorporate a design "identical or substantially similar" and "virtually identical" to the design protected by the ’260 Patent (Compl. ¶7, ¶16). The products are sold online to U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). The complaint asserts that the popularity of Plaintiff's products has led to others, like Defendant, copying the ornamental design (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on a direct comparison of the accused product to the patented design. The core of a design patent infringement analysis 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 one.

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, and sells products that infringe the ornamental design of the ’260 Patent (Compl. ¶23, ¶24). The infringement is characterized as being "virtually identical" (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). This allegation suggests Plaintiff's position is that the accused products and the patented design are not just substantially similar, but nearly indistinguishable to an ordinary observer. The court will ultimately need to compare the accused product with the figures of the ’260 Patent to make a determination.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction, the process of defining the meaning of disputed claim terms, is not typically performed in design patent cases. The single claim refers to the design "as shown and described," directing the inquiry to the patent's drawings (D1,006,260 Patent, Claim 1). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that a detailed verbal construction of a design claim is improper, as the drawings are paramount. The analysis will therefore depend on a visual comparison rather than a debate over the meaning of specific words.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of" the ’260 Patent (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶2). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by Defendant's own acts of offering to sell and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶23-¶24).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful, basing this claim "in part, based on Defendant's anonymity and virtually identical infringement" (Compl. ¶26). This suggests Plaintiff will argue that the combination of alleged "tactic[s] to obscure its true identity" (Compl. ¶8) and the high degree of similarity between the products constitutes egregious conduct worthy of enhanced damages.

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

1. A Threshold Procedural Question: Given the allegation that Defendant is an anonymous foreign entity using tactics to "conceal their identity" (Compl. ¶20), a primary question is whether Plaintiff can successfully identify, locate, and effect service upon the proper defendant to allow the case to proceed on the merits.
2. The Core Infringement Question: The central substantive issue will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. Will a visual comparison of the accused "CLEASO" metal rod and the drawings of the ’260 Patent lead a fact-finder to conclude that the designs are substantially the same, such that an observer would be deceived?
3. An Evidentiary Question on Willfulness: Can the Plaintiff prove that the Defendant's alleged infringement was willful? This may turn on whether the complaint’s assertion—that "virtually identical" copying combined with operating an anonymous storefront is sufficient evidence of egregious conduct—is accepted by the court.