Guangzhou Mibo Zhilian Technology Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Ming Chuang Peng Trading Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guangzhou Mibo Zhilian Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Ming Chuang Peng Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05005, N.D. Ill., 05/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a foreign entity, targets and ships products to Illinois and that under federal statute, a foreign defendant may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of metal rods via an Amazon e-commerce storefront infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a metal rod.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer or light industrial good—a metal rod—sold in high-volume online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the Defendant as an operator of the "jinligogo-Store" on Amazon. It alleges the Defendant is a foreign entity that uses tactics to obscure its identity, a common fact pattern in modern e-commerce patent enforcement actions.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,260 - "METAL ROD"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; rather, they protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a unique and aesthetically distinct appearance for a product.

• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "metal rod" (’260 Patent, Claim). The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a long, slender rod with a smooth, bulbous top, a shaft featuring multiple decorative recessed sections, and a tapered bottom point ('260 Patent, FIGS. 1-5). The top-down view reveals a pattern of concentric circles ('260 Patent, FIG. 6). The patent explicitly disclaims the portions of the rod shown in dashed lines, limiting the protected design to the specific visual features shown in solid lines ('260 Patent, col. 1:60-65).

• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive, patented design has become widely known and is recognized by consumers as an indicator of high-quality products sourced from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

Design patents contain a single claim, which is defined by the drawings. The asserted claim is for "the ornamental design for a metal rod, as shown and described" ('260 Patent, col. 1:57-58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses unauthorized and unlicensed "metal rod" products sold by Defendant through its "jinligogo-Store" on Amazon (Compl. ¶7, ¶8). These are referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are sold on an online retail website that accepts U.S. Dollars and targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶18). The core of the allegation is that these products incorporate a design that is "virtually identical" to the ornamental design protected by the ’260 Patent (Compl. ¶16). The complaint characterizes the Defendant as one of many e-commerce operators who sell products that copy the ornamental design of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint asserts that Defendant directly infringes the ’260 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, and selling products in the United States that embody a design "identical or substantially similar" to the patented design (Compl. ¶7, ¶23-24). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "virtually identical" to the design claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶16). The infringement case will therefore rest on a direct visual comparison between the accused products (referenced in the complaint's Exhibit B, which was not attached to the filed complaint document) and the ornamental features depicted in solid lines in the figures of the ’260 Patent ('260 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The court will have to compare the overall visual impression of the accused product with the patented design, filtering out any purely functional elements.
• Technical Questions: Since the infringement allegation is based on a "virtually identical" design, any visual differences between the accused product and the patent drawings will be a central point of dispute. The case will turn on whether such differences are minor enough that an ordinary observer would find the two designs to be substantially the same.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As a design patent case, the "claim" is defined by the visual disclosure in the drawings rather than by textual limitations. Therefore, traditional claim construction of specific terms is not the central issue. The analysis will instead focus on the scope of the claimed ornamental design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's figures. The term "metal rod" serves only to identify the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied and is not itself a source of claim construction dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While the prayer for relief seeks an injunction against inducement of infringement (Compl., Prayer ¶2), the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement, focusing instead on Defendant's alleged direct infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful. This allegation is based on the "virtually identical" nature of the accused design, coupled with Defendant's alleged "anonymity," suggesting a theory of deliberate copying and concealment (Compl. ¶26).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's product substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’260 Patent? The outcome will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the accused product and the patent’s drawings.
• A key procedural and evidentiary challenge will be overcoming the Defendant's alleged anonymity. The complaint highlights the difficulty in identifying the true party in interest and the full scope of its operations (Compl. ¶20), which will be critical for conducting discovery and, if infringement is found, for calculating damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (total profit).