DCT

1:25-cv-05831

Zho Inc v. Corps Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: A Delaware Corporation (name filed under seal)
    • Defendant: The Corporations, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law LLP
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05831, N.D. Ill., 05/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online retailers are infringing a registered U.S. design patent by selling products that are nearly identical in appearance to Plaintiff's patented design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of ornamental jewelry design, concerning the specific aesthetic appearance of a pendant.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a procedural approach often used to collectively sue a large number of typically anonymous online sellers who are alleged to be part of a connected infringing enterprise. The complaint alleges these sellers use aliases and other tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, creating a "whack-a-mole" scenario for the patent owner.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-03-09 U.S. Design Patent D957,284 Application Filing Date
2022-07-12 U.S. Design Patent D957,284 Issue Date
2025-05-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D957,284 - “DOUBLE HEART PENDANT” (Issued July 12, 2022)

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not articulate a specific technical problem, which is typical for a design patent. Instead, it asserts that the Plaintiff's product embodies a "unique and original design" (Compl. ¶13). The patent itself is directed at creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (’284 Patent, Claim).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a pendant composed of two intertwined heart shapes ('284 Patent, FIG. 1). The design features a larger, unadorned heart forming the main body, while a smaller, gem-set heart is looped through the top portion of the larger heart, simultaneously serving as the bail for a necklace ('284 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The claim covers the entire visual appearance of the pendant as depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings ('284 Patent, Description).
    • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the design is "unique and original" (Compl. ¶13).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a double heart pendant, as shown and described."
    • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-8 of the patent.
    • The complaint asserts infringement of the "Asserted Design Patent" generally, which encompasses this single claim (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are described as "unauthorized and unlicensed products" and "Counterfeit Products" that look "almost identical" to Plaintiff's products embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶1, ¶6).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are alleged to be "similar and substandard copies" of Plaintiff's products, sold by Defendants through interactive e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶1, ¶11). The complaint alleges these products are sold to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, via online platforms (Compl. ¶6, ¶10). The core infringing functionality is the products' ornamental appearance, which is alleged to be a copy of the patented design (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges the defendants operate as "sophisticated sellers" using aliases to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶19, ¶20).

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 purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges the accused products are "almost identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶1). Figure 1 of the '284 patent, attached to the complaint as part of Exhibit 1, provides the primary illustration of the claimed design (Compl. ¶3; '284 Patent, FIG. 1).

'284 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the Single Claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a double heart pendant, as shown and described. Defendants are alleged to manufacture, market, and sell "Counterfeit Products" that are "almost identical" to Plaintiff's products and embody the patented design, thereby infringing the ornamental design claimed in the patent. ¶1, ¶11, ¶33 FIG. 1-8
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Discrepancy: A foundational question arises from the complaint's description of the "Plaintiff's Product" as "a portable container specifically created for conveniently separating and carrying multiple types of snacks" (Compl. ¶13). This description is facially inconsistent with the asserted design patent, which is for a "double heart pendant" ('284 Patent, Title). The court may need to address whether this is a correctable scrivener's error or a fundamental deficiency in the pleading that connects the alleged harm to the asserted intellectual property right.
    • Factual Question of Similarity: Assuming the pleading issue is resolved, the central factual dispute will be whether the accused products sold by the Defendants are "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '284 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
    • Joinder: The complaint joins numerous unidentified defendants under Schedule A, alleging they are connected by "the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions" (Compl. ¶21). A potential point of contention will be whether Plaintiff's allegations of "similar marketing strategies" and "consistent elements in the design and decor of their e-commerce stores" are sufficient to satisfy the requirements for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) (Compl. ¶22).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim is defined by the drawings. However, the overall scope of the claimed design is paramount.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a double heart pendant, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The scope of what is protected is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings. The patent specification includes a statement that "The broken lines shown in the drawings... form no part of the claimed design" ('284 Patent, Description). Practitioners may focus on this because such disclaimers are critical for defining the boundaries of the claimed design.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent drawings do not appear to contain any broken lines. The standard boilerplate text regarding broken lines is present in the description, but its non-application to the figures suggests that all illustrated features are claimed. This may support an interpretation that the claim covers the entire, holistic appearance of the pendant as shown in solid lines across all eight figures.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the figures themselves define the design, a defendant could argue that the prior art limits the scope of protection to only the novel aspects of the design. The title itself, "double heart pendant," frames the article of manufacture to which the design is applied and could be used to argue against application to non-pendant articles ('284 Patent, Title).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement, stating Defendants are "contributing to, inducing, and engaging in the sale of Counterfeit Products" (Compl. ¶7). It also alleges defendants infringed "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶33). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants knew of the patent and specifically intended to encourage infringement by third parties, distinct from their own direct sales.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the Asserted Patent" and that their infringement is "obvious, notorious, purposeful, and in disregard of" Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶16, ¶35). The complaint does not specify the basis for this alleged pre-suit knowledge (e.g., prior correspondence). It further alleges that infringers like the Defendants often register new aliases after receiving notice of a lawsuit, which could support a claim of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶23).

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

  1. Pleading Sufficiency: The most immediate question is one of pleading integrity: can the complaint survive a motion to dismiss given the stark factual contradiction between its description of the Plaintiff's product as a "snack container" (Compl. ¶13) and the asserted patent for a "pendant"? Resolution of this apparent scrivener's error will be a threshold issue.
  2. Procedural Propriety of Joinder: A key procedural battle may focus on joinder: has the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the numerous, anonymous online storefronts listed in Schedule A are linked by the "same transaction or occurrence" and a common question of law or fact, or are they a collection of unrelated actors improperly joined in a single action?
  3. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: If the case proceeds to the merits, the core issue will be one of visual comparison: are the accused products sold by the Defendants substantially the same in ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the '284 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived?