DCT

1:25-cv-06027

Zheng v. Partnerships Unincorp Organizations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06027, N.D. Ill., 05/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate "fully interactive, commercial Internet stores" that directly target and conduct business with consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing a U.S. design patent by selling "knock-off" pop keychains that are visually identical to the patented design.
  • Technical Context: The patent relates to the ornamental design of a "pop keychain," a product category combining a keychain with a fidget toy featuring pressable bubbles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the asserted patent. It does note Plaintiff's use of a "controlled distribution strategy" for authorized sellers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-06-16 '929 Patent Application Filed / Priority Date
2023-03-07 '929 Patent Issued
2025-05-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D979,929 S - "POP KEYCHAIN"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D979,929 S, "POP KEYCHAIN", issued March 7, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the goal was to create a novel product design with "both aesthetic appeal and functionality" (Compl. ¶6). In the context of design patents, the "problem" is the absence of a particular ornamental design in the prior art.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a keychain, not its utilitarian features. The design consists of a vertically-oriented, rectangular body featuring a single column of four circular, convex protrusions, with a loop at the top for attachment ('929 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The patent explicitly disclaims the connecting chain, which is shown in broken lines, indicating it is not part of the protected design ('929 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the design was "first to market" and established a "reputation for quality and innovation" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pop keychain, as shown and described" ('929 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article in the patent drawings. The core ornamental features that constitute the design include:
    • A flat, elongated rectangular body.
    • Four circular, dome-like protrusions arranged in a single vertical line.
    • An integrated loop at the top of the rectangular body.
    • The specific proportions and overall visual impression created by the combination of these elements.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "knock-off" versions of the "POP KEYCHAIN" product (Compl. ¶3). These products are allegedly sold by a multitude of anonymous online sellers through "Defendant Internet Stores" on various e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶2, ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who sell "the same product" across numerous online storefronts (Compl. ¶13, ¶16). These storefronts allegedly employ tactics to conceal their identities, such as using fictitious names, copying Plaintiff's product listings, and using illegitimate SEO tactics, while appearing to be legitimate retailers (Compl. ¶15-¶16). The complaint includes an image of the claimed design to illustrate the subject matter of the dispute (Compl. ¶9). The image at paragraph 9 is a perspective view of the pop keychain design claimed in the '929 Patent.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As a design patent case, infringement is determined by 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. A traditional claim chart is not applicable.

The complaint's infringement theory is that the "knock-off products" sold by Defendants are visually indistinguishable from the patented design (Compl. ¶3, ¶24). The allegation is that the accused products embody a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed" ('929 Patent), causing an ordinary observer to be deceived (Prayer ¶1(a)). The complaint notes that while accused products may be offered in different colors, "color should not be viewed as making one product different from another," suggesting the infringement claim is based on the product's shape and configuration, which are the features protected by the patent (Compl. ¶3, n.1). The specific visual details of the accused products are contained in sealed exhibits and are not available in the public filing (Compl. ¶12).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Comparison: The central factual question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This will require a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the drawings in the '929 Patent.
  • Scope of Protection: The analysis will focus on the solid-line features in the patent drawings. The disclaimed chain ('929 Patent, Description) cannot serve as a basis for infringement, and the court will focus on the overall visual impression of the claimed rectangular body and its features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction, in the sense of defining disputed terms, is typically not a central issue in design patent litigation. The claim is understood to be for the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings.

The "Claim"

The claim is the visual design itself, as shown in solid lines in Figures 1-7 of the '929 Patent.

Context and Importance

The scope of the patent is defined by the drawings, not by words. The critical analysis is a visual comparison rather than a debate over the meaning of terms.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

The primary evidence defining the claim's scope is the drawings themselves.

  • Evidence for Scope: The solid lines in Figures 1-7 define what is protected ('929 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Evidence for Limiting Scope: The broken lines depicting the keychain's chain expressly limit the scope by showing what is not part of the claimed design. The patent states these broken lines "illustrate the portions of the pop keychain, which form no part of the claimed design" ('929 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing conduct (Compl. ¶24) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the pleading does not set forth specific facts to support the elements of induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendants knew of and intended for a specific third party (e.g., a customer) to perform an infringing act.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offering for sale, selling, and importing "knock-off products" (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). The complaint may use the allegations of Defendants' operational tactics—such as using fictitious names and creating new accounts to evade enforcement—as evidence of willful and deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶13, ¶15-18).

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

  1. Visual Similarity: The case's outcome will primarily depend on a factual determination: applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' "knock-off" products substantially the same as the design claimed in the '929 Patent?
  2. Defendant Identification and Joinder: A significant procedural challenge for the Plaintiff will be successfully serving and establishing jurisdiction over the numerous, allegedly anonymous foreign defendants. A related question is whether the Plaintiff can present sufficient evidence to show that the various "Defendant Internet Stores" are an "interrelated group" whose actions arise from the "same series of occurrences," justifying their joinder in a single lawsuit (Compl. ¶3, ¶13).
  3. Damages and Enforcement: Should infringement be found, a key issue will be the calculation and collection of damages. The request for infringers' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 raises the practical question of how to conduct an accounting for sales made by a diffuse network of online sellers who are allegedly designed to be difficult to trace.