DCT
1:25-cv-06194
Ogorgeous Inc v. Jian Ou Shi Ku Lei XI Mao Yi You Xian Gong Si
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: oGorgeous Inc. d/b/a Popflex (Texas)
- Defendant: jian ou shi ku lei xi mao yi you xian gong si d/b/a Cresay Stores (China) and Shufan Qiu d/b/a Meow Meow Lace (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BEW LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06194, N.D. Ill., 06/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities, and personal jurisdiction is asserted through Defendants' operation of interactive, commercial Amazon storefronts that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' skort products, sold through Amazon storefronts, infringe the ornamental designs protected by two of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of apparel, specifically women's athletic skorts, a garment combining a skirt with underlying shorts.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provides notice of its patent rights through both a virtual patent marking website and by physically marking its products with the patent numbers, which may be relevant to the calculation of potential damages. The complaint also alleges that the two defendants sell nearly identical products in identical colorways and packaging, suggesting they may source the infringing goods from the same location.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-08-08 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,010,983 Priority Date |
| 2024-01-16 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,010,983 Issue Date |
| 2025-06-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,010,983 - Skort
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,010,983, titled "Skort," issued January 16, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than addressing a technical problem. The objective is to secure rights to a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. Ex. 1, p. 1).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a skort as depicted in its figures (’983 Patent, Claim). The design features a garment with a wide, flat waistband containing a drawstring tie, a multi-tiered ruffled or pleated skirt portion, and underlying shorts ('983 Patent, Figs. 1, 7). The patent explicitly notes that elements shown in broken lines, such as the internal structure of the shorts in some views, do not form part of the claimed design ('983 Patent, Description).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a skort, as shown and described" ('983 Patent, Claim).
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,063,307 - Skort
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,063,307, titled "Skort," issue date not available in provided documents. (Note: The patent document for the ’307 patent was not included in the provided materials; analysis is based on information within the complaint.)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’307 patent protects the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶ 5).
- The Patented Solution: The design, as depicted in the complaint's reproduction of its Figure 1, consists of a skort with a wide waistband, a drawstring, and a multi-tiered, flared skirt over an underlying short component (Compl. p. 16). The overall aesthetic appears similar to the ’983 Patent but may differ in the specific proportions or style of the tiered ruffles.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single design claim of the ’307 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 78).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Cresay Infringing Products" and "Meow Infringing Products," which are various women's skorts sold by Defendants through their respective Amazon storefronts (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 41). The complaint identifies the accused products by specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) and product page URLs (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 41).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are athletic apparel skorts. The complaint alleges that the products sold by both Defendant Cresay and Defendant Meow are "near identity" (Compl. ¶ 45). To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the nearly identical product packaging received from both defendants, which indicates the same model number, suggesting a common source of manufacture (Compl. ¶ 47). This image shows two products in clear plastic bags with labels bearing Chinese characters and the same model number "E24D0508" (Compl. p. 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the degree of attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design.
D1,010,983 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a skort, as shown and described. | The accused skorts sold by Cresay and Meow feature an ornamental design that is alleged to be "substantially the same" as the patented design. This includes a visually similar wide waistband, a front-tie drawstring, and a multi-tiered ruffled skirt that creates a similar overall visual impression to the patented design. | ¶¶ 51-52, 69-70 | Figs. 1-12 |
The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design from Figure 1 of the '983 Patent and a photograph of an accused product from an Amazon listing (Compl. pp. 14, 17).
D1,063,307 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a skort, as shown and described. | The accused skorts are alleged to have an ornamental design that is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '307 Patent. The complaint's visual evidence shows accused products with a wide waistband, drawstring, and multi-tiered skirt that allegedly reproduces the overall look and feel of the patented design. | ¶¶ 60-61, 78-79 | Fig. 1 (as depicted in Compl. pp. 16, 19) |
The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the design from Figure 1 of the '307 Patent and a photograph of an accused product (Compl. pp. 16, 19).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will involve comparing the overall visual impression of the designs, not a simple tallying of similarities and differences.
- Technical Questions: A factual question is whether any minor visual differences between the accused skorts and the patent figures—such as the precise number of tiers, the fabric's appearance, or the specific implementation of the drawstring—are sufficient to distinguish them from the claimed designs in the mind of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings, and courts rarely engage in formal claim construction of verbal terms.
- The Term: "skort"
- Context and Importance: This term identifies the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its construction is not expected to be a central point of dispute, as both the patented design and the accused products are clearly identifiable as skorts. The focus of the infringement analysis will be on the claimed visual features shown in the drawings rather than a definition of the word "skort."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the design for a "skort" generally, without limiting it to a specific material or context of use beyond what is visually depicted ('983 Patent, Title, Claim).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of the design is defined and limited by the solid lines in the drawings ('983 Patent, Figs. 1-12). The patent's description explicitly disclaims the matter shown in broken lines as non-claimed environmental structure, thereby narrowing the scope of the protected design to the specific visual elements rendered in solid lines ('983 Patent, Description).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" the patents-in-suit (Compl. Prayer ¶¶ 1(b), 1(d)). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by Defendants for their own acts of offering for sale, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 42, 50, 59, 68, 77).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege that Defendants' infringement was "willful." However, it does request that the court "increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed... pursuant to 35 USC § 284" and award attorneys' fees, which are remedies associated with findings of willful or egregious infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶¶ 5-6). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge, but the filing and service of the complaint itself provides notice for any ongoing, post-filing infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: For each patent, is the overall ornamental design of the accused skorts "substantially the same" as the claimed design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The case will likely depend on a close visual analysis comparing the products to the patent figures, considering the designs as a whole.
- A key evidentiary question will be the link between defendants: The complaint alleges the two defendants source their products from the same place. The extent to which Plaintiff can prove this common sourcing and potential coordination may impact how the court views the defendants' conduct and simplifies discovery and enforcement.
- A central question for damages will be the effectiveness of notice: Plaintiff has alleged both virtual and physical patent marking. The timing and sufficiency of this marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287 will be a critical factual issue in determining the period for which damages can be recovered.