DCT
1:25-cv-06710
Zhengzhoukangpeiningkejiyouxiangongsi v. James Smythe
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zhengzhoukangpeiningkejiyouxiangongsi (China)
- Defendant: James Smythe, and Leah Smythe (Jurisdiction not specified)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: JS Law
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06710, N.D. Ill., 06/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants target business activities toward customers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce storefronts on Amazon.com and have sold products to residents in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a seller of a foot rest product, seeks a declaratory judgment that its product does not infringe Defendants' design patent, following Defendants' submission of an infringement complaint to Amazon's intellectual property program which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listing.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of ergonomic accessories, specifically under-desk foot rests, a common consumer product sold in online marketplaces.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on or around June 2, 2025, Defendants initiated an "e-commerce patent enforcement action" by reporting Plaintiff to Amazon.com, leading to the removal of Plaintiff's product from the marketplace and prompting this declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-02-14 | ’790 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date) |
| 2021-04-13 | U.S. Design Patent No. D915,790 Issues |
| 2025-06-02 | (approx.) Defendants file infringement complaint with Amazon.com |
| 2025-06-17 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D915,790 - "FOOTREST"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’970 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D'790 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a footrest as depicted in its figures (D'790 Patent, CLAIM). The design is characterized by an overall half-cylinder or dome-like shape, a stippled texture on its curved top surface, and the appearance of vertical segmentation created by partition lines on its flat rear and bottom surfaces (D'790 Patent, Figs. 1-8; DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic appearance for a consumer ergonomic product (D'790 Patent, Title).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single independent claim for "The ornamental design for a footrest, as shown and described" (D'790 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential visual elements of this claim are defined by the patent's drawings and include:
- The overall half-cylinder profile and proportions.
- A stippled surface texture on the top and front surfaces.
- A segmented appearance on the rear and bottom surfaces, created by distinct vertical lines.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Plaintiff's "foot rest," identified as the "Non-Infringing Product" and sold on Amazon.com under at least ASIN B0C6XNW7DS (Compl. ¶2, ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint focuses on the design features of the accused product relevant to the non-infringement analysis rather than its function as a footrest (Compl. ¶25-27). Plaintiff alleges its product was sold on the Amazon marketplace, which accounts for a "significant portion" of its business, before being removed as a result of Defendants' infringement complaint to Amazon (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, arguing that an ordinary observer would not find the designs "substantially the same" (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). The following chart summarizes Plaintiff's arguments for why its product design is distinct from the patented design.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
D915,790 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Feature from Patent Figures) | Plaintiff's Alleged Non-Infringing Features | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall visual impression of a solid, unadorned form | The product's removable cover includes a top-positioned zipper, a bottom-positioned zipper, and a side handle, which are absent from the patented design. | ¶26 | D'790 Patent, Figs. 1-8 |
| Smooth, single-layer top surface construction | The product's top exhibits a "two-layer structure, where the pocket is joined to the cover via a zipper." | ¶27 | D'790 Patent, Figs. 1, 5, 7 |
| Segmented appearance on rear and bottom surfaces created by partition lines | The product presents a "continuous and smooth surface without any such visual or structural divisions" in all but the front and top views. | ¶25 | D'790 Patent, Figs. 2, 6, 8 |
| Solid external appearance | The product's "inner core features several holes," which differs from the solid appearance claimed in the patent. | ¶25 | D'790 Patent, Figs. 1-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the specific differences alleged by Plaintiff—such as the zippers, handle, and layered pocket—are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression in the mind of an ordinary observer, or if they will be viewed as minor variations on the patented design's fundamental shape.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the product's "inner core features several holes" (Compl. ¶25). This raises the evidentiary question of whether non-visible, internal features are relevant to the infringement analysis for a design patent, which focuses on the external, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is not construed through traditional term-by-term analysis. Instead, the scope of the claim is understood through the patent's drawings as a whole. The central legal test is the "ordinary observer" test. The dispute will likely focus on the visual significance of specific design features.
**The Feature: Segmented vs. Continuous Surfaces
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff argues a key distinction is that its product has a "continuous and smooth surface," whereas the patent explicitly shows "partition break lines, indicating distinct segmented areas" on its rear and bottom (Compl. ¶25). This direct comparison of surface treatment will be central to the "ordinary observer" test.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Segmented Design (Patent): Figures 2, 6, and 8 of the ’790 Patent unambiguously depict vertical lines that divide the rear and bottom surfaces into distinct panels, making segmentation an integral part of the claimed ornamental design (D'790 Patent, Figs. 2, 6, 8).
- Evidence for a Continuous Design (Accused Product): The complaint alleges the accused product lacks these divisions, which, if visually apparent, would be a strong basis for a non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶25).
**The Feature: Presence of Zippers and a Handle
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff alleges its product includes two zippers and a side handle, features that are "entirely absent" from the patented design (Compl. ¶26). These functional elements also have an ornamental effect that alters the product's overall visual appearance.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for an Unadorned Design (Patent): The drawings of the ’790 Patent consistently show a clean, monolithic form with no breaks in the surface for zippers, handles, or other attachments (D'790 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Evidence for an Adorned Design (Accused Product): The complaint's explicit identification of these features suggests they are prominent and would be readily noticed by a consumer, potentially creating a distinct commercial impression (Compl. ¶26).
VI. Other Allegations
- Tortious Interference: The complaint includes a second cause of action for tortious interference with contract and business relations (Compl. ¶31-40). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew of its contractual relationship with Amazon and intentionally interfered with it by "wrongfully complaining" of infringement, causing the suspension of Plaintiff's product listings and resulting in lost revenue (Compl. ¶35, ¶40).
- Exceptional Case Allegations: Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285, asserting that Defendants' allegations of infringement are "baseless and exceptional" (Compl. ¶30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of overall visual impression: Will an ordinary observer, when comparing the patented design with the accused product, find the two designs "substantially the same" such that the observer would be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other? This analysis will depend on whether the shared half-cylinder shape outweighs the visual impact of the alleged differences.
- A key evidentiary question will be the significance of added features: How will the court weigh the ornamental effect of the accused product's alleged zippers, handle, and layered pocket—features entirely absent from the patented design? The case may turn on whether these are considered minor additions or elements that create a fundamentally different aesthetic.
- A threshold legal question will be the relevance of non-visible features: The complaint raises the issue of the accused product's internal structure ("several holes"). The court will need to address the extent to which, if at all, such features not visible during normal use can be considered in the "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement.