Anhui Zuoyou IP Service Co Ltd v. Purple Innovation LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Anhui Zuoyou Intellectual Property Service Co., Ltd., et al. (China)
  • Defendant: Purple Innovation, LLC (Utah)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: West Atlantic Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08265, N.D. Ill., 07/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendant targets business activities in Illinois through interactive e-commerce storefronts on Amazon.com, has sold products to Illinois residents, and caused harm to Plaintiffs in the district by submitting infringement complaints to Amazon that resulted in the removal of product listings.
• Core Dispute: This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiffs, a group of Amazon sellers, seek a declaration that their seat cushion products do not infringe Defendant's two design patents and that those patents are invalid.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental designs of seat cushions that feature a repeating grid of hexagonal cells.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant submitting infringement complaints to Amazon against the Plaintiffs beginning in April 2025, which led to the delisting of numerous products. The complaint asserts that the patents-in-suit are anticipated by a prior art patent application published in 2016.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-06-09	Prior Art WO2016088977A1 Publication Date
2019-06-13	'930 and '706 Patents Priority Date
2023-07-04	U.S. Design Patent D990,930 S Issued
2023-07-11	U.S. Design Patent D991,706 S Issued
2025-04-04	Earliest mentioned Amazon notice issued to a Plaintiff
2025-07-02	Plaintiff Yinstore receives Amazon performance notification
2025-07-20	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D991,706 S - Cushion, issued July 11, 2023 (’706 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. This patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a specific visual design for a cushion.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a cushion as depicted in its seven figures (D’706 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The design consists of the overall shape of the article—a rectangle with rounded corners—and its surface ornamentation, which is a repeating pattern of hexagonal cells (D’706 Patent, Fig. 2). The claim covers the visual impression created by this combination of shape and pattern.
• Technical Importance: The complaint does not specify the technical importance of the design. However, cushions employing geometric cellular structures are known in the marketplace for their purported benefits in support, pressure relief, and airflow.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a cushion, as shown and described."
• The essential visual elements of the claim are:
  • The overall configuration of a rectangular cushion with rounded corners.
  • The surface pattern consisting of a grid of repeating hexagonal cells.
  • The appearance of the cushion from top, bottom, and side perspectives as illustrated in the patent's figures.

U.S. Design Patent No. D990,930 S - Cushion with hexagonal cells, issued July 4, 2023 (’930 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’706 Patent, this design patent claims a specific ornamental appearance for a cushion, not a technical solution to a problem.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a cushion featuring hexagonal cells (D’930 Patent, CLAIM). The design, as illustrated, is distinguished from the ’706 Patent primarily by its overall shape, which is a parallelogram rather than a rectangle (D’930 Patent, Fig. 1). The surface ornamentation consists of a similar repeating pattern of hexagonal cells (D’930 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The complaint does not specify the technical importance of the design. The design falls within the category of cushions using geometric patterns for aesthetic and potentially functional purposes.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a cushion with hexagonal cells, as shown and described."
• The essential visual elements of the claim are:
  • The overall configuration of a cushion shaped like a parallelogram.
  • The surface pattern consisting of a grid of repeating hexagonal cells.
  • The complete visual appearance as depicted in the patent's figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are various seat cushion products sold by the Plaintiffs on Amazon.com, identified collectively as the "Angushy Products," "LINW Products," "Super Seat Products," and "Yinstore Products" (Compl. ¶¶11-14).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the products as seat cushions sold through Plaintiffs' respective storefronts on the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶¶3-6). The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement accusations have led to the delisting of at least 37 Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) and the potential disposal of over 7,500 inventory items with an estimated value exceeding $130,000, indicating their commercial relevance to the Plaintiffs (Compl. ¶¶26-27). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the construction of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of non-infringement and does not contain a detailed infringement analysis or claim chart from the Defendant's perspective. The Plaintiffs' core contention is that their products do not infringe the asserted patents (Compl. ¶39).

• Identified Points of Contention: The primary technical dispute articulated in the complaint is not focused on infringement but rather on the validity of the patents. The Plaintiffs' central argument is that the designs claimed in the ’706 and ’930 patents are anticipated by prior art.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint raises a direct question of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, asserting that the claimed designs lack novelty (Compl. ¶¶41, 43). It alleges that a prior art utility patent application, WO2016088977A1, published on June 9, 2016, discloses a design that is "identical or substantially similar" to the patented designs (Compl. ¶41).
  • A visual comparison in the complaint places a figure from a prior art patent application (WO2016088977A1) alongside figures from the '930 and '706 patents to highlight alleged similarities (Compl. ¶43). This image forms the core of the Plaintiffs' invalidity argument, suggesting that the overall visual impression of the prior art is the same as the patented designs.
  • Scope Questions: Should the patents be deemed valid, the infringement analysis will hinge on the scope of the claimed designs. The determinative question will be whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking the Plaintiffs' products are the same as the patented designs. This will involve a visual comparison between the accused cushions and the designs claimed in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design as depicted in the drawings. There are no specific text-based terms to construe; instead, the analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed visual design as a whole.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a cushion..."
• Context and Importance: The scope of the claimed design is the central issue for both infringement and validity. The legal test is whether the accused design (or prior art design) and the patented design create the same overall visual impression on an ordinary observer. Practitioners may focus on how broadly the "as shown and described" language should be interpreted.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the essence of the design is a "cushion with a repeating hexagonal cell pattern" and that minor variations in cell size, wall thickness, or overall proportions do not change the fundamental visual impression. The titles of the patents, "Cushion" and "Cushion with hexagonal cells," may be cited to support a focus on the general concept rather than the precise drawing details.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is strictly limited to the exact visual appearance "as shown and described" in the figures, including the specific overall shape (rectangle for the ’706 Patent, parallelogram for the ’930 Patent), the proportions of the cells, and the density of the pattern. The fact that two separate patents were obtained for designs with different overall shapes may be used to argue that the overall shape is a critical, limiting feature of each design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations related to indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: As a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringers, the complaint does not allege willfulness against the Plaintiffs. Instead, it alleges that Defendant's infringement accusations submitted to Amazon are "objectively baseless" and were "submitted without a good faith investigation" (Compl. ¶¶45, 47). Based on this, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the case is "exceptional" to recover attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and also bring a separate count for "Unfair Business Practices" (Compl. ¶¶45-55).

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

1. A central issue will be one of validity by anticipation: Does the prior art WO2016088977A1 reference disclose a design that is "substantially the same" as the ornamental designs claimed in the ’706 and ’930 patents, such that it would have anticipated them in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
2. Should the patents survive the validity challenge, the key infringement question will be the scope of the designs: Do the Plaintiffs' various accused seat cushion products create the same overall visual impression as the specific rectangular and parallelogram-shaped designs claimed in the ’706 and ’930 patents, respectively?
3. A significant procedural and financial question will be one of enforcement conduct: Were the Defendant's pre-suit infringement complaints to Amazon "objectively baseless" or otherwise submitted in bad faith, potentially rendering the case exceptional or giving rise to liability for unfair competition?