DCT

1:25-cv-08416

Shenzhen Qinyi Tech Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Qinyi Technologies Co., Ltd. (Jurisdiction not specified in complaint)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Allegedly reside in the Peoples Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08416, N.D. Ill., 07/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities engaged in infringing activities, including offering for sale and selling products to consumers within the judicial district through interactive e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are selling "egg bunny plushies" that infringe its design patent for a reversible plush toy.
  • Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of a reversible plush toy, a consumer product category primarily sold through online marketplaces.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint targets a large number of unidentified e-commerce operators, alleging they operate under aliases to conceal their identities. The action seeks to address infringement on a broad scale against these otherwise difficult-to-identify foreign sellers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-04-11 ’847 Patent Priority Date
2024-07-09 ’847 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-29 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,034,847 - "Reversible Plush Toy"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’847 Patent does not describe a technical problem; its purpose is to protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture ('847 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a plush toy that is reversible ('847 Patent, Claim). The claimed design features a bunny-like character with distinct facial features situated inside a hooded pouch formed by large, drooping ears ('847 Patent, FIG. 1-2). A prominent zipper runs along the outer edge of these ears, enabling the toy to be turned inside out to reveal a second design, which has the appearance of a strawberry ('847 Patent, FIG. 4-5). The claim covers the visual impression of the article as a whole, in both its bunny and strawberry configurations.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is popular, "well established on online marketplaces," and "broadly recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
  • The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a reversible plush toy, as shown and described" ('847 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of the claimed design are depicted in Figures 1-7 and include:
    • The overall appearance of a plush toy in its first configuration, featuring a bunny character with specific facial features and proportions.
    • The pouch-like structure formed by large ears that envelop the bunny character.
    • The continuous zipper element integrated along the edge of the ears.
    • The overall appearance of the plush toy in its second, reversed configuration, which resembles a strawberry with leaf-like details at the top.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as "egg bunny plushies" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon and Walmart to sell the accused products to consumers in the U.S. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint asserts that the accused products "share identical infringing design" with the patented article and that product listings for these items "share the same pictures that originated from Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶6). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products are essentially direct copies.

D1,034,847 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the design shown in the Figures) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of the plush toy The accused "egg bunny plushies" allegedly embody a design that is visually identical to the one protected by the Asserted Patent (Compl. ¶1, ¶6). An ordinary observer would allegedly be deceived into believing the accused products originated from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶27). ¶1, ¶6, ¶27 FIG. 1-7

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused "egg bunny plushies" is substantially the same as the claimed design in the ’847 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
  • Factual Questions: A key factual question for the court will be the degree of visual similarity between the actual accused products and the specific ornamental features shown in the patent's figures, including the proportions, zipper placement, facial details, and the appearance of the reversed strawberry configuration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms for construction. In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations, and claim construction disputes focusing on specific terms are uncommon. The analysis typically centers on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as depicted in the patent's figures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26) but does not plead specific facts required to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "have jointly and severally, knowingly, and willfully infringed the Asserted Patent" (Compl. ¶22). The pleading does not specify a basis for pre-suit knowledge of the patent, suggesting the allegation may rest on the theory that the alleged copying is so direct and blatant as to constitute objective recklessness.

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

  • A central issue will be the direct application of the "ordinary observer" test: are the accused "egg bunny plushies" and the patented design substantially the same such that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing one thinking it was the other?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of visual identity: as the complaint alleges the accused products are identical copies (Compl. ¶6), the case will likely depend on a direct side-by-side visual comparison between the actual accused products sold by Defendants and the drawings in the ’847 Patent.
  • Given that the defendants are alleged to be numerous, foreign, and anonymous e-commerce operators (Compl. ¶11, ¶13), a significant practical challenge will be the identification and jurisdiction over the defendants and the subsequent enforcement of any potential injunction or monetary judgment.