1:25-cv-08491
Kao v. Hengda Kite
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Juncheng Kao (China)
- Defendant: Hengda Kite (China); Orange Cloud Kite (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aptum Law
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08491, N.D. Ill., 07/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), which permits suit against a foreign defendant in any judicial district. The complaint further alleges personal jurisdiction based on Defendants conducting business in the district by selling accused products to Illinois residents via Amazon.com.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that kites sold by Defendants on Amazon.com infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a kite.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer kites, a market where visual appearance can be a significant factor in purchasing decisions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this litigation. No prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-06-17 | ’279 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2022-10-18 | ’279 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-07-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D967,279 S - "Kite"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D967,279 S (“’279 Patent”), titled “Kite,” issued on October 18, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The ’279 Patent seeks to protect a specific aesthetic design for a kite.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a kite as depicted in its figures (e.g., ’279 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The design consists of the overall visual appearance, characterized by a delta-wing shape with curved trailing edges, a prominent central vertical spine extending into a long, slender tail, and a horizontal cross-member. The claim itself is for the visual design "as shown and described" (’279 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design is commercially significant, alleging Defendants knew of "popular kite designs on the market, including the designs patented in the '279 patent" (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a kite, as shown and described." (’279 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the kite as illustrated in the patent's eighteen figures. Key ornamental features include the specific proportions and curvature of the kite body and the configuration of its central spine and tail.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are kites sold by Defendant Hengda Kite under the Amazon store name "Kengda Kite" (ASIN B0DGKZNGHD) and by Defendant Orange Cloud Kite under the store name "ORGCLDKT" (ASIN B0CD1TF7JZ) (Compl. ¶13-14). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are consumer kites sold online through Amazon.com (Compl. ¶9, ¶15). The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "materially identical" to the design protected by the ’279 Patent and provides a side-by-side visual comparison to support this allegation (Compl. ¶16). The complaint further alleges, upon information and belief, that the accused kites are all manufactured or sourced from the same supplier (Compl. ¶6, ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "materially identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of images of the patented design and the accused kites to support its infringement claim. (Compl. p. 5). This visual shows the patented design's line drawing next to photographs of the colorful accused kites sold by each defendant.
| Claim Element (from the Sole Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a kite, as shown and described. | The Accused Products are alleged to be "materially identical" to the patented design, embodying the same overall delta-wing shape, proportions, and central spine/tail configuration depicted in the patent's figures. | ¶13, ¶16 | col. 1:58; FIGS. 1-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the Accused Products is substantially the same as that of the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: The court may need to consider the effect of the surface ornamentation (e.g., bright color patterns) on the Accused Products. The ’279 Patent claims the kite's shape and configuration via line drawings, not any specific color scheme. The analysis will question whether the similarity in the claimed shape outweighs any differences in the unclaimed surface coloring when assessing the overall appearance.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction for design patents differs from that for utility patents, as the "claim" is defined by the drawings rather than by text. There are no disputed technical terms requiring formal construction. The primary interpretive exercise for the court will be to understand the overall visual impression created by the patent's drawings as a whole. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific claim term.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendants knowingly and intentionally encourage infringement by "instructing and otherwise encouraging customers of the Accused Products to make and use the Accused Products" (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’279 Patent (Compl. ¶17). The complaint supports this allegation by claiming that Defendants (i) have long been sellers of kite products, (ii) knew of popular kite designs, including the patented one, and (iii) source all Accused Products from the same or related suppliers (Compl. ¶17, ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser gives, be deceived into thinking the accused kites are the same as the patented design? This will turn on a direct comparison between the overall appearance of the Accused Products and the design shown in the ’279 Patent's figures.
- A key legal and factual question will be the role of unclaimed features: How will the analysis of overall visual appearance account for the colorful surface patterns on the Accused Products, which are not themselves part of the patented design claimed in the line drawings? The court will have to determine if the alleged identity in shape is sufficient for infringement despite differences in surface decoration.
- The case may also hinge on an evidentiary question of sourcing: The allegation that both Defendants source their "materially identical" products from the same supplier, if proven, could strengthen the claims of copying and willful infringement by suggesting a coordinated effort rather than independent design.