DCT
1:25-cv-09436
Dongguan Fangde Network Technology Co Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dongguan Fangde Network Technology Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: And The Individuals And Entities Operating [Redacted] (jurisdiction alleged as People's Republic of China and other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Whitewood Law PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09436, N.D. Ill., 08/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants target and conduct e-commerce sales to consumers in the district, and a substantial part of the infringing acts occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufacture, import, and sell metal hooks through online marketplaces that infringe the single claim of Plaintiff's design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer product—a metal hook—within the competitive e-commerce market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-05-31 | U.S. Patent No. D1,005,088 S Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2023-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. D1,005,088 S Issued |
| 2025-08-13 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,005,088 S - "Metal Hook"
- Issued: November 21, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve functional problems but instead protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The implicit challenge is to create a visually distinct and aesthetically pleasing design for a common item like a hook (Compl. ¶5).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a metal hook. The design's key visual features include a circular head portion, a stem that bifurcates or splits as it connects to the circular head, and a smooth, J-shaped lower hook portion (’088 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The combination of these elements creates the overall visual impression protected by the patent.
- Technical Importance: In the market for ubiquitous consumer goods, a unique ornamental design can serve as a key product differentiator and source of brand identity (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a metal hook, as shown and described" (’088 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's eight figures, which depict the design from perspective, front, back, side, top, and bottom views.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "metal hooks" sold by Defendants through online storefronts on platforms such as Walmart.com, Amazon.com, Temu.com, and Shein.com (Compl. ¶¶1, 15, 23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are "hooks that closely mimic the invention patented by Plaintiff, including the same overall shape, dimensions, and aesthetic features" (Compl. ¶23). A side-by-side comparison image provided in the complaint shows an accused product listing next to an image of the patented design (Compl. p. 14).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are "sophisticated sellers" who flood online marketplaces with these products, often at below-market prices, thereby harming Plaintiff's goodwill and market position (Compl. ¶¶16, 18, 21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for infringement of a design patent is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products are a "verbatim reproduction" of the patented design (Compl. ¶27).
Claim Chart Summary
While design patents are not analyzed on an element-by-element basis in the same way as utility patents, the following table breaks down the core ornamental features of the claimed design and the complaint's corresponding allegations.
| Ornamental Feature (from ’088 Patent, as shown) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a metal hook | The accused products are alleged to be "substantially the same" as, and a "verbatim reproduction" of, the patented design, creating a nearly identical visual impression. | ¶¶27, 50 | FIG. 1-8 |
| A circular head portion | The accused hooks feature a circular head portion that is visually indistinguishable from the patented design, as shown in the complaint's comparison image. | p. 14 | FIG. 1-4 |
| A stem that bifurcates to connect to the head | The accused hooks feature a stem that splits into two arms to connect to the circular head in the same manner as the patented design. | p. 14 | FIG. 1-4 |
| A J-shaped lower hook | The accused hooks feature a lower J-shaped hook with a similar curvature, length, and thickness as the one depicted in the patent drawings. | p. 14 | FIG. 1, 5, 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question will be the application of the ordinary observer test. The court will need to determine if the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design. While the complaint alleges a "verbatim reproduction" (Compl. ¶27), a defense may focus on any minor differences between the designs to argue they are not substantially similar.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the specific products sold by the various anonymous online seller accounts are, in fact, the same as the product depicted in the complaint's infringement exhibits (Compl. p. 14).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For a design patent, claim construction does not involve defining textual terms. The "claim" is the set of drawings as a whole, and its scope is a matter of visual interpretation.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a metal hook, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the visual scope of the design shown in the patent's figures. The central dispute will not be over the meaning of a word but over the degree of similarity required for an accused product to infringe the patented visual design.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The analysis will be guided by the patent's drawings.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the scope covers minor variations that do not change the overall visual impression created by the combination of the circular head, bifurcated stem, and J-hook.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the design is limited to the exact proportions and curvatures shown in the drawings, suggesting that any deviation, however small, would place an accused product outside the claim's scope. The ultimate determination rests with the "ordinary observer" and is not a matter of traditional claim construction.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing others" or "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" the asserted patent (Prayer for Relief, ¶¶(1)(a), (c)).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' "continued sale of Infringing Products despite actual knowledge of Plaintiff's patent rights" (Compl. ¶55). This alleged knowledge is based on Plaintiff's patent marking on its own products and packaging, as well as the listing of the patent number on its Amazon.com storefront (Compl. ¶54 & fn. 1). The complaint also points to Defendants' "deliberate copying of the patented design's distinctive features" as evidence of willfulness (Compl. ¶55).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's assessment of three key questions:
- A Question of Visual Similarity: In applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused hooks "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’088 Patent, such that an observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one?
- An Evidentiary Question of Identity: Can the Plaintiff successfully link the specific infringing products to the numerous, and allegedly anonymous, online entities named as Defendants and prove the extent of their sales in the United States? The complaint itself notes the difficulty in identifying the full scope of the infringing network (Compl. ¶21).
- A Question of Willfulness: Do the allegations of patent marking and deliberate copying provide sufficient evidence to establish that Defendants' alleged infringement was willful, a finding that could potentially expose them to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?