DCT

1:25-cv-09459

Nanjing Migratory Bird Apparel CO., Ltd v. Kolaric

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09459, N.D. Ill., 08/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, including the effects of Defendants' patent enforcement actions on Plaintiff's product listings marketed to Illinois consumers and a confirmed sale of Defendants' competing product into the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its satin hair bonnet products do not infringe Defendants' design patent and that the patent is invalid, arising from Defendants' repeated infringement complaints to Amazon.com that resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of satin hair bonnets, a consumer apparel accessory product sold in a competitive online marketplace.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants initiated multiple design patent infringement complaints against Plaintiff on Amazon.com, leading to the delisting of Plaintiff's products. Concurrently, Defendants allegedly contacted Plaintiff to solicit the sale of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges that some of its accused products were sold publicly before the patent’s priority date, which could serve as a basis for both non-infringement and invalidity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020 Alleged public availability of substantially similar satin bonnet designs from other sellers (Compl. ¶30, ¶42)
2022-03-21 Plaintiff's accused product ASIN B09W34VJMH first listed on Amazon (Compl. ¶28)
2022-04-06 Confirmed sales of Plaintiff's accused product ASIN B09W34VJMH begin (Compl. ¶28)
2022-11-09 Plaintiff's accused product ASIN B0BLXZ4YBJ first listed on Amazon (Compl. ¶28)
2022-11-26 Confirmed sales of Plaintiff's accused product ASIN B0BLXZ4YBJ begin (Compl. ¶28)
2022-12-22 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,150 application filed (priority date) (Compl. ¶28; '150 Patent, (22))
2025-06-24 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,150 issues (Compl. ¶19; '150 Patent, (45))
2025-07 Defendants initiate a series of design patent infringement complaints with Amazon.com against Plaintiff (Compl. ¶20, ¶25)
2025-08-21 Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (Compl. p. 1)

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,080,150 - "Hair Bonnet"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,150, "Hair Bonnet," issued June 24, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a hair bonnet ('150 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a hair bonnet as depicted in its nine drawing sheets ('150 Patent, Claim). Key ornamental features shown in solid lines include a gathered, voluminous cap portion, a wide headband, a prominent bow tied at the front, and a circular opening at the rear of the bonnet, visible in the rear and bottom views ('150 Patent, FIG. 3, FIG. 7). The claim covers the collective visual impression created by these features.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic for a consumer product, which may serve to distinguish it from other competing products in the marketplace.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hair bonnet, as shown and described." ('150 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of the claimed design are those shown in solid lines in the patent drawings, including:
    • A soft, gathered main body.
    • A wide, flat headband encircling the wearer's head.
    • A decorative bow tied at the front of the headband.
    • A distinct circular opening at the center rear of the bonnet.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiff's "satin hair bonnet products" sold on Amazon.com under various ASINs, including B09W34VJMH and B0BLXZ4YBJ (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶25, ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as satin hair bonnets that are among the highest-ranked and best-selling products in their category on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶24).
  • From a design perspective, the complaint alleges a key difference between the Accused Products and the patented design: the Accused Products are alleged to have a "fully enclosed rear panel without any" circular opening (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's central argument for why its products do not infringe, based on the legal standard for design patent infringement which compares the overall appearance of the accused product to the claimed design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

D1,080,150 Non-Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature (from '150 Patent) Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of Accused Product Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An ornamental design for a hair bonnet including a distinctive rear circular opening. The rear view shown in Figure 3 depicts this opening. The Accused Products have a fully enclosed rear panel without any such opening. ¶27, ¶34 FIG. 3
The overall ornamental appearance, which includes the rear opening as a claimed element. The bottom view shown in Figure 7 further illustrates this feature. The overall visual appearance of the Accused Products differs significantly from the claimed design due to the absence of the rear opening, creating a substantially different visual impression. ¶27, ¶34 FIG. 7

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central question for the non-infringement analysis will be whether the "overall visual appearance" of the Accused Products is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '150 Patent. The dispute will likely focus on the visual importance of the rear circular opening. A key question is whether an ordinary observer would find this feature significant enough that its absence creates a different overall design.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products in fact have a "fully enclosed rear panel" as alleged. The complaint's primary factual assertion for non-infringement rests on this single, specific design difference (Compl. ¶27).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are no traditional claim terms to construe. Instead, the court construes the single claim by reference to the patent's drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.

  • The "Term": The overall ornamental design as shown in Figures 1-9.
  • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on comparing the overall appearance of the accused bonnets to the claimed design. The legal dispute will turn on what an ordinary observer would perceive as the dominant visual features of the patented design and whether the absence of the rear opening in the accused product is a minor variation or a substantial departure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring infringement): Defendants may argue that the most prominent features of the design are the voluminous cap, the wide headband, and the large front-side bow, which are visible from the front and sides (e.g., '150 Patent, FIG. 1, 2, 4, 5). They might contend that the rear opening is a less significant detail, and that an accused product sharing the primary frontal appearance is substantially similar overall.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring non-infringement): Plaintiff argues that the rear opening is a "distinctive" element of the claimed design (Compl. ¶27). The fact that this feature is clearly depicted in multiple, dedicated views (e.g., '150 Patent, FIG. 3, FIG. 7) may support the argument that it is an integral part of the claimed ornamental design, and its complete absence in the accused products results in a substantially different visual impression.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity: Plaintiff alleges that the '150 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness) (Compl. ¶40).
    • Anticipation: The complaint asserts that at least two of the Accused Products (ASINs B09W34VJMH and B0BLXZ4YBJ) were publicly listed and sold in the U.S. months before the patent's December 22, 2022 priority date (Compl. ¶28, ¶41). This allegation creates a potential dilemma for the Defendants, as under patent law, a design that would infringe if sold after the priority date would anticipate and invalidate the patent if sold before that date (Compl. ¶29).
    • Obviousness/Novelty: The complaint further alleges that other "substantially similar" satin bonnet designs were available from other sellers as early as 2020, which may render the patented design invalid for lack of novelty or as obvious (Compl. ¶30, ¶42).
    • Functionality: Plaintiff also alleges the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 171 because the design is "dictated primarily by functional considerations... rather than by any ornamental features" (Compl. ¶43).

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

This declaratory judgment action appears to center on two primary questions for the court:

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: In the eyes of an ordinary observer, does the absence of the "distinctive rear circular opening" on Plaintiff's bonnets create an overall visual impression that is substantially different from the design claimed in the '150 Patent?

  2. A critical evidentiary question will be one of timing and identity: Can Plaintiff prove that its own accused products, or other substantially similar designs, were on sale and publicly available before the patent's December 22, 2022 priority date? If so, this could simultaneously defeat the infringement claim and invalidate the patent.