DCT

1:25-cv-09772

Ren v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Quan Ren and Kui Cao (People's Republic of China)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Whitewood Law PLLC
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09772, N.D. Ill., 08/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants have purportedly committed acts of infringement in the district by targeting and selling products to Illinois residents through interactive e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ online sales of protective smartwatch cases on platforms such as Amazon.com, Shein.com, and Walmart.com infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a case.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics accessory market, specifically for protective cases designed to alter the aesthetics and provide protection for popular smartwatches.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs' products embodying the patented design are marked in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), a fact that may be relevant to questions of notice and damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-07-22 '405 Patent Priority Date
2024-09-24 U.S. Patent No. D1,043,405 S Issued
2025-08-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,043,405 S - "Protective case for a watch"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,043,405 S, "Protective case for a watch," issued September 24, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional utility. The patent is directed to providing a new, original, and ornamental design for a protective case for a watch ('405 Patent, Claim). The complaint characterizes the design as a "groundbreaking approach" with "unique and non-obvious design elements" (Compl. ¶2).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of the watch case as depicted in its figures ('405 Patent, FIG. 1-8). Key ornamental features shown in the drawings include a generally rectangular body with rounded corners, a large central opening for a watch face, specific arrangements of cutouts on the sides for buttons and a crown, and a distinct pattern of perforations near one of the cutouts ('405 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The design creates a distinct overall visual impression for a watch accessory.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design achieved "rapid commercial success and market adoption" and "demonstrated commercial success in the smartwatch accessory market" (Compl. ¶¶2, 14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim, which is standard for a design patent.
  • The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a protective case for a watch, as shown and described" ('405 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article depicted in solid lines in the patent's eight figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products" described as protective covers for a "specific type of smart[watch]" sold by Defendants on various online platforms (Compl. ¶¶1, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products "closely mimic the invention patented by Plaintiffs, including the same overall shape, dimensions, and aesthetic features" (Compl. ¶22). The infringement allegations focus on the products' visual appearance, asserting they copy the patented design's "curved face," "opening, snap closed feature, and other design elements" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint provides a side-by-side image comparison, placing a figure from the '405 Patent next to a photograph of an accused product from an online listing to illustrate their alleged visual similarity (Compl. p. 18). Plaintiffs allege these products are sold at "significantly below-market prices" and are of "demonstrably inferior quality" (Compl. ¶¶5, 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. Instead, it presents a narrative infringement theory. The central allegation is that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the invention claimed in the '405 Patent, such that the "sameness deceives prospective purchasers" (Compl. ¶50). The complaint alleges infringement occurs through the "verbatim reproduction" of patented design elements, including:

  1. "Reproducing the exact curved geometrical shape that allows precise fitting around a smartwatch" (Compl. ¶51).
  2. "Implementing the identical snap-closure mechanism that provides secure attachment" (Compl. ¶51).
  3. "Mimicking the precise surface contours and proportional relationships that distinguish the original design" (Compl. ¶51).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary legal question in a design patent case is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. A central dispute may therefore be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '405 Patent.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what prior art designs exist for smartwatch cases and how they differ from the patented design. The outcome of the "ordinary observer" test depends on the context provided by this prior art. The complaint's assertion that the design is "clearly distinguished from prior art" suggests this will be a point of focus (Compl. ¶2).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal claim construction of express terms is atypical in design patent litigation, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings rather than words. The analysis focuses on interpreting the visual scope of the design as shown in the patent figures.

  • The "Term": The overall "ornamental design ... as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed design. In design patents, this scope is determined by what is depicted in solid versus broken lines in the drawings. Practitioners may focus on this distinction as it is dispositive of the design's boundaries.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claimed design covers the article's overall shape and the specific arrangement of all features shown in solid lines, viewed as a whole. The test is not a side-by-side comparison of individual features but the overall visual effect on the ordinary observer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states that "The broken lines depict portions of the protective case for watch that form no part of the claimed design" ('405 Patent, Description). This language limits the protected design strictly to the elements rendered in solid lines, excluding any features (such as internal structures or portions of an underlying watch) shown in broken lines from the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation that the "sameness" of the products "induces [prospective purchasers] to purchase Defendants' products" (Compl. ¶50). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin the act of "inducing others to do the same" (Compl. p. 26).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶55). The complaint bases this allegation on Defendants' purported: (1) continued sales despite actual and constructive knowledge of Plaintiffs' patent rights; (2) "deliberate copying of the patented design's distinctive features"; (3) "attempts to conceal their infringing activities through multiple seller aliases"; and (4) "participation in organized efforts to evade detection and enforcement through online forums" (Compl. ¶¶38, 55). The complaint alleges knowledge stems from patent marking on Plaintiffs' products and the public accessibility of the patent through the USPTO database (Compl. ¶54).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the accused smartwatch cases, when viewed in the context of the prior art, "substantially the same" as the overall ornamental design depicted in the solid lines of the '405 Patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will relate to willfulness and knowledge: can Plaintiffs produce sufficient evidence to show that the anonymous online sellers, who allegedly operate through a coordinated network using aliases, had pre-suit knowledge of the '405 patent, thereby supporting the claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?