DCT

1:25-cv-09781

Ramos v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations In Schedule A

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09781, N.D. Ill., 08/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants operate interactive commercial internet stores that directly target and sell products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers, operating in concert, are infringing a U.S. design patent by selling "knock-off" versions of Plaintiff's "Storage Container for Grocery and Trash Bags."
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer household product used for organizing and dispensing plastic bags.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendants are an interrelated group of infringers who operate under fictitious names and use tactics to conceal their identities, such as creating new online marketplace accounts to evade enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-09-27 U.S. Patent No. D1,062,292 application filed (priority date)
2025-02-18 U.S. Patent No. D1,062,292 issued
2025-08-15 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,062,292 - Storage Container for Grocery and Trash Bags

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. D1,062,292, issued February 18, 2025 (’292 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As this is a design patent, it does not articulate a technical problem in its specification. The patent protects the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian function (U.S. Pat. D1,062,292).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a storage container. The core visual features depicted in the patent's figures include a generally rectangular body with rounded vertical edges, a top surface with two distinct openings (one ovular, one rectangular with rounded corners), a narrow vertical slot on the front face, and a circular opening on a side face (’292 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7). The complaint reproduces a perspective view of this design. The image, designated as FIG. 1, shows the container’s three-dimensional form, including its front, side, and top surfaces (Compl. p. 4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a storage container for grocery and trash bags, as shown and described" (’292 Patent, Claim).
  • The "elements" of this claim are the visual features of the article as depicted in the patent's eight figures, which define the scope of the protected design (’292 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "knock-off products" described as storage containers that allegedly infringe the ’292 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" on platforms such as Amazon, TEMU, Walmart, and eBay to market, sell, and import these products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9, 16). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants are an "interrelated group" who use common product images and tactics to conceal their identities and appear as legitimate sellers (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 13). Specific images of the accused products and sellers are referenced as being filed under seal in Exhibit C (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement allegation is based on the assertion that the accused "knock-off products" incorporate a design that is a "reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation" of the ornamental design claimed in the ’292 Patent (Compl. ¶22; Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). The central question for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The primary question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’292 Patent. This comparison will focus on the patented design as a whole, as depicted in its figures.
    • Evidentiary Questions: As the specific accused products are identified in a sealed exhibit, a key issue will be the presentation of evidence comparing those products to the figures of the ’292 Patent. The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison of the products' shapes, features, and overall aesthetic impression against the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is not typically a central issue in design patent litigation. The single claim—"The ornamental design for a storage container for grocery and trash bags, as shown and described"—refers directly to the patent's drawings. The analysis is therefore not focused on construing textual terms but on comparing the overall visual appearance of the accused product to the patented design. The dispute is unlikely to center on claim construction and will instead proceed directly to the infringement analysis under the ordinary observer test.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 22) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing the knowledge or intent required to establish induced or contributory infringement beyond the act of selling the accused products.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 17, 18). The complaint asserts that Defendants created their online stores to sell "the same knock-off products" while attempting to conceal their identities, which may be presented as evidence of willful conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10).

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

  1. Infringement under the Ordinary Observer Test: The central substantive question is one of visual comparison: is the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' products substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’292 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The case will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the figures of the ’292 Patent.
  2. Enforcement and Defendant Identity: A primary procedural challenge will be identifying and holding accountable the responsible parties. The complaint alleges a coordinated effort by numerous anonymous entities to evade enforcement, raising the question of whether the Plaintiff can effectively obtain and enforce relief against a shifting collection of online storefronts.