DCT

1:25-cv-10112

Zhang v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Chen Zhang (China)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdictions unknown, alleged to operate from China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10112, N.D. Ill., 08/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and ship products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are making, using, selling, and importing wooden tools that infringe a U.S. design patent owned by Plaintiff.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental appearance of wooden tools sold through major online marketplaces.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint's structure, which targets numerous unidentified sellers listed on a "Schedule A," is characteristic of actions designed to combat diffuse online infringement, often involving requests for ex parte temporary restraining orders. The complaint suggests a broader litigation campaign by referencing "analysis of financial account transaction logs from previous similar cases."

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-01-01 (approx.) Plaintiff allegedly began marketing "ZHANG Products" in the United States
2025-08-25 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. [Not Provided] ("Asserted Patent"), Title [Not Provided], Issue Date [Not Provided]. The patent number and title are not stated in the complaint, which refers to the patent as being attached as Exhibit 2. This exhibit was not included with the provided documents.

U.S. Design Patent No. [Not Provided] - [Title Not Provided]

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a technical problem, but rather focuses on the commercial value of a unique aesthetic design (Compl. ¶6). It alleges Plaintiff's products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" and "unique and innovative design" (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The complaint alleges the Asserted Patent protects the ornamental design for "wooden tools" (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7). Without access to the patent's figures and description, a detailed analysis of the specific patented design is not possible.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the designs are "broadly recognized by consumers" and that the "ZHANG brand has come to symbolize high quality wooden tools" (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the single design claim of the Asserted Patent (Compl. ¶24).
  • Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design for an article as shown and described in the patent's figures. The specific claim language is unavailable for review.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "Infringing Products," which are allegedly "unauthorized and unlicensed" wooden tools featuring Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶4). The complaint states that an example of an infringing product is shown in Exhibit 1, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are allegedly sold by Defendants through e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" on online marketplace platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges Defendants are part of a network of infringers that use fictitious aliases and common marketing tactics to target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, while concealing their true identities (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, 17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element comparison, which is typical for a design patent case where the legal test is a comparison of the design as a whole. The core allegation is that Defendants "are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing... Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the ZHANG Design disclosed and claimed in Asserted Patent" (Compl. ¶24). The infringement analysis will turn on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question will be one of visual similarity: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused wooden tools substantially the same as the design claimed in the Asserted Patent?
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the specific products sold by each of the anonymous "Schedule A" Defendants are, in fact, the "same... product" as alleged in the complaint and whether that product is properly accused of infringement (Compl. ¶20).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. The claim in a design patent is defined by the drawings. Claim construction disputes, if they arise, typically focus on the interpretation of the visual disclosures in the drawings as a whole rather than on the definition of specific textual terms.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). However, the complaint's factual allegations focus on Defendants' own alleged acts of making, using, and selling, and do not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants operate "in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" using deceptive tactics to hide their identities (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patent itself.

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

  • A primary procedural question will concern the management of a case against a large number of unidentified "Schedule A" defendants, including the sufficiency of the allegations that they are all part of a single, interrelated enterprise.
  • The central substantive issue will be one of visual identity: does the ornamental design of the accused wooden tools appear substantially the same as the design claimed in the Asserted Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer? A definitive analysis of this question requires review of the Asserted Patent and the accused products, neither of which are sufficiently detailed in the provided complaint.
  • An underlying evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can successfully link the online storefronts operating under various "Seller Aliases" to a group of defendants acting in concert and establish that each defendant sold products that meet the "ordinary observer" test for infringement.