DCT

1:25-cv-10146

Jinlong Holding Trading Co Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10146, N.D. Ill., 08/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that are accessible to Illinois residents, offer shipping to Illinois, and have allegedly sold infringing products to consumers within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators, collectively named as "John Doe" defendants, are infringing a design patent covering an ornamental design for a tripod easel stand.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns portable, adjustable tripod easel stands, a consumer product commonly used for art, presentations, and displays.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or administrative proceedings. The case structure, targeting numerous unnamed online sellers identified in a sealed schedule, is characteristic of anti-counterfeiting enforcement actions that seek to quickly enjoin a diffuse network of alleged infringers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-09-11 U.S. Patent No. D1,074,223 S Priority Date
2025-05-13 U.S. Patent No. D1,074,223 S Issues
2025-08-25 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,074,223 S - "Tripod Easel Stand"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D1,074,223 S ("Tripod Easel Stand"), issued May 13, 2025 (the "’223 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’223 Patent does not articulate a technical problem in a background section. Instead, it protects a "new, original, and ornamental design for a tripod easel stand" (Compl. ¶7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a tripod easel stand as depicted in its fourteen figures (’223 Patent, col. 1:11-30). The claimed ornamental design features a combination of three telescoping legs with rectangular clasps, a central vertical mast, a horizontal support tray with circular cutouts, and a top clamping mechanism, creating a distinct overall visual impression (’223 Patent, Fig. 1). The design also includes an ornamental appearance for the stand in a folded configuration (’223 Patent, Fig. 8).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial success of products embodying the patented design has led to significant infringement, suggesting the design has achieved market recognition (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a tripod easel stand, as shown and described" (’223 Patent, col. 1:8-10).
  • The elements of this claim consist of the collective visual characteristics of the article shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including the specific shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation of the tripod's components.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Unauthorized Products" described as tripod easel stands sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts on platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶¶1, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate "fully interactive e-commerce stores" to advertise and sell products that are "materially indistinguishable from the design claimed in the ’223 Patent" (Compl. ¶¶14, 19). Plaintiff asserts that it conducted test purchases of these products, which were shipped into the United States, confirming the infringing activity (Compl. ¶19). An image included in the complaint shows Plaintiff's authorized product, which embodies the patented design and displays the patent number in its online listing (Compl. p. 3, Fig. 1). Another image illustrates the height adjustment mechanism for the product's horizontal bar (Compl. p. 3, Fig. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an attached Exhibit G, which was not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶29). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The central allegation is that the Defendants' "Unauthorized Products" infringe the ’223 Patent under the "ordinary observer" test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Plaintiff avers that the accused products "incorporate each of the ornamental design elements claimed" and are "materially indistinguishable" from the patented design (Compl. ¶¶19, 29). This suggests that in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the infringing product, believing it to be the patented product. The infringement allegation is supported by Plaintiff's test purchases of the accused products (Compl. ¶19, Ex. F).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question will be a direct visual comparison: Does the overall visual appearance of the Defendants' accused products create substantially the same impression as the design claimed in the drawings of the ’223 Patent?
  • Technical Questions: In design patent litigation, the analysis is not technical in a functional sense. The key evidentiary question will be whether the specific ornamental features of the accused stands—such as the configuration of the legs and their clasps, the design of the support tray, and the shape of the upper clamp—are sufficiently similar to the patented design to satisfy the ordinary observer test.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents focuses on the drawings rather than textual definitions. The scope of the claim is understood by viewing the figures as a whole.

The Term: "tripod easel stand"

This phrase from the claim and title defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied (’223 Patent, (54); col. 1:8-10).

Context and Importance

Its construction is unlikely to be a central point of dispute, as the accused products are also alleged to be tripod easel stands. The dispositive issue is the similarity of the design's appearance, not the definition of the article itself. Practitioners will likely focus on the visual comparison dictated by the ordinary observer test rather than arguing over the meaning of this term.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the general term "tripod easel stand" in the patent's title and claim indicates the design is not limited to a sub-category with more specific functional requirements.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of protection is ultimately defined and limited by the specific ornamental features depicted in solid lines across the fourteen figures of the patent (’223 Patent, Figs. 1-14). Any accused product must be substantially similar in appearance to what is explicitly shown.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶28, 30) but does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might have induced or contributed to infringement by third parties. The core of the case is direct infringement by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the accused products.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants acting "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶28, ¶33). This allegation may be supported by the assertion that the accused products are "materially indistinguishable" from the patented design, suggesting intentional copying (Compl. ¶19). Furthermore, Plaintiff's practice of including the patent number in its own online product listings could be argued to constitute public notice, potentially supporting a finding of pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶9, Fig. 1).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' various online products substantially the same as the specific design shown in the figures of the ’223 Patent, such that a purchaser would be deceived?
  2. A key procedural question will be one of enforcement and accountability: Given that the suit targets a diffuse network of online sellers identified only in a sealed schedule, a primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to effectively identify, serve, and enforce any potential judgment against entities that allegedly use anonymity and offshore operations to evade liability (Compl. ¶¶2, 16, 24).