DCT
1:25-cv-10452
Niu v. Attorney at Law
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Haoran Niu (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: zxnkj and the Individuals and Entities operating zxnkj (Foreign Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law Group
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10452, N.D. Ill., 09/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are not U.S. residents and are therefore subject to venue in any judicial district. The complaint further alleges that Defendants targeted sales to consumers in Illinois through online marketplaces.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online sales of makeup tools infringe a design patent that Plaintiff owns.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer product, with the complaint identifying the relevant product category as cosmetic application tools.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-07-05 | D1,068,562 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2025-04-01 | D1,068,562 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-09-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,068,562 - MOTORCYCLE
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the specification does not explicitly state a technical problem. The filing implicitly addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a motorcycle.
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific ornamental design for a motorcycle. The claimed design is illustrated through eight figures showing the motorcycle from various perspectives, including top, bottom, front, rear, side, and perspective views (’562 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design features a distinct frame geometry, seat shape, and arrangement of components that create a unique overall visual appearance (’562 Patent, p. 3, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint does not provide context for the technical importance of the design; however, ornamental designs are significant in the vehicle industry for establishing brand identity and product differentiation.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is:
- The ornamental design for a motorcycle as shown and described.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Products" that are "makeup tool[s] to be used to assist makeup process" (Compl. ¶¶1, 10). Specifically, the complaint alleges the tools are used for "drawing eyeshadows" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are sold through "online commerce platforms" such as Amazon (Compl. ¶¶1, 16). The complaint states these products "copied the design of the Asserted Patent" and are "substantially identical" to it (Compl. ¶¶1, 15).
Plaintiff alleges that sales of the accused products have led to "erosion in market share and loss of orders and profits" (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused makeup tools are "substantially identical" to the claimed design (Compl. ¶15).
| Claim Element (from the Sole Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a motorcycle as shown and described. | Defendant manufactures, imports, offers for sale, and sells infringing "makeup tool" products whose design is "substantially identical" to the Asserted Patent's design. | ¶¶1, 10, 15, 25 | p. 3, col. 2:50-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
The pleadings raise fundamental questions about the viability of the infringement claim.
- Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be whether a "makeup tool" can, as a matter of law, infringe a design patent explicitly claiming an "ornamental design for a motorcycle." The title and claim language of the patent may be seen as defining the scope of the protected article of manufacture.
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the accused products are "substantially identical" to the patented design but provides no factual support to bridge the apparent gap between a makeup tool and the motorcycle depicted in the patent's figures. The analysis will question what visual evidence, if any, could demonstrate that the design of a makeup tool is confusingly similar to the design of the claimed motorcycle in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For a design patent, claim construction focuses on the overall visual appearance of the design as shown in the figures. The description of the article of manufacture in the claim is a key determinant of scope.
- The Term: "motorcycle"
- Context and Importance: The identification of the article of manufacture as a "motorcycle" is critical because it defines the context for the claimed ornamental design. Infringement of a design patent requires that the accused article and the claimed design be substantially similar from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art in the field of the article of design. The dispute may turn on whether the relevant "ordinary observer" is one familiar with motorcycles or makeup tools.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide any basis from the intrinsic record for interpreting "motorcycle" to encompass a makeup tool.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title ("MOTORCYCLE"), the claim language ("The ornamental design for a motorcycle..."), and all eight figures unambiguously depict a motorcycle (’562 Patent, Title; p. 3, col. 2:50-52; Figs. 1-8). This intrinsic evidence strongly suggests the claim scope is limited to designs applied to motorcycles or articles of a similar nature.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement but provides no specific supporting facts, such as identifying any third-party direct infringer or any actions taken by Defendant to encourage such infringement (Compl. ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted "knowingly and intentionally or at least with reckless disregard or willful blindness" to Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not specify whether this allegation is based on pre- or post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The disposition of this case appears to hinge on a threshold legal and factual question that precedes a typical infringement analysis.
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and plausibility: Does the complaint state a plausible claim for relief by accusing a "makeup tool" of infringing a design patent explicitly claimed and depicted as being for a "motorcycle"? The court will have to address the fundamental mismatch between the subject matter of the asserted patent and the nature of the accused product.
- A related evidentiary question is one of visual identity: Assuming the claim is not dismissed at the pleading stage, the central question will be whether Plaintiff can produce any evidence to support the allegation that the ornamental design of an accused makeup tool is "substantially the same" as the patented motorcycle design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.