DCT

1:25-cv-10737

Zhang v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Jianqun Zhang (China)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A (Jurisdictions not specified)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Liu, Esq.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10737, N.D. Ill., 09/05/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores, offer shipping to Illinois, and have allegedly caused tortious injury to the Plaintiff within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators, identified on a sealed schedule, are infringing a design patent for a "Ladder Stabilizer" by selling unauthorized, visually similar products online.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of ladder accessories, specifically stabilizers that provide a wider base of support for a ladder against a structure to increase safety and stability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or specific licensing history relevant to the asserted patent. The case is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a common procedural vehicle for targeting numerous, often anonymous, online sellers of allegedly infringing goods.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-07-20 ’D919 Patent Application Filing Date
2025-06-24 ’D919 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-05 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 S - "Ladder Stabilizer"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 S (“’D919 Patent”), "Ladder Stabilizer," issued June 24, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’D919 Patent does not contain a written description of a technical problem. However, the title and figures suggest the design is for an article of manufacture intended to address the functional problem of ladder instability when leaned against a wall or roofline (’D919 Patent, Title; FIG. 7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of the ladder stabilizer article itself. The claimed design features a central mounting structure with two downward-projecting arms for attachment to ladder rungs, from which two long, gently curved arms extend outwards and upwards, terminating in textured, non-slip pads. The overall visual impression is a combination of utilitarian angles in the mounting bracket and sweeping curves in the stabilizer arms (’D919 Patent, FIG. 1, 5, 7).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial success of products embodying the patented design has resulted in significant infringement by online sellers (’Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: “The ornamental design for a ladder stabilizer as shown.” (’D919 Patent, Claim).
  • This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the ladder stabilizer as depicted in the patent’s eight figures, which show the design from front, rear, left, right, top, bottom, and two perspective views (’D919 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Unauthorized Products," identified as ladder stabilizers sold by the various Defendants through their e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon.com, Inc. (Compl. ¶3, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants operate "fully interactive e-commerce stores" under various "Seller Aliases" to target and sell the accused products to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶2, 17). The complaint asserts that these products are of the same nature and type as Plaintiff's own commercial products (Compl. ¶30). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an attached Exhibit B, which was not publicly available for review (Compl. ¶22). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the "Unauthorized Products" sold by Defendants are visually substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’D919 Patent (Compl. ¶22). For design patent infringement, the legal test is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused product is such as to deceive such an observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The complaint alleges that the accused products "incorporate each of the design elements claimed in the ‘D919 Patent" and thus infringe (Compl. ¶22). The infringement is alleged to be direct, occurring through Defendants' acts of making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the accused products into the United States (Compl. ¶21, 23).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the overall visual appearance of each accused product is substantially similar to the claimed design. This analysis will depend on comparing the specific aesthetic choices of the patented design—such as the curvature of the arms, the shape of the end pads, and the configuration of the mounting brackets—with those of the various accused products.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary challenge will be comparing the patented design to what may be a multitude of different "Unauthorized Products" sold by the numerous anonymous Defendants. The analysis for each product may differ, raising the question of how the court will manage the individualized proof required for each Defendant listed on Schedule A.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents is centered on the visual representations in the drawings, rather than the meaning of written words.

  • The Term: "ladder stabilizer"
  • Context and Importance: While the primary legal analysis will be a visual comparison of the designs, the identity of the claimed "article of manufacture" provides the context for that comparison. Practitioners may focus on this term only if a Defendant argues its product is not a "ladder stabilizer" at all, thereby falling outside the scope of the patent. However, based on the complaint, such a dispute appears unlikely. The critical issue is not the definition of the article, but the similarity of its appearance.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a textual definition that would broaden the term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures themselves define the article. All eight figures consistently depict a device with features clearly designed for attachment to a ladder and stabilization against a surface, limiting the scope of the article to this specific context (’D919 Patent, FIG. 1-8).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement and seeks injunctive relief against aiding and abetting (Compl. ¶23; Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)). However, the specific factual allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendants' own offers for sale, sales, and importation (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶25). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in concert to sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶18, 21). The complaint does not plead specific facts indicating pre-suit knowledge of the ’D919 Patent, such as receipt of a notice letter.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: For each of the "Unauthorized Products," is its overall ornamental design substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’D919 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? This factual inquiry is the foundation of any design patent infringement claim.
  2. A key procedural question will be one of case management and evidence: Given the use of a "Schedule A" to name numerous, potentially anonymous e-commerce sellers, can the Plaintiff efficiently present sufficient evidence to prove that each distinct accused product sold by each distinct Defendant infringes the ’D919 Patent?