DCT

1:25-cv-10832

Niu

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Haoran Niu (People's Republic of China)
    • Defendant: Zoomies Den and the Individuals and Entities operating Zoomies Den
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10832, N.D. Ill., 09/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants do not reside in the United States and have targeted business activities and sales toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of makeup tools infringe a U.S. design patent. There is a significant discrepancy in the complaint: the text and visual evidence describe and depict a makeup tool, while the primary patent number cited and the attached patent exhibit correspond to an ornamental design for a wrench.
  • Technical Context: The technology described in the complaint is a cosmetic tool used as a stencil for applying eyeshadow, intended to simplify the makeup application process for beginners.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the asserted patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-09-19 Patent Priority Date (D'419 Patent)
2025-04-01 Patent Issue Date (D'419 Patent)
2025-09-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

The complaint contains conflicting information regarding the patent-in-suit, citing U.S. Patent No. D1,068,562 S in one paragraph (Compl. ¶1) and U.S. Patent No. D1,068,419 S in another, while also attaching the D'419 patent as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶9). The analysis below is based on the patent attached to the complaint as Exhibit 2.

U.S. Patent No. D1,068,419 S - "WRENCH"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,068,419 S, "WRENCH," issued April 1, 2025 (’419 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a functional problem. The ’419 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead claims a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (’419 Patent, Title, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a wrench as depicted in its eight figures (’419 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The single claim covers "the ornamental design for a wrench, as shown and described" (’419 Patent, Claim). This design is characterized by a T-shaped tool with a long, rectangular shaft, a textured grid-pattern handle at one end, and a C-shaped head with a protruding pin at the other end.
  • Technical Importance: The patent provides the owner with the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling articles that embody the claimed ornamental design, thereby protecting the unique aesthetic of the tool (’419 Patent, Grant).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the patent.
  • The claim protects:
    • The ornamental design for a wrench, as shown and described in Figures 1-8.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "Infringing Products" that are designs of a "makeup tool to be used to assist makeup process" (Compl. ¶1, ¶10). Specifically, the complaint states the tool is used to help in "drawing eyeshadows" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products "largely simplify the process to let even beginners yield satisfactory results in a short time, without deliberately drawing the shades and lines by their own" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint includes a visual comparison showing the accused products sold on online marketplaces, depicting them as wing-shaped stencils for applying eyeliner or eyeshadow (Compl. ¶15). Plaintiff alleges that sales of these products have led to an "erosion in market share and loss of orders and profits" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants’ products have "copied the design of the Asserted Patent" (Compl. ¶1). However, the complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed element-by-element comparison. The primary basis for infringement is a visual comparison provided in the complaint. This comparison, located in paragraph 15, displays side-by-side images of the "Plaintiff's product page" and "Defendant 1's product page," both of which show wing-shaped makeup stencils (Compl. ¶15).

The infringement analysis presents a threshold question due to the mismatch between the asserted patent's subject matter and the accused products. The test for design patent infringement requires that an "ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, ... should be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other."

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Subject Matter Mismatch: A central issue for the court will be the fundamental difference between the subject matter of the ’419 Patent and the accused products. The complaint must establish that the ornamental design for a "wrench" is substantially similar to the accused makeup tools.
    • Pleading Deficiency: The complaint's internal contradictions raise a significant question about whether it meets federal pleading standards. It accuses makeup tools of infringement while attaching a patent for a wrench. This discrepancy may be subject to a motion to dismiss.
    • Scope Questions: Does the scope of the claim for an "ornamental design for a wrench" (’419 Patent, Claim) extend to articles of manufacture in a completely different field, such as cosmetic tools?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the figures themselves effectively constitute the claim, and traditional claim construction is rare. However, the title and description can inform the scope of the claimed design.

  • The Term: "wrench"
  • Context and Importance: The title of the patent is "WRENCH," and the claim is for "the ornamental design for a wrench" (’419 Patent, Title, Claim). The interpretation of this term is critical because it frames the context for the "ordinary observer" test. If the design is understood as being inseparable from the identity of a wrench, it may be difficult to argue that an ordinary observer would confuse it with a makeup tool.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim protects the ornamental design itself, regardless of the article to which it is applied, and that the word "wrench" is merely descriptive of the embodiment shown.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently identifies the article as a "wrench" in its title, claim, and the description of the figures. This suggests the design's scope is limited to tools that an ordinary observer would perceive as a wrench or a similar article of manufacture.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶14, ¶34) but does not plead specific facts demonstrating that Defendants knowingly induced or contributed to direct infringement by third parties.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "acting knowingly and intentionally or at least with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not allege pre-suit notice or other facts that would typically support a claim of pre-suit willfulness.

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

The viability of this case appears to hinge on resolving preliminary, and significant, discrepancies in the complaint itself.

  • A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Can the complaint survive a motion to dismiss given the direct contradiction between the asserted patent (an ornamental design for a wrench), the factual allegations (describing a makeup tool), and the accompanying visual evidence (depicting a makeup tool)?
  • A second key question, assuming the pleading issue is resolved, will be one of infringement scope: Is there a plausible basis for an ordinary observer to find the accused makeup stencils to be substantially the same as the patented ornamental design for a wrench, considering the profound differences in their overall appearance, context, and intended use?