DCT

1:25-cv-10942

Zhang v. Kaliyadi

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10942, N.D. Ill., 09/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that sunglasses sold by multiple Defendants on the Amazon marketplace infringe a U.S. design patent for eyeglasses.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of sports-style eyewear, a product category where aesthetic differentiation is a significant aspect of market competition.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-06-16 D901,581 Patent Priority Date
2020-11-10 D901,581 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-07 Plaintiff allegedly purchased accused products
2025-09-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D901,581 - "Eyeglasses"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D901,581, "Eyeglasses," issued November 10, 2020 (the “D’581 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The D’581 Patent seeks to protect a novel aesthetic design for eyeglasses.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for eyeglasses depicted in its eight figures (D’581 Patent, FIG. 1-8). Key visual features of the claimed design include a single, large, continuous shield-like lens; a frame that is visible primarily along the top edge and temple arms; a distinct, V-shaped nose piece assembly; and angular temple arms that taper towards the ends (D’581 Patent, FIG. 1, 3, 5). The overall impression is that of modern, athletic eyewear.
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer eyewear market, particularly for sports sunglasses, ornamental design serves as a key product differentiator and source of brand identity (Compl. ¶¶6-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the design as shown in the drawings.
  • The D’581 Patent claims:
    • The ornamental design for an eyeglasses, as shown and described. (D’581 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are various models of sunglasses sold by the seven named Defendants through distinct storefronts on Amazon.com, identified in the complaint by their respective Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶¶6-12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are marketed as sports-style sunglasses for activities such as baseball and football (Compl. ¶¶6-7, 12). The complaint alleges that the Defendants are e-commerce operators based in China who target U.S. consumers through their online storefronts (Compl. ¶¶2, 13). It further alleges that the Defendants operate under various "Seller Aliases" and use tactics to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operations (Compl. ¶¶14, 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' sunglasses infringe the D’581 Patent because their ornamental design is substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶¶23, 25). The infringement test for a design patent is that of the "ordinary observer"—whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint states that Plaintiff purchased the accused products and compared them against the patent-in-suit, referencing "Infringement Claim Charts" in Exhibits 3-1 to 3-7 (Compl. ¶25). However, these exhibits were not included with the complaint document provided for analysis.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused sunglasses is substantially the same as the claimed design. The analysis will involve comparing the patented design as a whole to the accused products, rather than a feature-by-feature breakdown.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be what specific design elements an ordinary observer would focus on when comparing the products. The dispute may turn on whether perceived similarities in the overall shape and configuration outweigh any minor differences in specific contours, proportions, or surface ornamentation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of text is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim is defined by the drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole.

  • The Term: "the ornamental design for an eyeglasses, as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the entirety of the patent's claim, defining the protected intellectual property as the specific visual appearance depicted in the patent's figures. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends entirely on the interpretation of the visual scope of these drawings. Practitioners may focus on this "term" because the heart of the dispute is what an ordinary observer would perceive from the drawings and whether the accused products fall within that perception.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The sole intrinsic evidence defining the scope is the set of eight drawings in the D’581 Patent.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression and general configuration of the eyeglasses—a single shield lens, angular top frame, and tapered arms—and that minor variations do not escape infringement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the precise proportions, curvatures, and line work shown in the detailed line drawings (D’581 Patent, FIG. 1-8). Any deviation in the accused product from these specific details could be argued as a basis for non-infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that Defendants’ products infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶22), and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully" infringed the D’581 Patent (Compl. ¶22). It does not, however, plead any specific facts indicating that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent, such as receipt of a notice letter. The allegation appears to be based on the general assertion of infringement. The plaintiff seeks treble damages for willful infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶4).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: is the overall ornamental design of the various accused sunglasses "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'581 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them?
  • A key procedural and evidentiary question will be one of collective liability: can the plaintiff prove its allegation that the multiple, distinct defendant storefronts are operating in concert or are otherwise jointly liable for infringement, and how would damages or profits be calculated and apportioned across these separate sellers?