DCT
1:25-cv-11218
Shi v. Lululemon Athletica Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wenming Shi
- Defendant: Lululemon Athletica Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Valley Summit Law
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11218, N.D. Ill., 09/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's business activities directed at consumers in the district via interactive e-commerce stores and its patent enforcement activities directed at businesses operating within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an e-commerce seller, seeks a declaratory judgment that its athletic shorts do not infringe Defendant's design patents and that those patents are invalid, and further alleges that Defendant's patent enforcement activities on Amazon constitute business libel and tortious interference.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental designs of women's athletic shorts, a highly competitive segment of the sportswear and athleisure market where aesthetic differentiation is a key driver of value.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a pattern of conduct, stating that Defendant previously filed a "baseless infringement complaint" against the same products based on U.S. Design Patent No. D711,626. In that instance, Plaintiff successfully appealed, and Amazon reinstated the product listings. The current action was precipitated by a subsequent complaint from Defendant based on U.S. Design Patent No. D742,095, for which Plaintiff's appeal to Amazon was rejected.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-10-13 | Earliest Priority Date for '095 and '626 Patents |
| 2013 | Alleged Public Sale of Prior Art Designs |
| 2014-01-29 | '626 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2014-03-31 | '095 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2014-08-26 | '626 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-11-03 | '095 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-08-16 | Defendant Files Amazon IP Complaint Asserting '095 Patent |
| 2025-09-16 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D742,095 - "Shorts"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D742,095, "Shorts," issued November 3, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the aesthetic challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of apparel, specifically shorts.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a pair of shorts as depicted in its figures ('095 Patent, Figs. 1-10). Key ornamental features shown in solid lines include a relatively wide, flat waistband; a curved, overlapping hem that rises at the side of the leg; and specific seam and panel lines on the front and back. The rear view depicts a zippered pocket on the waistband and curved paneling ('095 Patent, Fig. 2). Broken lines in the figures illustrate portions of the shorts, such as stitching, that do not form part of the claimed design ('095 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: In the apparel industry, unique ornamental designs serve to create a distinct brand identity and differentiate products in a crowded marketplace.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for shorts, as shown and described." ('095 Patent, Claim).
U.S. Design Patent No. D711,626 - "Shorts"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D711,626, "Shorts," issued August 26, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for shorts.
- The Patented Solution: The '626 Patent claims the ornamental design for shorts illustrated in its figures ('626 Patent, Figs. 1-8). This design features a wide waistband, a prominent curved seam across the back panel below the waistband, and a curved, overlapping hem. The rear view shows a horizontal zipper centered on the upper back panel ('626 Patent, Fig. 2). The patent also claims an embodiment that includes a small logo symbol on the side and back ('626 Patent, Figs. 7-8).
- Technical Importance: Like the '095 Patent, this design provides a distinct visual appearance intended to distinguish the product from competing apparel.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for shorts, as shown and described." ('626 Patent, Claim).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "high waisted running shorts for workout with mesh liner zipper pockets" sold by Plaintiff Wenming Shi under the brand name "The Gym People" (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused product by highlighting its alleged design differences from the patented designs. These include an "s-shaped curved hem," a "larger and more rounded curve through the hip," and the use of "gathering techniques for a looser fit" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges the product was commercially successful, generating "approximately five figures in daily revenue" prior to being delisted from Amazon, and that the delisting has resulted in over $393,000 in cumulative lost profits (Compl. ¶19). A side-by-side photograph provided in the complaint shows the front view of the accused shorts, highlighting the alleged "s-shaped curved hem" in red (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This action is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the Plaintiff's allegations of dissimilarity, which form the basis for its non-infringement claim. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.
'095 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Dissimilar Features of Plaintiff's Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design, including the hem | The product has a "distinct s-shaped curved hem," whereas the patent features a "flat hem." | ¶20 | Figs. 1, 2 |
| The overall ornamental design, including the hip curve | The product has a "larger and more rounded curve through the hip" and uses "gathering techniques for a looser fit," while the patent shows a "smaller, elliptical curve" and uses "flatness techniques for a well-fitting design." | ¶20 | Figs. 3, 4 |
| The overall ornamental design, including reinforcement points | The product has "5 critical reinforcement Points, using dispersed bartack placement," whereas the patent has "7 critical reinforcement Points, using high-density bartack placement." | ¶20 | Fig. 2 |
'626 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Dissimilar Features of Plaintiff's Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design, including the hem | The product has a "distinct s-shaped curved hem, creating a scalloped appearance," while the patent features a "simple, flat, and nearly straight hem with no significant curvature." | ¶21 | Fig. 1 |
| The overall ornamental design, including the back design | The product "uses gathering techniques and a prominent ruffled overlay on the back," whereas the patent features a "smooth back panel with a clean, curved seam" and is a "flat, non-gathered design." | ¶21 | Fig. 2 |
| The overall ornamental design, including the side curve | The product has a "larger, more rounded, and overlapping curve through the hip," while the patent shows a "much smaller and shallower curve." | ¶21 | Fig. 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question for infringement will be whether the alleged differences create a different overall visual impression in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The dispute may focus on whether features like an "s-shaped" hem versus a "flat" hem are minor variations or fundamental design distinctions. Another image from the complaint contrasts the allegedly "ruffled overlay" on the back of the plaintiff's product with the "smooth back panel" of the '626 patent design (Compl. p. 8).
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be how the different construction techniques alleged—"gathering techniques for a looser fit" versus "flatness techniques for a well-fitting design"—manifest visually and contribute to the overall ornamental appearance of the respective designs (Compl. ¶20). The complaint includes a visual highlighting the alleged difference in the "Cutting Curve Design" between the plaintiff's product and the '095 patent (Compl. p. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, there are no traditional "claim terms" to construe. Instead, the analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as illustrated in the patent's drawings.
- The "Term": The overall ornamental design for shorts as depicted in solid lines.
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends entirely on comparing the accused product's design to the specific visual features shown in solid lines in the patent figures. The broken lines in both patents expressly disclaim subject matter, meaning features like stitching are not part of the protected design and cannot be a basis for infringement ('095 Patent, Description; '626 Patent, Description).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Defendant (the patent holder) may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression and that the key elements are the general shape, the wide waistband, and the curved, overlapping hem. From this perspective, minor differences in the exact curvature or seam placement would not be enough to escape infringement if the overall aesthetic is appropriated.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the specific details shown in the solid lines are what constitute the design. The complaint's detailed, element-by-element comparison of features like hem shape, curve radius, and reinforcement point count suggests Plaintiff will argue that these specific details are limitations of the claim, and its product's deviation from them is dispositive of non-infringement (Compl. ¶20, ¶21).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint includes counts for state-law business torts based on Defendant's enforcement activities.
- Tortious Interference with Business Relations: Plaintiff alleges that it has an ongoing business relationship with Amazon and that Defendant intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with it by "submitting a series of false and baseless infringement complaints" (Compl. ¶27-28). The alleged purpose was to have Plaintiff's products removed from the marketplace, with knowledge that the infringement claims lacked merit (Compl. ¶28).
- Violation of Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement complaints to Amazon constitute "false and misleading representations of fact" that disparage Plaintiff's business and products by falsely alleging they infringe the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶30-31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of overall visual impression: Applying the ordinary observer test, do the alleged differences in hem shape (e.g., "s-shaped" vs. "flat"), back panel construction ("ruffled overlay" vs. "smooth panel"), and curve geometry create a distinct ornamental design, or are they minor variations that fail to distinguish the accused product from the patented designs?
- A key validity question will be one of anticipation: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence to support its allegation that "substantially identical" shorts designs were publicly sold in the U.S. as early as 2013, predating the effective filing dates of the patents-in-suit and potentially rendering them invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
- A critical question for the non-patent claims will be one of objective baselessness: Does the visual evidence and legal history—particularly the outcome of the prior enforcement attempt involving the '626 Patent—support the allegation that Defendant’s infringement assertions were not just incorrect, but objectively baseless and brought in bad faith to disrupt a competitor's business?