DCT

1:25-cv-11799

North Star Home LLC v. Wuxi Gougelila Electronic Commerce Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11799, N.D. Ill., 09/27/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because it resides in the district, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, and for a foreign defendant, venue is proper in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Dog Playpen" product does not infringe Defendant's U.S. Design Patent No. D1,085,555.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of pet playpens, a consumer product category where visual appearance can be a significant market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that an actual controversy exists due to Defendant's enforcement actions against a third-party seller of a product allegedly made from the same tooling, an invitation to Plaintiff to make a licensing offer, and Defendant's subsequent refusal to provide a covenant not to sue. Defendant previously obtained a temporary restraining order against the third-party seller in the Western District of Texas.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-10-11 ’555 Patent Priority Date
2025-07-22 ’555 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-03 Defendant files Texas Action against third-party seller
2025-09-10 Defendant's counsel invites Plaintiff to make a licensing offer
2025-09-17 Temporary Restraining Order granted in Texas Action
2025-09-22 Defendant refuses to provide Plaintiff a covenant not to sue
2025-09-27 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,085,555 - “Pet Playpen”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent claims a specific aesthetic design for a pet playpen.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pet playpen as depicted in its seven figures (’555 Patent, figs. 1-7). The claimed design features a modular, rectangular enclosure composed of panels with large, transparent rectangular windows and rounded corners. One panel incorporates a door with an oblong handle cutout at the top and two prominent, blocky slide-bolt latches on the side (’555 Patent, fig. 2). The overall visual impression is that of a clean, modern, and transparent pet containment structure.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific visual appearance for a consumer product in the competitive pet supplies market.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim.
  • The claim is for "The ornamental design for a pet playpen, as shown and described" (’555 Patent, Claim). This claim incorporates all the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiff's "Dog Playpen" product, referred to as the "Subject Product" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Subject Product is sold throughout the United States via e-commerce platforms, including Amazon.com (Compl. ¶2). The complaint alleges that it is manufactured using the "same tooling/specifications" as a product sold by a different company that was the target of a prior infringement lawsuit brought by the Defendant (Compl. ¶13).
  • The complaint argues that the Subject Product has a "distinct overall appearance" from the patented design (Compl. ¶24). As part of its non-infringement argument, the complaint references a visual comparison in Exhibit J. (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, this section summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments for why its product does not infringe the patent-in-suit. The central test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design (Compl. ¶23).

Summary of Non-Infringement Arguments

  • Different Overall Visual Impression: The complaint's primary argument is that the "overall visual impression" of the Subject Product is not substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’555 Patent (Compl. ¶24).
  • Functionality Doctrine: Plaintiff contends that certain features of the claimed design are functional and must be disregarded when comparing the designs (Compl. ¶25). These allegedly functional elements include "gate/panel connectors, ground stakes, fasteners, [and] stabilization features necessary for assembly, stability, or access" (Compl. ¶25). The argument suggests that once these functional aspects are removed from consideration, the remaining purely ornamental features are not substantially similar (Compl. ¶26).
  • Crowded Field and Narrow Scope: Plaintiff alleges that the market for pet playpens is a "crowded field," meaning it is filled with many similar prior art designs (Compl. ¶27). In such a field, the scope of protection for a design patent is narrowed, and even "small ornamental differences are dispositive to the ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶27).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute will be determining which, if any, elements of the patented design are primarily functional rather than ornamental. The outcome of this analysis could significantly narrow the scope of the claimed design subject to the infringement comparison.
  • Factual Questions: The core of the case will turn on a visual comparison. The key factual question is whether the differences between the Subject Product and the patented design are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived, particularly when viewed in the context of the relevant prior art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, "claim construction" is focused on defining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than interpreting specific text-based terms. The disputes identified in the complaint center on the proper scope of the ’555 Patent's single claim.

  • The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a "pet playpen."
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the claimed design is the central issue. The infringement analysis depends entirely on what visual features are included within the scope of the claim and how broad that scope is in light of the prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of all depicted elements—the panel shape, window proportions, handle design, and latch style—which together form a unique aesthetic whole not found in the prior art (’555 Patent, fig. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues for a narrower scope by asserting that functional features must be excluded from the claim's coverage (Compl. ¶25). Further, the complaint's allegation of a "crowded field" suggests that the patent's scope should be limited to its precise ornamental contribution over the prior art, making the design susceptible to being distinguished by minor variations (Compl. ¶27).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a defensive allegation that Plaintiff does not indirectly infringe, either by inducement under § 271(b) or by contributory infringement under § 271(c) (Compl. ¶29).

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely focus on two fundamental questions inherent to design patent litigation:

  • A core issue will be one of design scope: What is the scope of the protectable ornamentation of the ’555 patent once allegedly functional elements, such as connectors and latches, are factored out of the analysis?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of visual comparison: In the context of the relevant prior art, would an ordinary observer be deceived by the similarities between the accused product and the patented design, or do the differences create a distinct overall visual impression? The answer may depend on whether the market is determined to be a "crowded field," which would magnify the importance of any visual distinctions.