DCT
1:25-cv-12215
Shenzhen Bolong Technology Co Ltd v. Dongguan Zhirong Electronic Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Bolong Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Bolong (China)
- Defendants: Dongguan Zhirong Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., et al. (China, USA)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12215, N.D. Ill., 10/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, namely the offering for sale and sale of infringing products to customers in the district, occurred in the Northern District of Illinois. For foreign defendants, venue is alleged to be proper in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Galaxy Projector" products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a "music aurora light."
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the aesthetic and ornamental appearance of consumer electronic lighting products, a market where distinctive product design can be a significant commercial differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-06-15 | Filing Date (Priority Date) for U.S. Design Patent No. D964,636 |
| 2022-09-20 | Issue Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D964,636 |
| 2025-10-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D964,636 - "Music aurora light"
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 ’636 Patent protects a specific aesthetic design for a light projector.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "music aurora light" as depicted in its nine figures (’636 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of a generally spherical main body cradled in a U-shaped stand that allows for tilting. Key ornamental features shown in solid lines include a top-facing lens assembly with multiple concentric rings, a specific arrangement of control buttons, and circular speaker grilles on the sides of the spherical body (’636 Patent, FIGs. 1-8). The design creates a distinct overall visual impression of a compact, modern, orb-like projector.
- Technical Importance: In the consumer electronics space, a unique and attractive product design can be crucial for market appeal and brand recognition, distinguishing a product from competitors.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a music aurora light, as shown and described." (’636 Patent, Claim). This claim's scope is defined by the visual appearance depicted in the patent’s drawings.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are various models of "Galaxy Projectors," "Star Projector[s]," and "Planetarium Projector[s]" sold by the six named Defendants (Compl. ¶13). The complaint identifies a "Homieka Product" as exemplary of all accused products (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as lighting devices sold in the United States through major e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶12).
- Plaintiff provides visual evidence in the form of side-by-side photographic comparisons of an exemplary accused product with the drawings of the ’636 Patent, suggesting the accused products share the same overall form factor and visual features as the patented design (Compl. pp. 8-10). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the patent's FIG. 1 perspective view with a photograph of the accused "Homieka Product" taken from a similar angle (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central allegation is that the accused products are "effectively identical, aesthetically, to the design claimed in the ‘636 patent" (Compl. ¶22). The infringement test for a design patent is 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 supports this allegation with a detailed visual comparison.
’636 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Feature from Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance from a top front perspective, including a spherical body, a U-shaped stand, a top lens with concentric rings, and button layout. | A photograph of the accused product showing a nearly identical overall appearance from the same perspective. | ¶24, p. 8 | FIG. 1 |
| The ornamental appearance from a rear perspective, including the shape of the U-shaped stand's rear support and the curvature of the spherical body. | A photograph of the accused product's rear, which appears to replicate the patented design's rear-view appearance. | ¶24, p. 9 | FIG. 4 |
| The ornamental appearance from a side view, showing the profile of the spherical body, the U-shaped stand, and the side speaker grille pattern. | A photograph of the accused product's side, showing a highly similar profile and speaker grille configuration. | ¶24, p. 9 | FIG. 5 |
| The ornamental appearance of the top surface, showing the specific pattern of concentric rings around the central lens and the arrangement of four circular control buttons. | A top-down photograph of the accused product showing a nearly identical pattern of concentric rings and button placement. | ¶24, p. 10 | FIG. 7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary legal question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The dispute will center on whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design.
- Technical Questions: While not a technical dispute in the utility patent sense, a key factual question will be the visual significance of any minor differences between the accused products and the patent drawings. For example, the complaint's visual evidence suggests a very high degree of similarity, raising the question of what, if any, discernible differences exist that might be argued by the defense to alter the overall aesthetic impression for an ordinary observer (Compl. pp. 8-10).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the visual impression of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the drawings, rather than on interpreting specific textual terms. The scope of the claim is what is shown in solid lines in the patent figures.
- The "Term": The overall visual appearance of the "music aurora light."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on comparing this overall visual appearance to that of the accused products. The court and jury will have to determine the scope of the design's protected features and assess whether the accused products are substantially similar.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the core, protectable design is the general concept of a spherical projector held in a minimalist U-shaped stand, and that minor variations in button placement or surface texture do not change the overall visual impression.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the design is defined by the precise combination of all its depicted elements: the exact number and spacing of the concentric rings on the top (’636 Patent, FIG. 7), the specific circular pattern of the speaker holes (’636 Patent, FIG. 5), and the clean, unadorned surface of the sphere. The patent's use of nine detailed figures showing the design from every angle could suggest that the specific combination of all these details constitutes the protected design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶25). However, it does not plead specific facts to support this, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the ’636 patent or copying of the Plaintiff's design.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
- Application of the Ordinary Observer Test: Is the visual similarity between the accused "Galaxy Projectors" and the design claimed in the ’636 Patent so close that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing one believing it was the other? The side-by-side comparisons provided in the complaint present a strong initial case for substantial similarity (Compl. pp. 8-10).
- Significance of Differences: Assuming Defendants can identify minor differences between their products and the patent drawings, a key factual issue will be whether those differences are sufficient to change the overall ornamental impression, or if they are trivial details that an ordinary observer would overlook.