DCT

1:25-cv-12345

Ming Jiang v. =

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Ming Jiang (People's Republic of China)
    • Defendant: Shengbai Tong Co.Ltd and the Individuals and Entities Operating Shengbai Tong Co.Ltd (Foreign Jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12345, N.D. Ill., 10/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants do not reside in the United States and are subject to venue in any judicial district, and further that Defendants solicit and transact business in the Northern District of Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of certain pillows infringe a U.S. design patent for an ornamental pillow design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental and ergonomic design of pillows intended for consumer use.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is an Amended Complaint, though no details of the original complaint or the reason for amendment are provided.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-12-25 ’707 Patent Priority Date
2024-04-19 ’707 Patent Application Filing Date
2024-11-05 ’707 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,049,707 S - "PILLOW"

  • Issued: November 5, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the patent specification does not describe a technical problem. The complaint alleges the patented pillow was "designed with ergonomics for people to relax" and to "naturally stretch the curve of body" (Compl. ¶10).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a pillow as depicted in its figures (Compl. ¶9, Ex. 2). The design is characterized by an asymmetrical, contoured shape featuring sweeping curves and varied surface elevations, as illustrated from multiple perspectives in the patent's figures (’707 Patent, FIG. 1-8).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design's importance lies in its ergonomic features, intended for users sleeping on their back or stomach (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described" (’707 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the overall visual appearance of the pillow as depicted in the eight figures of the ’707 Patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," which are pillows sold by Defendants through various online marketplaces (Compl. ¶¶1, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products copy the design of the Asserted Patent (Compl. ¶1). It describes them as "substantially identical" to the patented design and to the product sold by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶15).
  • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are promoting, advertising, marketing, distributing, and selling these products through e-commerce stores, leading to "erosion in market share and loss of orders and profits" for the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶12-13).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed element-by-element analysis of infringement. Instead, it presents a narrative theory of infringement. The central allegation is that the Defendants’ products are "substantially identical" to the design claimed in the ’707 Patent, such that consumers are likely to be confused (Compl. ¶15). The standard 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. The complaint’s allegation of the products being "substantially identical" directly addresses this standard (Compl. ¶15).

The complaint also makes a conclusory allegation of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, stating the accused products "performed substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result" (Compl. ¶32).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be a visual comparison between the accused products and the figures in the ’707 Patent. A primary question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same.
    • Evidentiary Challenge: The complaint does not include images of the accused products. A key question will be what evidence Plaintiff produces to establish the precise ornamental design of the products sold by the various named and unnamed defendant entities.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction does not involve defining textual terms in the same manner as utility patent litigation. The single claim is for the design "as shown and described" (’707 Patent, Claim). Therefore, the "construction" is a description of the ornamental features of the design as a whole, depicted in the patent's figures.

  • The "Term": The ornamental design for a pillow.
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the patent's protection is defined by the overall visual impression of the design shown in the drawings. The court's interpretation of these visual features will determine the scope of comparison against the accused products. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual features are considered ornamental versus purely functional, as functional aspects are not protected by a design patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design as a whole, not any single feature in isolation. Parties seeking a broader interpretation may argue that the overall visual impression created by the combination of curves, contours, and proportions is the core of the protected design (’707 Patent, FIG. 1-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Parties seeking a narrower interpretation may focus on the specific, detailed curvatures and transitions shown in the various elevation and plan views (e.g., ’707 Patent, FIG. 3, 5, 7). The complaint itself alludes to functional aspects related to ergonomics, which could raise questions about whether certain design features are dictated by function and thus should be afforded a narrower scope of protection (Compl. ¶10).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of "indirect infringement" and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶14; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "acting knowingly and intentionally or at least with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights" and that their conduct has been "willful, intentional, purposeful, and in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶¶21, 26). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge is based on pre-suit or post-suit conduct.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, viewing the accused products in the context of the prior art for ergonomic pillows, find their designs to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’707 patent?
  2. A key challenge will be evidentiary: Given the lack of accused product images in the complaint and the alleged use of aliases by Defendants, what evidence will Plaintiff present to prove the specific designs of the products sold by each defendant entity and establish infringement?
  3. A secondary question may concern the scope of the patented design: To what extent are the visual features of the claimed pillow design dictated by its ergonomic function, and how might this affect the scope of protection and the ultimate infringement analysis?