1:25-cv-12398
Jiang v. =
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ming Jiang (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: wisker and the Individuals and Entities Operating wisker (Foreign Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law Group
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12398, N.D. Ill., 10/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are not U.S. residents and are therefore subject to suit in any judicial district, and further that Defendants solicit and transact business in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that pillows sold by Defendants through various online marketplaces infringe Plaintiff's U.S. design patent by copying its ornamental design.
- Technical Context: The dispute relates to the ornamental design of ergonomic pillows, a competitive segment of the consumer bedding market.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit, are mentioned in the complaint.
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 |
| 2025-10-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,707 S - "PILLOW"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,707 S, titled "PILLOW", issued November 5, 2024 (the "'707 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the patented pillow as being "designed with ergonomics for people to relax," allowing users to sleep on their back or stomach while the pillow "naturally stretch[es] the curve of body" (Compl. ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The '707 Patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a pillow, not its functional characteristics (Compl. ¶11). The patented design features an asymmetrical, contoured shape with distinct concave and convex curves on its top surface and side profiles, as depicted in the patent's figures ('707 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a novel visual appearance for an ergonomic pillow intended for versatile sleeping positions (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The '707 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described" ('707 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's eight figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are pillows ("Infringing Products") allegedly manufactured, imported, offered for sale, and sold by Defendants through various "Online Marketplaces" (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products have "copied the design of the Asserted Patent" and are "substantially identical" to both the patented design and the product sold by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶1, 15). These products are allegedly sold in direct competition with Plaintiff's own product, leading to erosion of market share and lost profits (Compl. ¶¶1, 13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard 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. The complaint alleges infringement by asserting that the accused products are "substantially identical" to the patented design.
'707 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (as shown in Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of the pillow | Defendants' products have "copied the design of the Asserted Patent" and are "substantially identical" to it. | ¶¶1, 15 | '707 Patent, FIGS. 1-8 |
| The contoured top surface with distinct depressions and raised areas | The design of the infringing products is alleged to be the same as the design of the '707 Patent. | ¶15 | '707 Patent, FIGS. 1, 7 |
| The specific asymmetrical profiles of the left and right sides | The infringing products are allegedly "substantially identical to Plaintiff's product," which embodies the patented design. | ¶15 | '707 Patent, FIGS. 5, 6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint does not include images or detailed descriptions of the accused products. A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products' designs are substantially the same as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on how the patented design is perceived in light of prior art designs for ergonomic pillows. The existence of similar prior art could narrow the perceived scope of the '707 Patent's design, making small differences between the patented and accused designs more significant.
V. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶14, 30) and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement, nor the elements required for contributory infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly and intentionally or at least with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶21) and that their conduct was "willful, intentional, purposeful, and in disregard" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶26). These allegations appear to be based on pre-suit knowledge.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A Core Evidentiary Question: As the complaint lacks any visual comparison, the case will hinge on an evidentiary showing of similarity. What proof will be offered to demonstrate that the designs of the numerous products sold by disparate online sellers are, in fact, "substantially identical" to the claimed design in the '707 Patent from the viewpoint of an ordinary observer?
The Impact of Prior Art: The ultimate infringement determination will likely turn on a question of design scope. What does the landscape of prior art for ergonomic pillows reveal, and how will it influence the ordinary observer's perception of the novelty and non-obviousness of the patented design's specific ornamental features?
A Practical Question of Enforcement: Given that Defendants are alleged to be numerous foreign entities operating under aliases on online platforms (Compl. ¶¶7-8), a critical issue will be one of remedy and enforcement. Assuming infringement is found, how can Plaintiff effectively identify all infringers, calculate damages, and enforce an injunction against a diffuse and potentially anonymous network of sellers?