DCT
1:25-cv-12475
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-12475, N.D. Ill., 10/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's e-commerce activities targeting consumers in Illinois and its patent enforcement activities directed at businesses operating within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "The Gym People" brand shorts do not infringe, and that Defendant's design patents are invalid, while also asserting state law claims for business libel and tortious interference based on Defendant's patent enforcement actions on Amazon.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of women's athletic shorts, a highly competitive segment of the sportswear apparel market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this lawsuit follows an Amazon IP complaint filed by the Defendant. It further alleges that Defendant previously filed a similar complaint based on the ’626 Patent for the same products, which Plaintiff successfully appealed, resulting in the reinstatement of its product listings by Amazon.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-10-13 | Earliest Priority Date for ’095 and ’626 Patents |
| 2013-01-01 | Alleged public sale of prior art designs begins |
| 2014-01-29 | ’626 Patent Application Filed |
| 2014-03-31 | ’095 Patent Application Filed |
| 2014-08-26 | ’626 Patent Issued |
| 2015-11-03 | ’095 Patent Issued |
| 2025-08-16 | Defendant files Amazon IP Complaint based on the ’095 Patent |
| 2025-10-13 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D742,095 S - "Shorts," Issued Nov. 3, 2015 (’095 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not articulate a functional problem but rather provides a new ornamental design for shorts (Compl. ¶10; ’095 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific visual appearance for shorts, characterized by features including the shape of the hem, the cut of the leg openings, and the seam placements (’095 Patent, CLAIM; FIGS. 1-10). The design features a relatively flat hemline at the front and back, and an elliptical curve through the hip where the front and back panels overlap (’095 Patent, FIGS. 1, 2).
- Technical Importance: The design contributes a distinct aesthetic to the crowded athletic apparel market, where visual differentiation is a key driver of consumer choice (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for shorts, as shown and described" (’095 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- The overall shape and proportions of the shorts.
- The specific curvature of the leg openings and side seams.
- The appearance of the waistband.
- The flat appearance of the hemline.
- The arrangement of seams on the rear panel.
U.S. Design Patent No. D711,626 S - "Shorts," Issued Aug. 26, 2014 (’626 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent provides an alternative ornamental design for shorts (Compl. ¶21; ’626 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: This patent also claims a specific visual appearance for shorts. Key features shown in the drawings include a simple, nearly straight hem, a smooth back panel with a curved seam, a prominent zipper on the waistband, and a shallow, overlapping curve at the hip (’626 Patent, CLAIM; FIGS. 1-8). The design presents a flat, non-gathered, close-fitting aesthetic (’626 Patent, FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: This design provides another distinct visual identity for athletic shorts, focusing on clean lines and a smooth silhouette (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for shorts, as shown and described" (’626 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- The overall proportions and close fit.
- A flat and nearly straight hemline with minimal curvature.
- A smooth back panel with a distinct curved seam and a waistband zipper.
- A shallow, overlapping side curve design.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"The Gym People" brand "high waisted running shorts for workout with mesh liner zipper pockets" (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused product as sportswear, specifically running shorts (Compl. ¶1). The plaintiff alleges that its products are substantially differentiated from the designs claimed in the asserted patents (Compl. ¶11). The complaint emphasizes visual differences, such as the use of an "s-shaped curved hem," "gathering techniques for a looser fit," and a "prominent ruffled overlay on the back" (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the plaintiff's product and a drawing from the '095 patent, highlighting the alleged "s-shaped curved hem" on the accused product versus the "flat hem" of the patented design (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the plaintiff's allegations regarding the key visual differences between its product and the patented designs.
’095 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Feature of Patented Design) | Plaintiff's Alleged Differentiating Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A flat hem | A distinct "s-shaped curved hem" | ¶20 | ’095 Patent, CLAIM; FIG. 1 |
| A smaller, elliptical curve through the hip | A "larger and more rounded curve through the hip" | ¶20 | ’095 Patent, CLAIM; FIG. 3 |
| "Flatness techniques for a well-fitting design" | "Gathering techniques for a looser fit" | ¶20 | ’095 Patent, CLAIM; FIG. 2 |
’626 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Feature of Patented Design) | Plaintiff's Alleged Differentiating Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A simple, flat, and nearly straight hem | A distinct "s-shaped curved hem, creating a scalloped appearance" | ¶21 | ’626 Patent, CLAIM; FIG. 1 |
| A smooth back panel with a clean, curved seam | "Gathering techniques and a prominent ruffled overlay on the back" | ¶21 | ’626 Patent, CLAIM; FIG. 2 |
| A smaller and shallower curve through the hip | A "larger, more rounded, and overlapping curve through the hip" | ¶21 | ’626 Patent, CLAIM; FIG. 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question for infringement will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would find the design of the plaintiff's shorts to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’095 and ’626 Patents.
- Technical Questions: The court will need to assess the visual significance of the alleged differences. A key question is whether features like the "s-shaped curved hem" and "ruffled overlay" on the accused product create a visual impression distinct from the flatter, smoother aesthetic shown in the patent drawings. The complaint provides a visual comparison of the back of the products, contrasting the "ruffled overlay" of the accused shorts with the "smooth back panel" of the patented design (Compl. p. 8).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
This section is not applicable. Design patents claim an overall ornamental design, and their single claim is not typically subject to the claim construction process applied to terms in utility patents. The analysis is a visual comparison of the accused product to the patent's drawings.
VI. Other Allegations
- Patent Invalidity: The complaint alleges that both the ’095 Patent and the ’626 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) for lack of novelty (Compl. ¶24, ¶25). The basis for this allegation is that "substantially identical rack designs" and prior art were publicly sold in the U.S. marketplace by third parties since at least 2013, prior to the patents' effective filing dates (Compl. ¶10, ¶24, ¶25).
- Business Torts: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's patent enforcement actions constitute tortious interference with business relations and a violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Compl. ¶¶27-32). The basis for these claims is the allegation that Defendant submitted "false and baseless infringement complaints to Amazon" with the knowledge that its claims were without merit, for the purpose of removing a competitor's products from the marketplace (Compl. ¶28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on three primary questions for the court:
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer perceive the overall ornamental design of "The Gym People" shorts—with their alleged s-curved hems and ruffled features—to be substantially the same as the cleaner, flatter designs claimed in the Lululemon patents?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of anticipation: can the plaintiff produce evidence of prior art shorts, publicly sold before October 2011, that are "substantially identical" to the patented designs, which would be required to prove invalidity?
- A pivotal legal question will be one of enforcement conduct: did the defendant's act of filing an IP complaint with Amazon, particularly after a previous, similar complaint was successfully appealed by the plaintiff, cross the line from legitimate patent enforcement into tortious interference or a deceptive trade practice under Illinois law?