Jiang v. =

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ming Jiang (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: qieman' store and the Individuals and Entities Operating qieman' store (Foreign Jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law Group
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12623, N.D. Ill., 11/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that Defendants do not reside in the United States and are therefore subject to venue in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges Defendants solicit and transact business in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online store sells pillows that infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a pillow.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of an ergonomic pillow, a product category within the consumer home goods market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The complaint notes that the true identities of the Defendants are unknown and that Plaintiff intends to amend the complaint once discovery reveals them.

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
2025-11-28	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 (“’707 Patent”), titled “PILLOW,” issued November 5, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges the patented pillow was "designed with ergonomics for people to relax" and to "naturally stretch the curve of body" for users sleeping on their back or stomach (Compl. ¶10). As a design patent, the patent itself does not describe a technical problem.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a pillow, not its functional characteristics (D1,049,707 S, Claim). The design features a generally rectangular form with complex, asymmetrical contouring. As shown in the figures, one long edge has a concave curve, while the top surface features undulating shapes intended to conform to a user's head and neck (D1,049,707 S, FIG. 1, FIG. 7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts the design's importance lies in its ergonomic features (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." (D1,049,707 S, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the solid-line drawings within the patent, which depict the design from various perspectives (D1,049,707 S, FIGS. 1-8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically pillows, sold by Defendants through online e-commerce stores, including one operating under the alias "qieman' store" (Compl. ¶¶1, 5, 7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products copy the design of the Asserted Patent and are "substantially identical" to both the patented design and the Plaintiff's own product (Compl. ¶¶1, 15).
• These products are allegedly sold through "fully interactive e-commerce store[s]" that target consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶4-5). The complaint alleges that these sales are in direct competition with Plaintiff's product, leading to erosion of market share and lost profits (Compl. ¶¶1, 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substantially identical" to the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶15). However, the complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element comparison or a claim chart, which is typical for a design patent case where the analysis is a visual comparison of the design as a whole. The infringement theory rests on the allegation that Defendants have manufactured, imported, offered for sale, and sold products that copy the overall visual appearance protected by the ’707 Patent (Compl. ¶¶1, 25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the accused pillow design to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’707 Patent. The outcome will depend entirely on a visual comparison between the accused products and the patent's figures.
  • Prior Art Scope: The scope of protection afforded to the ’707 Patent design may be influenced by the crowdedness of the prior art for ergonomic pillows. The patent's prosecution history and cited references may be used by the defense to argue that the claimed design's novelty is confined to very specific details, potentially distinguishing it from the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are typically no textual claim terms that require formal construction. The "claim" is the visual design as a whole, depicted in the patent's figures.

• The "Claim": The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described.
• Context and Importance: The analysis will not focus on defining words but on determining the overall visual scope of the design. The central dispute will be the comparison of this visual scope to the appearance of the accused products. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual features of the patented design—such as the specific curvature of the side indentations or the contours of the top surface—are most significant to the overall impression and whether those features are replicated in the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design as a whole, suggesting that minor differences in isolated features of an accused product may not avoid infringement if the overall visual impression is the same. The various views provided (front, rear, top, bottom, side) collectively define the claimed three-dimensional shape (D1,049,707 S, FIGS. 1-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific, detailed contours shown in solid lines in all figures define the precise boundaries of the claimed design (D1,049,707 S, FIGS. 1-8). Any deviation in an accused product from these depicted contours could support a non-infringement argument. The overall design is a combination of all illustrated features, and a court may determine that the specific combination is what constitutes the patented design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶14). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such a claim, such as allegations related to product instructions or advertising that encourage direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and intentional[] or at least with reckless disregard or willful blindness" (Compl. ¶21) and has been "willful, intentional, purposeful, and in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶26). No specific facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the ’707 Patent.

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of visual identity: When the accused product is visually compared to the figures of the ’707 Patent, is its design "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art in the field of ergonomic pillows?
• A critical procedural question will be one of jurisdiction and enforcement: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify, locate, and serve the foreign-based "Individuals and Entities" allegedly operating the accused online store, a common and significant hurdle in patent enforcement actions against anonymous international e-commerce sellers?
• A secondary legal question may be the scope of the design patent's protection: How much do the designs of prior art pillows limit the scope of the ’707 Patent's claimed design, and will those limitations be sufficient to place the accused products outside that scope?