Li v. Talemoho LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xingshao Li (Guangzhou, China)
  • Defendant: The Individual, Partnership, or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A (China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14343, N.D. Ill., 12/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant operates interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to Illinois residents, constituting acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online stores offer for sale and sell chocolate bar molds that infringe Plaintiff's design patent for a chocolate bar mold.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a consumer baking product, where unique visual appearance can be a significant market differentiator on crowded e-commerce platforms.
• 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
2024-06-21	U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 application filed (Priority Date)
June 2024	Plaintiff's product embodying the patented design launched on Amazon U.S.
August 2024	Plaintiff's initial sales period began.
2024-11-26	U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 issued.
2025-12-02	Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 - "Chocolate Bar Mold"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, as is typical for a design patent. The complaint suggests the design was created to offer a novel and unique aesthetic for a chocolate mold, inspired by the traditional Middle Eastern dessert Knafeh (Compl. ¶15).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a chocolate bar mold. The design consists of a rectangular tray with a raised border containing a grid of twelve rectangular cavities arranged in a two-by-six layout. Each cavity has beveled interior edges, and the partitions between cavities feature distinct profiles, as illustrated in the patent’s figures (’361 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The overall visual impression is one of a geometric, segmented bar.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the "unique design, novel limitations, and market popularity" of the patented mold quickly led to it occupying a leading market position (Compl. ¶¶18, 22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a chocolate bar mold, as shown and described" ('361 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the mold as depicted in the patent's eight drawing sheets.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Infringing Products" as unauthorized and unlicensed chocolate bar molds sold by Defendant through e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as silicone molds used for making chocolate bars (Compl. ¶16).
• Plaintiff alleges that Defendant operates under fictitious "Seller Aliases" on one or more online platforms, targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶32-33). The complaint claims these products "copy – in a virtually identical manner – Plaintiff’s Patent-in-Suit design" (Compl. ¶23). Defendant’s e-commerce stores are alleged to be interactive, allowing consumers to view, order, and arrange for shipment of the accused products (Compl. ¶¶59, 61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The infringement test for a design patent is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that Defendant sells products that are "virtually identical to the claimed Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶22). The core of the infringement allegation is a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the patented design. To support its broader theory about the nature of the defendant's enterprise, the complaint includes an infographic from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detailing the scale of counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶40, Exhibit E). This visual is used to characterize the defendant's alleged conduct as part of a larger pattern of infringement common to online marketplaces (Compl. ¶40).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: A central question will be whether the accused products are substantially the same as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The analysis will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the accused product's overall appearance with the figures of the ’361 Patent.
  • Prior Art: The scope of the ’361 Patent's protection will be informed by the prior art for chocolate bar molds. The degree to which the patented design is novel and non-obvious over prior art designs will influence the infringement analysis.

V. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's purported actual or constructive knowledge of the patent, inferred from the "significant popularity" of Plaintiff's products and the "anonymous nature of Defendant" (Compl. ¶73). It further alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendant had knowledge of the patent "before and/or during" its infringing activities (Compl. ¶74).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived by the similarity between the accused mold and the patented design, leading them to purchase the former supposing it to be the latter? The outcome will depend on a direct comparison of the products against the patent drawings.
• A key procedural question will be one of enforcement: given that the Defendant is identified as an anonymous foreign entity operating under seller aliases, can the Plaintiff effectively obtain jurisdiction, enforce a potential judgment, and halt the alleged infringement on various e-commerce platforms?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of knowledge: what evidence, beyond conclusory allegations of product popularity, can Plaintiff provide to establish that Defendant knew of the ’361 Patent or willfully disregarded the patent rights, as required to support a claim for willful infringement?