DCT

1:25-cv-14424

Zhang v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Wei Zhang (Shenzhen, China)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule “A”
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nicholas S. Lee
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14424, N.D. Ill., 11/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, offer shipping to Illinois, and accept payment in U.S. dollars.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of travel hat cases infringe two of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of protective cases for hats, a consumer product category within the travel accessories market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against numerous unnamed e-commerce operators, identified only on a "Schedule A," a strategy often employed to combat widespread, anonymous online infringement from multiple international sellers. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-08-25 Priority Date (’712 Patent)
2023-11-27 Priority Date (’507 Patent)
2024-05-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,028,507 Issues
2025-07-29 U.S. Patent No. D1,085,712 Issues
2025-11-25 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,028,507 - "Hat Box"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,028,507, "Hat Box", issued May 28, 2024 (the "’507 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The objective is to create a new, original, and ornamental design for a hat box. (’507 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’507 Patent claims the specific visual appearance of a hat box as depicted in its nine figures. (’507 Patent, CLAIM; DESCRIPTION). The design features a hard-shell, clamshell-style case with a generally rounded-rectangular or "squircle" footprint. A prominent, raised circular dome is centered on the top lid, with a corresponding circular recess on the interior surface, as shown in the opened-state views. (’507 Patent, Figs. 1, 8, 9).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial success of products embodying this patented design has led to significant infringement by third-party sellers. (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hat box, as shown and described." (’507 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the visual characteristics shown in the solid lines of the patent's drawings. Key ornamental elements include:
    • The overall rounded-rectangular, clamshell configuration.
    • The distinct, raised, circular dome centered on the top surface.
    • The specific proportions and curvatures of the case body and lid.
    • The recessed interior cavity that mirrors the exterior dome.

U.S. Patent No. D1,085,712 - "Hat Box"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,085,712, "Hat Box", issued July 29, 2025 (the "’712 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent is directed to a new, original, and ornamental design for a hat box. (’712 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’712 Patent claims the ornamental design for a hat box as illustrated in its eight figures. (’712 Patent, CLAIM; DESCRIPTION). Like the ’507 Patent, this design features a rounded-rectangular, clamshell body with a raised circular dome on the lid. (’712 Patent, Fig. 1). This design is distinguished by features such as a prominent, integrated handle or latch element protruding from one side of the case. (’712 Patent, Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint groups this patent with the ’507 Patent, alleging that the success of Plaintiff's products embodying the patented designs has spurred infringement. (Compl. ¶9, ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hat box, as shown and described." (’712 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The essential ornamental elements depicted in the drawings include:
    • The overall rounded-rectangular, clamshell shape.
    • The raised, circular dome on the top surface.
    • A distinct, protruding handle or latch feature.
    • The overall visual appearance created by the combination of these elements as depicted in the figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are "Unauthorized Products," identified as travel hat cases sold by various online merchants. (Compl. ¶3, ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, eBay, SHEIN, Temu, and Walmart, where they sell products that incorporate Plaintiff's patented designs. (Compl. ¶18). Plaintiff alleges these products are identical copies of its own commercial products. (Compl. ¶16). A representative image of Plaintiff's product, allegedly copied by Defendants, shows an open, oval-shaped hard-shell case with a prominent dome on the lid. (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges that these various unauthorized products originate from a "common source" and are marketed using similar strategies and store templates. (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Unauthorized Products incorporate the design elements claimed in both the ’507 and ’712 Patents. (Compl. ¶30). The legal standard for design patent infringement is 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 analysis turns on the substantial similarity of the overall ornamental appearance.

The complaint does not contain claim charts comparing the patented designs to specific accused products, but states they are attached as Exhibit 4, which was not filed with the public complaint. (Compl. ¶30).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central issue will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs. This will involve comparing the overall visual impression of each accused product with the designs claimed in the ’507 and ’712 Patents, including the shape, proportions, and surface contours.
    • Evidentiary Questions: A key factual question will be establishing that the various "Unauthorized Products," sold by numerous different anonymous sellers, are in fact visually identical or substantially similar to the patented designs. The complaint's allegation that the products "come from a common source" suggests Plaintiff may try to prove infringement on a collective basis rather than on a seller-by-seller, product-by-product basis. (Compl. ¶23).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction of text is rare. The dispute centers on the scope of the visual design.

  • The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a "hat box" as shown and described in the patent figures.
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the visual scope of the claimed designs. The court's interpretation of what constitutes the core, protected ornamental features versus minor, unprotectable details will be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope may contend that the protectable design is the overall visual impression created by the novel combination of a rounded-rectangular clamshell body and a prominent, centered, circular dome. They may argue that minor variations in proportions or the appearance of unclaimed features (like handles or straps shown in dashed lines in the ’507 Patent) should not defeat a finding of infringement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope would focus on the precise shapes and proportions depicted in the solid lines of the patent drawings. They may argue that any deviation in the curvature, aspect ratio, or specific contours of an accused product is sufficient to place it outside the scope of the claimed design, making the designs visually distinct to an ordinary observer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly." (Compl. ¶31). However, it does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants instructed or supplied others to infringe. The core allegations focus on direct infringement through making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the accused products. (Compl. ¶29).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge and intent. (Compl. ¶26, ¶33). The complaint alleges this is evidenced by Defendants' practice of operating under multiple fictitious aliases to conceal their identities, which suggests an intent to evade enforcement. (Compl. ¶22). It further alleges that Defendants use websites like "sellerdefense.cn" to learn of new infringement lawsuits and evade detection. (Compl. ¶24). Plaintiff also claims to provide notice of its patent rights by marking its product packaging. (Compl. ¶13).

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

This case appears poised to turn on three central questions:

  1. A Procedural Question of Enforcement: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and establish jurisdiction over the numerous, anonymous international e-commerce operators listed under seal, and link each entity to the sale of an infringing product? The structure of the complaint suggests this will be a primary logistical and evidentiary hurdle.

  2. A Substantive Question of Visual Identity: For the infringement claim itself, the core issue is whether the various "Unauthorized Products" are substantially similar in their overall ornamental appearance to the designs claimed in the ’507 and ’712 patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

  3. A Damages Question of Culpability: To secure enhanced damages, a key question will be whether the Plaintiff can prove that the Defendants’ alleged use of aliases and participation in online forums dedicated to evading intellectual property enforcement constitutes the kind of egregious, willful conduct required for such an award.