Li v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xingshao Li (Guangzhou, China)
  • Defendant: The Individual, Partnership, or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14600, N.D. Ill., 12/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a foreign entity, targets and sells products to consumers in the Northern District of Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores, establishing significant contacts within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce stores sell chocolate bar molds that infringe Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer baking accessories, a market segment where visual appearance is a significant driver of consumer choice.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against an anonymous defendant, identified only in a sealed "Schedule A," a strategy often employed to combat difficult-to-identify foreign e-commerce entities. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-05	Plaintiff completes design of the chocolate mold.
2024-06-21	U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 Priority Date (Application Filed).
2024-06	Plaintiff's product officially launches on Amazon U.S.
2024-08	Plaintiff's initial sales period begins.
2024-11-26	U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 Issue Date.
2025-12-11	Complaint Filing Date.

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

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

Issued November 26, 2024 (’361 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, specifically a chocolate bar mold (D1,052,361 Patent, Title). The complaint notes the design was inspired by Knafeh, a traditional Middle Eastern dessert (Compl. ¶15).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a chocolate bar mold as depicted in its figures. The design consists of a rectangular tray with a raised border, containing an array of ten rectangular cavities arranged in two columns of five. The overall impression is one of geometric regularity and clean lines, as illustrated in the perspective and top-down views (D1,052,361 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 7).
• Technical Importance: In the consumer goods sector, unique ornamental designs can serve as a key product differentiator and source identifier for consumers (Compl. ¶¶18, 20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents have a single claim, which is for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings.
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • The overall rectangular shape of the mold.
  • A continuous, raised peripheral lip or border.
  • An interior grid of ten rectangular, recessed cavities for forming chocolate segments.
  • The specific 2x5 arrangement and proportions of the cavities within the frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

"Infringing Products" are defined as unauthorized and unlicensed chocolate bar molds that are allegedly "virtually identical to the claimed Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶¶1, 22).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are sold through one or more interactive e-commerce "storefronts" operated by the defendant under fictitious seller aliases (Compl. ¶¶32, 37). The complaint alleges these storefronts target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, by advertising and offering to ship the accused molds (Compl. ¶¶33, 60). Plaintiff alleges that the defendant is part of a larger network of online sellers of counterfeit and infringing goods, a context supported by an infographic from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detailing the scale of such trade (Compl. p. 7). Plaintiff further alleges that the appearance of these "virtually identical" products in the market caused its own monthly sales to drop significantly (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. Instead, it asserts that the Defendant sells products that are "virtually identical" to the design protected by the ’361 Patent (Compl. ¶22). For a design patent, the legal test for infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the two designs are substantially the same, such that the resemblance is to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The complaint alleges that the defendant's products directly copy the plaintiff's design (Compl. ¶23) and that defendant's actions have caused consumer confusion (Compl. ¶55).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: 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 visual comparison between the accused products and the figures of the ’361 Patent.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation that the infringing goods are "virtually identical" suggests a claim of direct copying (Compl. ¶22). A key evidentiary issue will be establishing the precise appearance of the products sold by the anonymous defendant and comparing them to the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis of claim term construction is not applicable, as design patents claim the overall ornamental design as depicted in the drawings, not a set of text-based limitations.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶69) but does not plead specific facts to support claims of either induced or contributory infringement, such as acts of encouraging or enabling infringement by third parties.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on the defendant's purported actual or constructive knowledge of the ’361 Patent, inferred from the popularity of the plaintiff's product, and the defendant's use of anonymity to operate its e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶¶73-75).

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

• A primary procedural question will be one of enforcement and identity: can the plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and secure a judgment against the anonymous "Schedule A" defendant, who is alleged to operate from foreign jurisdictions using fictitious aliases?
• The core substantive issue will be one of visual identity: will a visual comparison of the accused products and the patented design lead to a finding that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one?
• A crucial damages question will be one of quantification and collection: if infringement is found, what is the proper measure of damages (e.g., defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289), and can any monetary award be effectively collected from a foreign, anonymous entity?