DCT
1:25-cv-14608
Jiang v. Abtklewvn Individuals Entities Operating Abtklewvn
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ming Jiang (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: ABTKLEWVN and the Individuals and Entities Operating ABTKLEWVN (Foreign Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alioth Law
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14608, N.D. Ill., 12/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants do not reside in the United States and are therefore subject to venue in any judicial district. The complaint also asserts that Defendants solicit and transact business in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of certain pillows infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a pillow.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods sector, specifically concerning ergonomic pillows designed for sleep and relaxation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-12-25 | ’707 Patent Priority Date (CN 202330850086.7) |
| 2024-04-19 | ’707 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2024-11-05 | ’707 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-12-02 | 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, "PILLOW," issued November 5, 2024 (the “’707 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint alleges the patented pillow was "designed with ergonomics for people to relax" and could "naturally stretch the curve of body" for users sleeping on their back or stomach (Compl. ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The ’707 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a pillow. The design consists of the visual appearance of the pillow as depicted in the patent’s figures, which show a distinct, non-uniform shape featuring contoured edges, an asymmetrical profile, and varying surface topography (’707 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
- Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design's importance lies in its ergonomic features, which are intended to provide enhanced comfort and support for users (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The ’707 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described" (’707 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the visual representations in its drawings. Key ornamental features of the asserted design include:
- An overall asymmetrical, contoured shape.
- A recessed central area.
- Varied curvature along the different side profiles.
- Specific surface contours across the top face of the pillow.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Infringing Products," specifically pillows that allegedly copy the design of the ’707 Patent and are sold by Defendants through various "Online Marketplaces" (Compl. ¶1). The complaint does not identify specific product names or model numbers.
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused products are "substantially identical" to the design of the Asserted Patent and are sold in direct competition with the Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶¶1, 15). The complaint asserts these sales have led to Plaintiff's "erosion in market share and loss of orders and profits" (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint's allegations are conclusory and do not include visual evidence of the accused products for comparison.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’707 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Single Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described. | Defendants are alleged to have manufactured, imported, offered for sale, and sold "Infringing Products" that "copied the design" and are "substantially identical" to the ornamental design claimed in the ’707 Patent. | ¶¶1, 12, 15, 25 | ’707 Patent, Claim; FIGS. 1-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be the factual comparison between the accused products and the design claimed in the ’707 Patent. As the complaint lacks any images of the accused products, the visual evidence introduced during discovery will be dispositive.
- Scope Questions: A potential defense may focus on the scope of the patent. The complaint’s characterization of the design as ergonomic (Compl. ¶10) raises the question of whether certain features are dictated by function rather than ornamentality. If Defendants can demonstrate that the similarities between their products and the patented design are driven by functional considerations, those features may be excluded from the infringement analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Design patent claims are defined by their drawings, and disputes rarely turn on the construction of specific textual terms. The claim is understood to cover the overall ornamental design shown in the figures as applied to the article of manufacture named in the title ("pillow"). As such, formal claim construction of specific terms is not anticipated to be a central issue in this case.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶14) but does not plead specific facts demonstrating that Defendants knew of the patent and specifically intended for their customers to infringe.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and intentional[]" or undertaken with "reckless disregard or willful blindness" (Compl. ¶21), and that their conduct has been "willful, intentional, purposeful" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the ’707 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two fundamental questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, are the accused pillows "substantially the same" as the specific ornamental design depicted in the figures of the ’707 Patent? This is a factual question that cannot be assessed from the complaint alone and will depend entirely on the visual evidence produced.
- A secondary issue may be one of functionality: To what extent are the contours and features of the patented pillow design dictated by their ergonomic function? If Defendants argue that the allegedly copied features are primarily functional, it may limit the scope of the ’707 Patent’s protection and weaken the infringement claim.