1:25-cv-14931
Netvue Tech Co Ltd v. Gooding Store
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Netvue Technologies Co. Ltd. dba Birdfy (China)
- Defendant: Gooding Store, Lefang Direct, PeckCam, and SMBDFOD US (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14931, N.D. Ill., 12/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendants are foreign entities not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district. Personal jurisdiction is alleged based on defendants targeting consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial internet stores on Amazon.com.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smart bird feeders infringe a U.S. reissue design patent covering the ornamental design for a "Combined Bird Feeder with Camera."
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the market for smart bird feeders, which integrate cameras and AI technology to allow users to observe and identify birds remotely.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue of U.S. Design Patent No. Des. 983,859. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff complies with virtual marking requirements for its own products that practice the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-01-01 | Plaintiff Netvue established |
| 2020-01-01 | Plaintiff launched its "Birdfy" sub-brand |
| 2022-05-18 | ’605 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-04-18 | Original U.S. Design Patent No. Des. 983,859 issued |
| 2025-09-30 | U.S. Reissue Design Patent No. RE50,605 issued |
| 2025-12-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,605 - Combined Bird Feeder with Camera
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not functional utility. Therefore, the patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a specific aesthetic design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶18).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a combined bird feeder with a camera, as depicted in its figures (’605 Patent, Claim). The design features a prominent, conical roof with radial lines, a central rectangular housing for the camera and seed reservoir, and a curved feeding tray with a perch at its base (’605 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 5). The design also includes a rear mounting bracket (’605 Patent, Fig. 4). The overall impression is a blend of traditional birdhouse aesthetics with modern electronic components.
- Technical Importance: The integration of cameras into bird feeders created a new product category appealing to consumers interested in nature, technology, and wildlife conservation (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a combined bird feeder with camera, as shown and described." (’605 Patent, Claim).
- This single claim protects the overall visual appearance of the bird feeder as illustrated in the patent's ten figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "bird feeders with cameras" sold by the Defendants through various Amazon storefronts under multiple Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as bird feeders that incorporate cameras, which are sold and offered for sale on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a representative image of an accused bird feeder, showing a rectangular body, a side-mounted solar panel, and a perch in front of a seed tray (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges that these products are commonly sourced from the same manufacturing factory and are available for shipping to Illinois (Compl. ¶¶23-24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an "Exemplary Claim Chart" in Exhibit 3, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶29). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.
The core of the infringement allegation is that the design of the Defendants’ Infringing Products is "substantially similar to the claimed design of the ’605 Patent to the eye of an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶30). This phrasing directly invokes the legal standard for design patent infringement established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. The complaint asserts that by selling these products, Defendants directly infringe the single claim of the ’605 Patent (Compl. ¶29).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question will be a visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into purchasing one of the accused products supposing it to be the patented design? The analysis will involve comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products with the design claimed in the ’605 Patent.
- Technical Questions: While design patent cases are not primarily technical, disputes may arise over which features of the accused products are ornamental versus purely functional. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, but it may become a point of contention if Defendants argue that similarities between the products relate only to unprotectable functional aspects.
V. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement, nor does it allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such a claim. The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, but the sole count in the complaint is for direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶28-32; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful "at least as of the filing of this... complaint, if not earlier" (Compl. ¶26). The basis for pre-suit willfulness is not specified, but the filing of the complaint itself is alleged to establish knowledge for post-suit conduct.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the ornamental features of the accused bird feeders substantially the same as the overall design claimed in the ’605 Patent, such that a purchaser would be deceived? This will require a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent figures.
- A secondary question may concern apportionment of features: To the extent there are similarities, can Defendants demonstrate that those similarities are driven by purely functional requirements of a bird feeder with a camera, rather than the ornamental and aesthetic choices protected by the ’605 Patent?