DCT

1:25-cv-15031

Li v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Xingshao Li (China)
    • Defendant: The Individual, Partnership, or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law LLC
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-15031, N.D. Ill., 12/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant targets and conducts business with Illinois residents through interactive e-commerce storefronts, and because Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of certain chocolate bar molds on e-commerce platforms infringes Plaintiff's design patent for a "Chocolate Bar Mold."
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer kitchenware, a market segment where product appearance is a significant driver of consumer choice, particularly in online retail environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint frames the litigation as a response to widespread, anonymous online infringement, a common fact pattern in "Schedule A" cases targeting foreign e-commerce sellers. No prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-05 Plaintiff completes the design for the chocolate mold
2024-06-21 U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2024-06 Plaintiff's product officially launches on Amazon U.S.
2024-11-26 U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 Issues
2025-12-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 ("Chocolate Bar Mold"), issued November 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead provides a novel ornamental design for an article of manufacture, a chocolate bar mold (D1,052,361 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a chocolate bar mold. The design consists of a rectangular tray with a raised peripheral rim enclosing a grid of ten rectangular cavities arranged in two columns and five rows, intended to form a breakable chocolate bar ('361 Patent, Figs. 1, 7). The figures illustrate the overall shape, the arrangement and proportions of the cavities, and the appearance of the surfaces as the core ornamental features of the design ('361 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the "unique design" and "novel limitations" of the product embodying the patent led to rapid market popularity and a "leading position in the field" (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).
  • The key ornamental features shown and described include:
    • A generally rectangular overall shape.
    • An array of ten rectangular cavities.
    • The specific 2x5 grid layout of the cavities.
    • The proportional relationship between the cavities, the dividing walls, and the outer rim.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" chocolate bar molds sold by Defendant through online e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are "virtually identical" copies of the patented design (Compl. ¶22). They are sold in direct competition with Plaintiff's products in the same online channels of trade (Compl. ¶23).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant operates under fictitious "Seller Aliases" on e-commerce platforms to sell the "Infringing Products" to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 32-33). The complaint includes an infographic from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detailing the scale of counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms, contextualizing the alleged infringing conduct (Compl. ¶40). This infographic, titled "COUNTERFEIT GOODS ON E-COMMERCE PLATFORMS," presents statistics on the value of counterfeit trade and the number of bad actors on such platforms (Compl. ¶40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on 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 to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that Defendant is "offering to sell, selling, and shipping unlicensed products that infringe the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation is that the accused products "copy – in a virtually identical manner – Plaintiff’s Patent-in-Suit design" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint asserts both direct literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶69). The specific factual basis for infringement is contained in Exhibit B, which is referenced but not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶67).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question: The primary factual question will be whether the accused products sold by Defendant are, as alleged, "virtually identical" to the design claimed in the '361 Patent. The outcome will depend on a visual comparison between the patent's figures and the accused products.
  • Legal Question: The central legal question will be whether the accused design is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer, such that it would induce a purchase thinking it was the patented product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis of claim term construction is not applicable, as design patents claim the overall ornamental appearance of an article as depicted in the drawings rather than using textual limitations that require interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶68) but does not plead specific facts to support the elements of either induced or contributory infringement, such as actions taken by Defendant to encourage infringement by a third party.
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful, based on alleged "actual or constructive knowledge of the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶72). The complaint supports this allegation by pointing to the "significant popularity" of Plaintiff's products and the "anonymous nature of Defendant," suggesting an intentional effort to copy a successful design while evading liability (Compl. ¶72).

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

  1. Enforcement Practicality: A threshold issue, characteristic of "Schedule A" litigation, will be one of identification and enforcement: can the Plaintiff effectively identify the anonymous Defendant, establish jurisdiction, and enforce any resulting judgment against a foreign entity allegedly using fictitious aliases to operate?
  2. Infringement Standard: The core merits question will be one of visual identity: assuming the accused products are located, are they "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer? Given the complaint's allegation that the products are "virtually identical" (Compl. ¶22), this may be a straightforward factual determination if evidence of the accused products supports the claim.