DCT

1:25-cv-15102

Netvue Tech Co Ltd v. Kingloong

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Netvue Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Kingloong, et al., 1:25-cv-15102, N.D. Ill., 12/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendants are not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous foreign entities operating storefronts on Amazon.com are importing, selling, and offering for sale bird feeders that infringe its U.S. reissue design patent for a Combined Bird Feeder with Camera.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics and wildlife hobbyist market, specifically concerning the ornamental appearance of smart bird feeders that integrate cameras and AI for bird identification.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue of U.S. Design Patent No. D983,859. The complaint asserts claims against a large number of defendants, alleging they are an "interrelated group," which may raise questions regarding proper joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-05-18 Earliest effective filing date for ’605 Patent
2023-04-18 Original patent (D983,859) issued
2025-09-30 ’605 Reissue Patent issued
2025-12-12 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,605 - Combined Bird Feeder with Camera

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,605, Combined Bird Feeder with Camera, issued September 30, 2025 (’605 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian function. This patent addresses the aesthetic design of a modern bird feeder that incorporates a camera module, aiming to create a visually distinct product identity (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, 18).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a bird feeder, which is defined by the drawings. Key ornamental features include a conical, radially-lined roof; a central, vertically-oriented body for holding bird seed; an integrated, forward-facing camera module located within the body; and a curved perch and feeding tray extending from the base (’605 Patent, FIG. 1, 3, 5). The combination of these elements creates the overall ornamental impression protected by the patent (Compl. ¶18).
  • Design Importance: The asserted design provides a specific aesthetic for a product in the growing market for smart, internet-connected consumer devices for wildlife observation (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a combined bird feeder with camera, as shown and described" (’605 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's ten figures, which depict the design from various perspectives (’605 Patent, FIGS. 1-10). The essential ornamental features protected are:
    • The overall configuration and shape of the feeder assembly.
    • The conical roof with radiating surface lines.
    • The placement and appearance of the camera within the feeder body.
    • The shape and arrangement of the feeding tray and perch.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "bird feeders with cameras" identified by numerous Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) sold through various Amazon storefronts operated by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants' products are smart bird feeders that integrate cameras, similar to Plaintiff's own "Birdfy" product line (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11). These products allow users to observe and identify birds that visit the feeder (Compl. ¶9). The image provided in the complaint shows an accused product with a conical roof, a central camera, and a feeding tray, marketed for bird observation. An image of an accused product shows a bird feeder with an integrated camera and a solar panel on its roof (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges these products are sold through "fully interactive, commercial Internet stores operating on Amazon.com" and are available for shipment to Illinois (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exemplary Claim Chart" in Exhibit 3, which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶28). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the design of the accused products is "substantially similar to the claimed design of the ’605 Patent to the eye of an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶29). This is the legal standard for design patent infringement, known as the "ordinary observer" test. The complaint alleges that Defendants' products directly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’605 Patent by embodying its key visual features (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes an image of what it identifies as an infringing product, which, like the patented design, features a conical roof over a central body containing a camera and a perch below (Compl. p. 7).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question will be whether an ordinary observer, when comparing the patented design to the accused products, would be deceived into believing the accused products are the same as the patented design. The analysis will involve a side-by-side comparison of the overall visual impression of the designs.
    • Technical Questions: While design patent cases focus on appearance, differences in the specific shape, proportion, and surface ornamentation of the roof, camera housing, and perch between the patented design and the accused products will be central to the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is typically not a central issue in design patent cases. The single claim--"The ornamental design for a combined bird feeder with camera, as shown and described"--is defined by the patent's drawings, not by textual limitations (’605 Patent, Claim). The scope of protection is determined by the visual representations in the figures, and disputes are generally resolved through visual comparison rather than construction of verbal terms.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful, "at least as of the filing of this amended complaint, if not earlier" (Compl. ¶25). This allegation establishes a basis for seeking enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, based on notice provided by the complaint itself. A finding of willfulness is also requested in the prayer for relief (Compl. p. 9, ¶(3)).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of visual similarity: Would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art bird feeder designs, be deceived into believing the Defendants' accused products are the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’605 Patent? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison of the products and the patent figures.
  2. A key procedural question will be the propriety of joinder: Does the complaint provide a sufficient factual basis to support its allegation that the numerous, separately-named Amazon storefronts constitute an "interrelated group" or that the claims arise from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions," as required for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7)?
  3. An evidentiary question will be one of damages and profits: Should Plaintiff prevail, a key issue will be calculating the appropriate remedy, which for design patents can include the infringer's total profit from the sale of articles bearing the infringing design pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289 (Compl. ¶32).