Li v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xingshao Li (Guangzhou, China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Alleged to be primarily based in foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00095, N.D. Ill., 01/14/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants target and ship products to consumers in the Northern District of Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores. As Defendants are alleged to be non-U.S. residents, Plaintiff asserts they may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce stores operated by Defendants under anonymous "Seller Aliases" infringe a U.S. design patent for a chocolate bar mold.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer kitchenware sector, focusing on the ornamental design of a mold used for making chocolate bars.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is an Amended Complaint filed against a group of allegedly related online sellers. It characterizes the Defendants' conduct as a "swarm of attacks," suggesting a litigation strategy aimed at combating widespread, anonymous online infringement rather than targeting a single competitor.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-05-01	Plaintiff completes design of the chocolate mold
2024-06-21	U.S. Design Patent Application Filed (Priority Date)
2024-06-22	Plaintiff's product launch on Amazon U.S. (approximate)
2024-11-26	U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 Issues
2026-01-14	Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a technical problem but notes that the design was "inspired by Knafeh, a traditional Middle Eastern dessert" (Compl. ¶15). This suggests the patent protects a novel aesthetic solution in the field of baking molds.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a chocolate bar mold. The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a rectangular tray with a raised peripheral border enclosing a grid of twelve rectangular, break-apart cavities arranged in two columns and six rows (’361 Patent, FIGs. 1, 7). The cavities feature beveled edges and linear details, contributing to the overall visual impression.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the patented design "quickly won market recognition" and "occupied a leading position in the field" due to its "innovative design" (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a chocolate bar mold, as shown and described" (’361 Patent, Claim).
• The key ornamental features that constitute the claimed design include:
  • The overall rectangular configuration of the mold.
  • The specific arrangement of twelve rectangular cavities in a 2x6 grid.
  • The beveled edges and proportions of the cavities.
  • The raised border surrounding the cavity grid.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Unspecified chocolate bar molds ("Infringing Products") sold by Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶1, ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "virtually identical" in appearance to the design claimed in the ’361 Patent (Compl. ¶22, ¶46). These products are allegedly sold through online storefronts that are designed to conceal the sellers' true identities and mimic authorized retail channels (Compl. ¶1, ¶47). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are part of a large-scale "infringement empire" of counterfeit goods, a point supported by an infographic from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included in the complaint (Compl. ¶41, p. 7). This infographic, titled "Counterfeit Goods on E-Commerce Platforms," details the multi-billion dollar value of such trade (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is 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 direct infringement by asserting the accused products are visually indistinguishable from the patented design.

D1,052,361 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the ornamental design)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of the chocolate bar mold as shown in the patent figures	Defendants offer to sell and/or sell "virtually identical - if not the exact same - Infringing Products"	¶46	FIGs. 1-8
The specific visual features including the 2x6 grid of rectangular cavities and raised border	The accused products "copy - in a virtually identical manner - Plaintiff's Patent-in-Suit design"	¶23	FIGs. 1, 7

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central infringement question will be a visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer consider the design of each accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’361 Patent? The complaint's repeated allegation that the products are "virtually identical" suggests a theory of direct copying (Compl. ¶22, ¶53). Any defense would likely hinge on identifying visual differences between an accused product and the patent drawings that would be significant to an ordinary observer.
• Factual Questions: A key factual issue will be establishing that the specific products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous Defendants are, in fact, visually identical to the patented design. The complaint makes this allegation broadly against the group of Defendants listed in Schedule A (Compl. ¶22).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents focuses on the visual impression of the design as a whole as depicted in the drawings, rather than the construction of specific text-based claim terms. The scope of the patent is defined by its figures.

• The Term: "Chocolate bar mold"
• Context and Importance: While not a term requiring formal construction in the same manner as a utility patent, the title of the patent provides context for the article of manufacture to which the design is applied. Practitioners may focus on this to confirm that the accused product is the same type of article as that claimed. In this case, the complaint consistently identifies the accused products as chocolate bar molds, making this unlikely to be a point of significant dispute (Compl. ¶9).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a simple title and description, "The ornamental design for a chocolate bar mold, as shown and described," without adding textual limitations on the type or material of the mold (’361 Patent, Title, DESCRIPTION).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of protection is inherently limited to the specific visual appearance shown in the patent figures, including the exact number, shape, and arrangement of the cavities and the surrounding border (’361 Patent, FIGs. 1-8).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶77) but does not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for induced infringement or contributory infringement. The primary focus of the factual allegations is on direct infringement through making, using, offering for sale, and selling (Compl. ¶76-78).
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful, asserting that Defendants had "actual or constructive knowledge" of the ’361 Patent before or during their infringing activities (Compl. ¶82). This allegation is based on the "significant popularity" of Plaintiff's product and the "anonymous nature" of the Defendants' online stores (Compl. ¶81).

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

• A primary procedural question will be one of jurisdiction and enforceability: Can the court effectively exercise personal jurisdiction over the numerous, anonymous, and foreign-based "Seller Aliases," and can any resulting judgment be practically enforced against them? The complaint's structure suggests this challenge is central to the litigation strategy.
• The core substantive issue will be one of visual identity: For each of the accused products, does its design create a visual impression in the mind of an ordinary observer that is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’361 Patent? The case will depend on a direct visual comparison of the accused products with the patent figures.